There’s a randomness in the things that kick off a moral panic. Today the government is broadcasting its determination to be seen to do something about big scary dogs in the hope that the cynophobe vote will tilt the balance in a few marginals. What’s slightly surprising is the utter absence of the traditional baying for the blood of everyone associated with Facebook following yesterday’s conviction for murder of the paedophile Peter Chapman.
Even the Daily Mail’s headline only asks the reasonable question “Who’s your child talking to on Facebook tonight?” Being the Mail it doesn’t skimp on salacious detail and goes as far as to helpfully label one site a “paedophile’s paradise” just in case any of its readers want to investigate the matter in more depth. What none of the press coverage seems to demand in these cases of social networking sites being used by criminals to access victims is that they be shut down.
Normally the right wing press likes nothing better than making governments, especially Labour governments, rush through some piece of legislation to clamp down on the lower orders. This should be a perfect campaigning issue for them. Every computer in every child’s bedroom can, within seconds, become a door for every paedophile on the planet on account of Facebook and Bebo. Why isn’t the government doing something about it? That has the makings of a plausible press campaign.
What’s the difference between big scary dogs, asylum seekers and Facebook? Which of the three are right wing journalists most likely to use and which of the three do they want the state to lay off? Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why the lynch mob hasn’t been assembled for social networking sites. Despite the fact that they sometimes involve young people sending rude photos and perverts roaming freely, and so meet all the criteria for a bit of repressive prudery, they are being left alone to a remarkable degree. It’s nice to see self interest trumping authoritarian impulses.
Sensible advice for anyone with kids can be found here, here and here.





Leave a reply to shug Cancel reply