NationStates Jolt Archive

The GoPostal of kickassery belives, as a whole (e.g. meaning each member nation), that parents are responsible for school place violence. Not teaching thier children right from wrong, or not to shoot other children, or letting the televsion babysit thier kid so the mom can "service" the mailman, are all bad examples for children.

Finding that bad parenting is to blame, then why are all these lawsuits happening against media companies? Parents don't want the responsibility of raising thier kid right. I say we make them. Here is my first draft. Please, take a look, and if you like it, let me know. I would like to submit this within a week.

Responsibility of Parents to Govern their Children

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild


Description:

Lawsuits against media/entertainment companies are at an all time high. They are being brought on by parents who blame violent media on their children’s problems.
Game developers, movie studios, and TV networks are all under fire across the globe, causing legal entanglements that can shut down a company, losing tens upon thousands of jobs a year.

Irresponsible parenting is to blame. Parents should be responsible for teaching their children right from wrong, good from bad, not the media. The television, video game, or movie screen is not a babysitter, it is entertainment, and parents should be responsible to make sure that the entertainment is appropriate for their individual child.

Therefore, in interests of stopping frivolous lawsuits against media companies, and allowing others who enjoy the entertainment they provide, the following law should be enacted in each member nation:

Responsibilities of the Parent
1. Parents are responsible for the actions of their child, regardless of what their child is to watch or play. This includes non-interactive media.
2. Parents are still responsible for a child’s actions if their child views and/or interacts with media without the parent’s permission.
3. Parents are to raise their child to proper social standards, regardless of the media.
4. If the parent refuses to take responsibility for the child’s actions, existing child protective services of the nation are to take custody of the child, until it can be determined that parent is again fit to raise children.
5. If no child protective services exist in the member nation, a department is to be created to enforce this clause of the law.

Affirming that the parents are to follow the above law, lawsuits against media companies for the acts of children are to be immediately declared null and void. Violence in schools or workplace settings are the fault of bad parenting, and not the media.

This law expressly forbids banning violent media content as an excuse not to make parents responsible for raising their children right.

Define "proper social standards." Do you mean the standards of the nation they are in, or do you have a definition you wish everyone to work under?

social standards tend to apply to the nation in which you are in. Dictatorships have vastly different standards than Deomcracies.

You do have a good point, so maybe I should change that to "cultural norms" or some effect of it.

I would like more input on this. If you are interested, please let me know. If you feel it needs change, please let me know. If you hate this, please let me know.

I think it's a looong stretch to define this as Free Trade. Yeah, I see how you try to tie it in, but it's really about parental responsibility. Were I a mod, I'd call this one on "description doesn't match category" and toss it.

I think it's a looong stretch to define this as Free Trade. Yeah, I see how you try to tie it in, but it's really about parental responsibility. Were I a mod, I'd call this one on "description doesn't match category" and toss it.

It is meant to protect business from irresponsible parents. Doesn't fit Human Rights or Moral categories. Can I get a mod opnion on this one?

5. If no child protective services exist in the member nation, a department is to be created to enforce this clause of the law.

bah - meddling in the internal affairs of my nation :)

bah - meddling in the internal affairs of my nation :)

:) poetic justice, yes. But it is necessary to enforce this law. Most laws have loopholes. I like to stamp out any potential loopholes before they can start. If a nation says "Bah, I don't have a department, so I don't have to enforce this law." I make it part of the law to enable enforcement.

Now, in NS, UN membership obligates you to follow UN directives. However, writing law in proper format each time makes me a better law writer, RL or NS.

While I do partly agree with your premise - that parents should take more of a role in their childrens lives - I don't agree with all of it.

Sometimes it is out of the parents control what their kids do. You let your child go round to a friends house and you don't know what they are doing. Or are you going to also suggest that parents follow their children around every minute of the day to ensure that they are not doing anything wrong?

Sorry - that part is covered. By a statement that basically says what ever the child does is the fault of the parent.

Are you going to allow for laws that set what the media can show and when? So that programs that show young men raping women and murdering children can only be shown after a certain time? Or can media channels run wild, put on the most unsuitable programs during the "kids tv" time slot and the parents would still get the blame for everything?

