From Family First to the FBI: Children, ideology and Cyberspace

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.

New Labor, new censorship? Politics, religion and internet filtering in Australia

“…The most politically important religious group in the current context is probably the Family First Party. This party, which has strong ties with the Assemblies of God church (see Simpson, 2006), has one Senator in the Australian Senate. After 1 July 2008, when the Senators elected at the 2007 general election take their seats, this vote will be crucial as the Government, which lacks a Senate majority, may require Family First support, along with the Greens and an independent Senator to pass their legislative programme.…”

The Impact of Social Media Networks on Public Opinion in the United Arab Emirates

“…In many ways, the media today are all-consuming and all-encompassing. Families can watch television together while also using other technologies, such as texting, listening to music on their Ipods, downloading stuff from the Internet, conversing with pals online, and checking Facebook to see what people are up to (Simpson, 2006).…”

The Effects of Social Media on Family Communication in the UAE

“…Being online nowadays has had many benefits for the younger generation; so long as parental guidance was subjected none-forcibly in the hopes to avoid any potential risks that may occur while their children are active online. Giving parents the full authority to monitor the activities of their children online, as well as monitoring the media thats being consumed by the children; could possibly be an action some people may disagree with if enabled excessively by the parents; however, Brain Simpson (2006) through the Family First act explains that, the family is the sole authority to monitor and provide supervision on what their children consume as they go online; though a counter-argument can be made that parents cannot always be trusted to make the right decision in the face of heavily induced media consumption as the one occurring currently in societies all over the world; that will entail governmental supervision as Simpson elaborates on the establishment between the government being the gatekeeper of all that is filtered into the Internet, and governing and/or advising parents on how they can prevent online risks from occurring in their households. Moreover, incidences children falling for predators through various means of online communications is evident presently in many societies; for the online community has many loopholes that predators tend to bypass to attract unaware children and young people.…”