Hot on HuffPost Parents:
27 Fantastic Books For Kids Of All Ages
Mike Ryan: Ben Affleck Bids Bill Hader & Fred Armisen A Fond Farewell
Yearbook Blacks Out Kids' Eyes for Fear of Porn Potential
Filed under: Opinions
Guess who, Mr. Child Pornographer? Credit: Daily Mail / Anorak News
Personally, I'd try to wake up. But at a school in England, the principal is very much awake and behind this whole thing. Apparently, she was so worried someone might cut out the kids' faces, paste them on child porn pictures and post them on the Internet -- yes, that's really her concern -- that she ordered the teachers to manually black out all the children' eyes.
Let's pause for a second to consider how lovely an illustration this is of what I call "Worst-First" thinking. That is, thinking up the worst, most perverse explanation for something first, instead of assuming a less dramatic, but far more likely, rationale.
We see this when moms glare at guys waving at their babies -- those men must be perverts! And when parents distrust males who want to teach kindergarten -- they must be creeps! And now we're seeing it with this principal, who issued a 17-page "photography policy," explaining that the Internet has "given rise to increased concerns that images will be misused and that a child's face or body could be used to represent matters wholly contrary to the wishes of their parents."
Yecch! The idea that a yearbook would be of interest to anyone other than the kids in it (and their parents), doesn't seem to have occurred to this woman, who also outlawed the taking of photos or videos at school plays. She's so worried about perverts, she doesn't realize how perverted her thought process has become. To her, all kiddie pix are one step away from kiddie porn.
Which brings us to the strange case in West Virginia, where a different sort of Worst-First thinking has swept Cabell County. There, a boy jumped off a swing and broke his arm. His family sued, won $20,000, and now the county is getting rid of all its swing sets.
Who did the jumping? Not the swing. But in our perverted justice system, the swing and its owner -- the county -- were somehow guilty. Which means officials can no longer think of swings as beloved playground equipment. They must think the Worst-First: Those things are dangerous liabilities.
Between our porn obsession and our litigiousness, it's hard to look at kids' lives and see anything but danger anymore. Can't take their pictures. Can't let them play. I guess they can still go home and look at their blacked-out eyes in the yearbook.
But then they won't be able to sleep.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
Kitchen Kids - Parenting Tips on Cooking with Kids
Chef Gino Campagna from the Kitchen Kids explains how to make cooking fun for children and yourself.
-
Traveling With Kids During the Holidays
Traveling with kids can pose extra challenges, from getting through the security line at airports with a stroller to enduring long car rides. Parenticity's Dawn Siff has some tips to make the trip fun and easy for parents and kids alike.
-
Kids Answer: What Do Parents Really Do at Work
We unleashed 7-year-old reporter Aiden on AOL's New York City offices, where he asked kids who accompanied their parents to work that day how they imagine their parents spend time at the office.
-
How to Deal with Kids that Break the Rules
Learn how to deal with kids that break the rules in this series of parenting advice videos.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 4 of 7)
12-01-2010 @ 9:49AM
jan said...This is just retarded. It would have been better to NOT have a yearbook at all. I certinly would not pay for a yearbook with all of the students' eyes blacked out. DUH!
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 9:50AM
jan said...* certainly *
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 9:50AM
Barbara Gill said...You can't protect children from everything. My daughter broke her arm in gymnastics in gradeschool. I certainly didn't consider suing the school. I wouldn't buy a yearbook if the eyes were blacked out. The teachers needs counseling.
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 9:52AM
laughin@stupid said...this man must be a pervert himself to think like that how about we poke his eyes out
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 9:55AM
Mary Jane said...I belive that both cases are wrong. Blacking out of children's faces reminds me of when our agency had to black out women's faces when we sent publications to strict muslim countries.
My late brother was pushed off a slide in public playground as a child. Despite fact that it was compound fracture I don't remember any law suits. Sounds like parent/caregiver of child wasn't watching child properly and is at fault. When I go to local playgrounds I can usually tell nannies from parents because parents usually have cell phone/Blackberry glued to their ears while the nannies are actually watching/listening for their ward(s.)
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 10:09AM
John said...A few things I would like to know... #1 Can we get a refund for our yearbook? #2 What has happened to this principal in her life to make her this obsessed #3 Is someone in her circle of friends/family a perv that would do that?
Why even print a yearbook?
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 10:19AM
tiggisme99 said...as a mom of four of the most beautiful girls in the world ( as a mom I can say that.) I understand both sides of each case. Everyone of us knows that if some perv did photoshop one of these kids photos, the parents would sue the school. The VA county that removed the swings did so because a kid got hurt, the county got sued, the county paid $20, 000. Now, is this everyone protecting the kids, or are they protecting their butts from a lawsuit? I say in reality, it is everyone's responsibility to protect children, but it is also everyone's responsibility to look at the whole picture. If you say you want kids to be kids, don't sue because they got a scraped knee from running and falling on the playground. Don't sue because your kid got a fat lip from playing football. Don't sue because a kid will be a kid and get hurt in the process. Our parents let us fall, and scrape knees, break our arms falling out of the tree in the back yard, eat dirt, and paste, and oh yeah, be kids. Why can't we do the same for our kids?
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 10:23AM
PLACEDORDERS said...If this works like most schools you have to pay for the book before it's made. Therefore the books are the property of the parents and have been damaged by the school. What if the parents decided to black out parts of school books they did not like? They belong to the school. The school should have to replace them. Also, child porn scum would not scan pictures from a book. They would be after the photos that were taken which are out of the schools hands. If the school gave back the money and took back the books I'm sure a parent would take on the job of printing a year book outside of school. I know I would.
