Children, the Internet and a Whole Lot of Numbers or Facts and Figures for the 21st Century

How old is old enough?
Why is old, old enough?
When old is old enough.

I was recently having a read over at Squire's blog, and I took notice of his "Internet Privacy" post. For the record, I personally have enough pet peeves about privacy rights to run a petting zoo but it never ceases to amaze me how blatantly irresponsible the average human is with their personal information.

I wholehearted agree with Squire that web sites such as myspace and xanga as well as chat rooms like the ones hosted by Yahoo, are rife with opportunities to paint a very detailed picture of oneself with minimal effort. However,(appearing in the role of Devil's Advocate: Magster,) every single byte of that picture is put in place by the visitor/chatter/blogger. The plain truth of the matter is that the very few people who bother with the time consuming and tedious (after all, who can waste one minute when they need to be socializing via the www?) task of actually reading the site's Terms & Conditions and/or Privacy Policy, usually disregard the dozen or so words they picked up while scanning the pages at warp speed anyway.

The internet is a potentially dangerous place and often the worst perils are unseen (and downright illegal) but it really is time that everyone stop crying victim when their reality is ignorance as a symptom of laziness.

I also think it's time that individuals are held accountable for what, by law and nature, they should be. That means adults need to take care of themselves and the children they rear - no excuses, no exceptions and no whining about how difficult it is. And children need to live like children, meaning they should play, learn, grow and behave according to their age - no playing dumb and no lying. Very simple.

The tricky part is knowing who is an adult and who is a child. I am fully aware that maturity can be relative and that laws and customs vary by geography and history - that a 'universal' (worldwide should suit our needs as I doubt any of us can say for sure whether there is intelligent life on other planets, let alone give specific age requirements for a Plutonian to see naked breasts) standard would be at best, difficult to enforce and at worst, a political/moral fiasco. But, it is plainly clear that the continued restructuring of when a 'man's a man' is only confusing the issue.

To illustrate my point, I'm going to host a semi-guided tour of various laws, ratings and reccomendations that have recently crossed my path. (Please keep in mind these are general rules, that laws and customs do vary greatly from place to place and are frequently ammended or changed - the links go to the source material.)

Before hitting teen years, someone aged 12 can; ingest adult 'doses' of many medications; pay full price at restaurants; drive a fast car in Pennsylvania; have consentual sex in Mexico (assuming they are Mexican); use a firearm while game hunting in most US states and scuba dive all over the world.

At the youthful age of 13 a person can serve in the military of Uganda (with consent); marry, if male, according to Jewish law (female age of 'adulthood', 12); be tried as a criminal in many US states; ride Grade 3 river rapids in Queensland, Aus.; learn Spanish in Spain; be an apprentice working within the Brazilian fishing sector and generally view films with 'suggestive' content.

Once 14, one can visit California and get tattooed by an illiterate; get drunk on wine in Switzerland; bungi jump off the Victoria Falls Bridge in Africa; play with a croquet set purchased at Amazon.co.uk; drive a car around Arkansas; speed skate in the Junior World Championships.

Nothing too exciting happens at 15 (despite being an age frequently reccommended by the United Nations - more about that later), just some over-spill of 14 and 16 - when it starts getting interesting.

At 16 years of age it's possible to have sexual intercourse, join the military, take full-time employment, take a full-time spouse and consume alcohol in many places around the world.

At 17, more of the same.

But once a person is 18, most of the world considers them at the age of majority and finally, after possibly years of labour, fornication, procreation and killing in the name of government, just about everyone is given the opportunity to legally go into debt (mortgages, credit cards, bank loans and gambling). However, if they're American, they're gonna have to wait another 3 years to buy a beer.

Everyone is probably familiar with some glaring inconsistencies such as being legally allowed to marry and/or engage in sexual activity but not being permitted to purchase or view pornography - do it, just don't look at it. There are also a few wild cards - Iranian females can be married at 9 and Afghans can't be soldiers until they've celebrated 22 birthdays.

To stick it in a nutshell, even the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the Rights of the Child seems to be confused on the matter. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted because of "... a need for a comprehensive statement on children's rights which would be binding under international law." And yet the very definition of "child" is left to independent State discretion, "For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." How can a rule be applied if it's arbitrary in the first place?

If the UN can't pull it off, well then, maybe some well-meaning intervenors can?

Enter the orgs:
Amnesty International aggressively fights for the rights and protection of children - using the same definition as the UN Committee. Same definition, same problem as above. Save the Children Sweden: "A ‘child’ is defined as a person not yet past puberty or, when it is apparent in the image or the circumstances surrounding the image, under 18 years of age." I think Save the Children is a fine organisation but there can be quite a discrepancy between "past puberty" and 18. According to the Swedish Penal Code, the age of consent is 15 and yet the document cited above is intended to demonstrate "...the need for an international effort to stem the tide [of child pornography on the internet]". Contradictory is a word that springs to mind.

If a child can become an adult (or at least assume the rights and obligations of an adult) at any age from 9-22, depending on geography, isn't it impossible to have binding international law?

It just doesn't need to be so complicated or does it?. The typical human reaches sexual maturity between the ages of 12 and 15. The typical human is physically mature (fully grown) at 21. The caveat: no one will set a definitive age for psychological maturity. Two prevailing theories that personality (the characterizations of which are indicative of psychological development) is 'established' by an age of 25-30 or that "significant intra-individual changes" are observed until 83 years of age, do nothing to simplify matters

Considering the effects environment has on mental development doesn't it only make sense that substantiation of the age of majority should be dependent on bodily maturation?

It may seem naive and possibly irrational to suggest a globally accepted number to define adulthood given that national and local governments are put in place for the (supposed) purpose of establishing laws to serve it's own respective people - not necessarily in accord with the beliefs or legalities of any other government; official or organised. But taking into account that there are currently (as of February 3, 2006) a total of 193 sovereign nations in the world and that 191 of them are members of the United Nations - all agreeing to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, (which does leave one wondering, after having read only Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter, if the representatives of Member States aren't the same people who don't bother reading web site Terms & Conditions,) it only becomes more apparent that there needs to be a definitive rule.

Consequences can't be based on vagaries. Without set law, there can be no accountability and when weighing issues as complex as international human rights it's only logical that knowing to whom which rights apply is fundamental.

It is a widely known fact that we as humans, need to learn how to walk before we can run.