Also this is going to gut, if not destroy, the TV and video industry. A lot of older children have their own tv in their bedroom. But if the parents are now going to be responsible for that as well, I can see the TVs being taken away and a lot, lot fewer being sold. Same with videos, DVDs and internet access.

Can we use this proposal to ban certificates on films? If the parents is responsible for what the child sees, even when the parent is not there, then the video shop down the way should be allowed to rent out whatever it wants to the kid, because the video shop is now longer responsible for what the child watches. So Mutant Zombie Virgin Axe Murderering Rapists can be sold to anyone who asks for it.


I am kind of hoping I have got my point across by now, because I am running out of ways to indicate that while parents do have a role in monitoring what their children watch, they are not the only ones, and the media (those who produce it, those who sell it and so on) have an equal role in ensuring that what they are putting out is suitable for the audience it is intended for.

It's not trying to say that parents need to constantly monitor their child, it's just saying that if a child commits a violent act no parent can use the media as a scapegoat to shield themselves from the flak they'd catch for being irresponible.

It's not trying to say that parents need to constantly monitor their child, it's just saying that if a child commits a violent act no parent can use the media as a scapegoat to shield themselves from the flak they'd catch for being irresponible.

I know that is what it is trying to say, but what it actually says is

"2. Parents are still responsible for a child’s actions if their child views and/or interacts with media without the parent’s permission."

So the parent is soley responsible for what the child does regardless of whether they can control what the child sees or not. Which is insane troll logic.

Further to this it says that
"4. If the parent refuses to take responsibility for the child’s actions, existing child protective services of the nation are to take custody of the child, until it can be determined that parent is again fit to raise children"

So if the child goes round to a friends house, sees something that incites it to violance, goes out and kills a bunch of people and is then caught, the mother of the child - who could not possibly have had any control over this - will be blamed? And the mother of the friend won't be, because she is not the parent of the child.

I also have STRONG objections to being told I must bring up my children to "social standards" or "cultural norms" - what if the cultural norm is to go to church every other day and visit confession twice every hour? What if the cultural norm is to be a racists, xenaphobic evil little bigot? What if the cultural norm is to vote for the far right? According to this proposal I would have to bring up my child to do that, otherwise I would risk having my child taken off me.

Does no one else think that, given what this is trying to achieve, it is way over the top?

And while national sovereignty is always an issue, I am buggered if I am going to let the UN tell me the best way to raise my children.

If the child was raised right in the first place, media wouldn't matter. If you teach your children killing is wrong, but they see killing glorified on TV, they should still know it is wrong.

If you teach your children that smoking drugs is wrong, and they see on the internet the latest recipies for LSD, they should still know it is wrong.

The problem with todays parents is that they blame everybody but themselves. Take the Real Life situation of the Columbine Massacre. The first thing the parents and school blamed was the game "Doom". They said that Doom incited violent tendencies inside of thier children, which caused them to try to kill their entire school. But Doom was released with over 2 million copies in it's first run. So the percetage gamers who killed people ecause of the game is 2/2,000,000 = 0.0001 %. Looks like pretty crappy odds in favor of Doom on that one, don't you say?

Now, in response to your arguments:

Are you going to allow for laws that set what the media can show and when? So that programs that show young men raping women and murdering children can only be shown after a certain time? Or can media channels run wild, put on the most unsuitable programs during the "kids tv" time slot and the parents would still get the blame for everything?
Media doesn't matter. Teach your children right, and they won't kill people. The whole point of the law is to make media companies NOT responsible for bad parenting, hence the Free Trade section.

what if the cultural norm is to go to church every other day and visit confession twice every hour? What if the cultural norm is to be a racists, xenaphobic evil little bigot? What if the cultural norm is to vote for the far right? According to this proposal I would have to bring up my child to do that, otherwise I would risk having my child taken off me.
If the norm is to go to church, then obviously the kid won't kill anyone. If the norm is to be a bigot and/or racist, the laws in your country would say the child is doing nothing wrong in the first place. I never stated that the child had to do anything. I said that parents have to be responsible. If muder is legal in your country, then a child murdering someone is fine.
So if the child goes round to a friends house, sees something that incites it to violance, goes out and kills a bunch of people and is then caught, the mother of the child - who could not possibly have had any control over this - will be blamed? And the mother of the friend won't be, because she is not the parent of the child.
Same argument. If murder is wrong, you have to teach your child that. If two children go out and kill some people, or one child provokes another to kill someone, then you have faild. Yes, you should be held responsible. Remember, I never said what was to happen, I said the parent is responsible, no matter what the situation.