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 10:32AM
Ella98126 said...The prinicpal is a total moron.
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 10:37AM
Jaime said...Not to be a naysayer, but this article give no sources or references: not a school name, not a principal name, not a district name, not a board member's name, not any comments about the matter from those involved (the quote present is simply a reason, not an address of the issue; even "Blah Blah was not available for comment" would have been better). I understand that this is editorial, and not actual journalism. Even so, the interesting thing to me about this article is flying around is that people react to it immediately without first thinking, "Is this true, is this account accurate, and what are all the surrounding facts." And, Ms. Skenazy has given us no toehold to research those questions. We just have a loaded fable for vulnerable readers to freak out about. If it is a true story, and accurate account, and discernable from various points of view, then of course it's a crazy situation (as the vote of 91% suggests). But, as it stands now, this article is just a test in reaction and response to memes and myths.
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 10:54AM
Jaime said...Oh, goodness. I just realized I misspelled princip-Al. Embarrassed, I stand. Regardless, my point remains.
12-01-2010 @ 10:56AM
Jaime said...Oh, no... I didn't. So, I'm not embarrassed any more. And, yes... my point still remains.
12-02-2010 @ 1:20PM
Orielwen said...I'd link to the original news story (in the Daily Mail, not the best of news sources, but doesn't generally make things up from whole cloth), but apparently that's not allowed. But the school is Applecroft primary school in Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire and the headmistress' name is Vicky Parsley.
12-03-2010 @ 12:09AM
Jaime said...Ok, I'm not unreasonable. I'm a little more on-board with the complaint. Just because I'm not a reactionary person, I do have a few questions.
1) The principal said, "The proliferation of internet web pages and social networking sites has given rise to increased concerns that images will be misused and that a child’s face or body could be used to represent matters wholly contrary to the wishes of their parents." Now, this says nothing about the principal's concern being pornography. In fact, and I work in social technology theory, the first thing that comes to my mind is pictures getting stripped and used in advertisements. That might make a little more sense considering the phrase is "USED TO REPRESENT matters contrary to the wishes of the parent". Kids in child porn don't represent child porn, they are child porn. That's an initial thought.
2) Considering that, is it possible that everybody else, including the writer of the article, has jumped to a sexual conclusion. That would indicate that, while the principal is clearly weird, we're actually the sex obsessed weirdos.
3) Is this a normal school? I ask because I used to work in a school of exclusively MR/DD children, and there were pages and pages of rules about which children could get photographed and how. Many of the parents did not want their kids photographed for anything, ever, even on zoo trips. I still don't understand why, but these kids were wonderful, adorable kids having fun, but the parents had signed no-photo papers.
4) Is it possible that the Headmaster was under pressure from her culture or parents in her area - had she been threatened by lawsuits or other actions? Is this the result of pressures she reacted poorly to?
Just some food for thought. I always withhold judgment or massive observations about "culture today" before ALL the facts are in. Go figure. I think "culture today" doesn't appreciate fully-informed and nuanced opinions.
Oh, never mind. Just go back to freaking out, everybody.
12-01-2010 @ 10:38AM
Ella98126 said...principal (sp)
The sad fact is that if some perv wants a picture of a kid it's not exactly difficult to obtain one. Ruining and tainting a yearbook does nothing to solve the problem and the principal who thought it would acted irrationally and maybe should have voiced her concerns with the parents before spazzing out and destroying the childrens photos bound together for the intention of preserving memories.
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 11:20AM
qq4lbfm said...I broke my arm at school when I was in the 1st grade, over 50 years ago. Can I go back now and sue the school for it. Back then they didn't even call home. The family doctor came to the school and set my arm and put it in a cast. Mom found out when I got home. What was the outcome of all that? I was more careful in the future. How do kids today learn to be more careful if we place them in a "safety" bubble? Who's going to take care of them when they are out of school and in the real world without mommy to sue people for them?
Reply
12-08-2010 @ 2:52PM
ellisclevenger said...When the children of litigious parents grow into adults, they will have learned many lessons. Sadly, one of those will have been the "art" of the lawsuit. Find an attorney and sue. If the problem is their fault, no problem. Find a lawyer, find someone else to blame, and sue them. Worse still, their own children will also learn this lesson. Has the term, with this cognitive meaning, been coined, "A revolving door"?
12-01-2010 @ 11:13AM
ettu said...This Principal must be a psych major. They always come up with the looniest ideas.
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 11:19AM
Harry Hurt said...Here's another one: A Florida principle noticed the school's Bible Club had a page in the annual, and someone pointed out to him that a verse of Scripture was on it. The principle then collected all the annuals, took out the page, appologized to the Spanish Club, whose page was on the other side, then had their side reprinted and stuck back in. That is the SOVIET UNION, not America! It's time parents forced the school to respect a thing called "Faith's Rights", at gunpointif necessary.
Reply
12-01-2010 @ 11:49AM
Bronzemarigolds said...Anyone think that if perverts are pasting other kids faces onto porno pictures that the porno pics had to come from somewhere? What about the children that have already been victimized? We need stronger laws and punishments for these perverts. Like maybe having them fixed like dogs!!! Or make them into units ( someone who has had certain parts of their anatomy removed)!!! I am sure that laws like that would dissuade most perves. As for the swings, posting signs stating "Swing at OWN RISK" should take care of any lawsuits. The only way these parents could win a lawsuit is if the swing was in poor repair. Like old weak chains and cracked or broken seats. If the kid jumped, then the kid is at fault and not the county. If you allow your kids to jump out of swings, then at least teach them how to land and take responsibility for what your kids do!!!
Reply