Abstract
The Internet and child protection are usually discussed as if one inevitably follows the other. This article questions the process by which children are constructed on the Internet and suggests that the ideological agenda of the organisations that advocate the protection of children must be questioned. In particular, it is argued that many of these organisations proceed from a view of the child that is based on a conservative view of family relationships that is not obviously in children's best interests. The problem is that these views of the child have begun to permeate the state apparatus, which itself polices the Internet leading to an orthodoxy that is difficult to challenge.
Notes
1 See http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1407003.htm (accessed 1 October 2005).
2 See, e.g. crikey.com.au, which documents the links between the Family First Party and Assemblies of God and other religious conservatives.
9 An obvious example would be the ‘paternalistic’ removal of aboriginal children from their families (see, e.g. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Citation1997).
10 Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services vs. JWB[1992] 175 CLR 218 (High Court of Australia).
11 Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services vs. JWB, per Brennan. J. para.
12 See, e.g. Articles 3(2), 5, 7(1), 9(1), 18.
13 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 13(1).
14 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 17.
15 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 17(4).
16 Article 18(1) provides: ‘States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern’.
17 http://www.nationalcoalition.org/aboutus/aboutus.html (accessed 19 June 2005).
18 http://www.nationalcoalition.org/aboutus/aboutus.html (accessed 19 June 2005).
19 http://www.nationalcoalition.org/aboutus/aboutus.html (accessed 19 June 2005).
20 http://www.nationalcoalition.org/aboutus/aboutus.html (accessed 19 June 2005).
21 http://www.nationalcoalition.org/internetporn/internetporn.html (accessed 19 June 2005)
22 http://www.nationalcoalition.org/internetporn/parenttips.html (accessed 19 June 2005)
23 http://www.fbi.gov/publications/pguide/pguidee.htm (accessed 25 June 2005)
24 See, e.g. Australian Broadcasting Authority website: www.cybersmartkids.com; Home Office, Citation2004.
25 http://www.childnet-int.org/about/ (accessed 25 June 2005).
26 http://www.childnet-int.org/about/ (accessed 25 June 2005).
29 http://www.nationalcoalition.org/internetporn/internetporn.html (accessed 20 June 2005)
30 N2H2's own virtual press kit acknowledges that ‘Internet Management Services' will grow to a US$750 million market by 2005, up from US$90 million in 1999. N2H2 also claims to have captured 40% of the education filtering market in the United States: http://www.n2h2.com/pdf/virtual_press_kit.pdf (accessed 20 June 2005).
31 http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/stats.htm (accessed 20 June 2005).
32 http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/stats.htm (accessed 20 June 2005).
33 http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/stats.htm (accessed 20 June 2005). The N2H2 statistics are dated 23 September 2003.
34 http://www.afafilter.com/vitalfacts.asp (accessed 20 June, 2005).
35 http://www.afa.net/lif/schools.asp (accessed 20 June, 2005).
37 http://www.familyfirst.org.au/policy/internetfiltering100904.pdf (emphasis in original).
38 http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR030303.html (accessed 25 June 2005).
40 www.afafilter.com (this is an edited list).
42 http://www.ana.net/family/default.htm (accessed 25 June 2005).
43 http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/contemporary_issues/issues_03_feminism.cfm (accessed 25 June 2005).