If you are not aware, parents take the responsibility now days for any offense thier children make. If a 16 year old spraypaints a neighbors car, the parent pays for it. If a 4 year old puts gum in a classmates hair, the parents are called down for a conference, in which the 4 year old has no concept of why gum in hair is wrong. The parents are held responsible in all these situations: I am just putting this formally into writing, and forcing parents to control what thier kid does.

Easy to circumvent - make children legal persons allowed to sue the media themselves, and do not recognize "parenthood" in such an instance.

If the child was raised right in the first place, media wouldn't matter. If you teach your children killing is wrong, but they see killing glorified on TV, they should still know it is wrong.

You are assuming an ability to reason beyond that which children posess.


If you teach your children that smoking drugs is wrong, and they see on the internet the latest recipies for LSD, they should still know it is wrong.

You are assuming a child posseses perfect information on all types of drugs, and recognize that recipes presented in a misleading manner on the internet, are drugs after being told that smoking drugs is wrong. A large stretch.

The problem with todays parents is that they blame everybody but themselves. Take the Real Life situation of the Columbine Massacre. The first thing the parents and school blamed was the game "Doom". They said that Doom incited violent tendencies inside of thier children, which caused them to try to kill their entire school. But Doom was released with over 2 million copies in it's first run. So the percetage gamers who killed people ecause of the game is 2/2,000,000 = 0.0001 %. Looks like pretty crappy odds in favor of Doom on that one, don't you say?

I agree, a game is not to blame. However, if you are a parent who raises your child in a manner that you think is right, and they commit such an act, your natural tendency is to look for outside influencing forces. As it is beyond your beleif that your child could commit such an act.

Media doesn't matter. Teach your children right, and they won't kill people. The whole point of the law is to make media companies NOT responsible for bad parenting, hence the Free Trade section.

Nah, that is weak. It has little to with trade barriers. More to do with absolving media companies of any liability for any content. And everything to do with moral decency, as you are imposing absolute liability on the part of parents for their childs actions. Also, assuming media is international, and qualifying for international trade.

And no, teach your children right, and they are a psychopath, what you teach them makes little difference. You are assuming a parent has absolute control over the psyche of their child. They can attempt to mold it, try to teach him or her right from wrong, they cannot, however, control it.

If the norm is to go to church, then obviously the kid won't kill anyone. If the norm is to be a bigot and/or racist, the laws in your country would say the child is doing nothing wrong in the first place. I never stated that the child had to do anything. I said that parents have to be responsible. If muder is legal in your country, then a child murdering someone is fine. Same argument. If murder is wrong, you have to teach your child that. If two children go out and kill some people, or one child provokes another to kill someone, then you have faild. Yes, you should be held responsible. Remember, I never said what was to happen, I said the parent is responsible, no matter what the situation.

Depends on the church. Also, majority opinion does not mean their ideology is right.

Proclaiming people as failures in parenting. How much interaction do you have with children. Again, a parent is a mentor and representative, not the radio controller of a child.

If you are not aware, parents take the responsibility now days for any offense thier children make. If a 16 year old spraypaints a neighbors car, the parent pays for it. If a 4 year old puts gum in a classmates hair, the parents are called down for a conference, in which the 4 year old has no concept of why gum in hair is wrong. The parents are held responsible in all these situations: I am just putting this formally into writing, and forcing parents to control what thier kid does.

Again a parent can not control what their child does. Also, if you proclaim parents already do this, your main argument can not be that they do not. That is inconsistent. Also, if they already do this as you say, such formalities are pointless, and does not force parents to do anything they do not do already.

There is a difference between accountability and control.

