"A child must be given the opportunity to express himself/herself.” Ha. What a great philosophy, in a perfect world without the negative aspects of human nature. Tell me, which of these scenarios best follows the often overpowering and inevitable negative aspects of human nature? Case one; A parent makes the best decision to protect their child from harm based upon facts and life experiences. Case two; A parent uses the excuse that they are only looking out for the best interests of their child as an excuse to exert full and absolute control over their child, in every aspect of that Childs life, be it the people that child can speak to, the things that child can learn, and even the way that child can think. From my own experiences, I see Case Two as being the dominant case. And now, I will give you a specific example of Case Two.
"A parent forbids their child from speaking to people they do not know personally over the internet."
Now, is this truly an attempt by the parent to protect their child, or is it an excuse to exert control over the child? Let us look at one particular negative aspect of human nature; the drive for power. Throughout history, man has battled over things such as land, money, women, and property. Humans are, in short, greedy. Humans will always strive to have more than they are given, inevitably. And at some point, that drive for more overpowers morals. The morals telling us that we should always put the safety and happiness of our children will be overpowered by the drive for "power", perceived or real. This leads to the parent seeking to have complete and absolute control over their child in any way possible.
In this case, the parent uses the excuse that "The internet is a place filled with dangerous pedophiles and people who would hurt you." as an excuse to forbid their children from so much as using it at all without parental supervision, let alone direct communication with another person.
However, I personally happen to have a plethora of experience with the internet, and with communicating with others over it using methods such as message boards, chat rooms, and instant messengers. I know from experience that, although there may be a few perverts or pedophiles on the internet, there are no more on the internet than there are walking down the street during the day. There are no more on the internet than there are working in your children’s schools. This knowledge may or may not come from my being so young. In any case, this leaves parents on one of two levels.
One, the parent is ignorant of what I and so many others know. They actually believe that the internet is an evil, terrible place where, if their child is allowed to wander the internet without their supervision that their child will be inevitably put in harms way. In this case, the parent is still innocent, and has not intentionally attempted to exert an unreasonable amount of control over their child.
Two, the parent knows the truth. They know that the internet is not a dangerous place, and only use that false proposition as an excuse to feel they have control over another human being; their own child. In this case, there is no hope for the parent or the child. There are too many parents, as well as people in general, who share the same ideals about “control”, because it is human nature.
Now, if anyone would like to argue with a statement backed by personal experience as well as the reality of the imperfections of human nature, feel free to do so.