As much as I believe in parental responsibility you can raise your child as right as you like but at some point it will develop a mind of it's own, with beliefs of it's own, that the parents may not agree with and certainly can't control.

When I was young a toddler drove (yes, a car) into the back of my Mum's car. The parent claimed it was not her fault. It was, she should have been watching. If a teenager had done it, well I think they are old enough to make their own mind up on right, wrong and (most importantly) bloody stupid actions.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

If the child was raised right in the first place, media wouldn't matter. If you teach your children killing is wrong, but they see killing glorified on TV, they should still know it is wrong.


You can teach a five year old this?


If you teach your children that smoking drugs is wrong, and they see on the internet the latest recipies for LSD, they should still know it is wrong.


You now you are asuming that the cultural norm for all countries is that smoking dope is wrong.


The problem with todays parents is that they blame everybody but themselves. Take the Real Life situation of the Columbine Massacre. The first thing the parents and school blamed was the game "Doom". They said that Doom incited violent tendencies inside of thier children, which caused them to try to kill their entire school. But Doom was released with over 2 million copies in it's first run. So the percetage gamers who killed people ecause of the game is 2/2,000,000 = 0.0001 %. Looks like pretty crappy odds in favor of Doom on that one, don't you say?


I can't speak to the incidents at Columbine - I don't know enough about it - but generally what these things indicate to me is that there are people out there who are disturbed in some way. And that whether it is a video game, or a tv show, or seeing an old woman fall over - something is going to set them off. And regardless of what their parents tell them, they are going to go off. And - btw - it could be the Care Bear Movie that sets them off - so parents would have to keep them in a tiny room with no external stimulation at all.


Media doesn't matter. Teach your children right, and they won't kill people. The whole point of the law is to make media companies NOT responsible for bad parenting, hence the Free Trade section.


And I don't think that it is necessarily the responsibility of parents when their kids go on a rampage. I am not saying it is the fault of the media, but the parents might not be to blame either.


If the norm is to go to church, then obviously the kid won't kill anyone.


I'm sorry? You think that someone who goes to church can not kill people? Have you read the history of my nation? Several hundred years ago The Dark Priest - one of the leading figures in the church - was responsible for the death of several thousand people.

And these "hate crimes" - people who beat gay men to death because they are gay - are all good church going people.

And my point was that what if I am not a church goer in a nation of church goers. Do I have to bring my child up to go to church, or can I chose to bring him up in a way that does not conform to the cultural norms, and not have him taken off me by the child police?


If the norm is to be a bigot and/or racist, the laws in your country would say the child is doing nothing wrong in the first place. I never stated that the child had to do anything. I said that parents have to be responsible. If muder is legal in your country, then a child murdering someone is fine.


Now you are just confusing the life out of me.


Same argument. If murder is wrong, you have to teach your child that. If two children go out and kill some people, or one child provokes another to kill someone, then you have faild. Yes, you should be held responsible. Remember, I never said what was to happen, I said the parent is responsible, no matter what the situation.


And what if I have taught my kid that killing is wrong, but drugs are okay. And when he is high, and probably less than capable of making rational decisions, he goes on a killing spree. I have done everything I can to ensure he knows that killing is wrong, but he still does it. Does that still make me responsible?


If you are not aware, parents take the responsibility now days for any offense thier children make. If a 16 year old spraypaints a neighbors car, the parent pays for it. If a 4 year old puts gum in a classmates hair, the parents are called down for a conference, in which the 4 year old has no concept of why gum in hair is wrong. The parents are held responsible in all these situations: I am just putting this formally into writing, and forcing parents to control what thier kid does.

And quite honestly I think its wrong.

I am fine with introducing laws that limit the ability to sue the media. I am not one for blaming all the problems on the world on video games anyway.

But this proposal strays way beyond that - it goes in to the realm of how to raise children, when the state can take children off their parents, what makes a good parent and so forth. Which is WAY outside the category of free trade, and way, way, WAY outside what the UN should be telling people.

So - if you were to limit it simply to the idea of the media not being sued I don't have a problem. But I really do not want the UN telling me how to raise my child. It's offensive and it's way beyond it's remit.