Citing the interests of children can be used to justify why something should, or should not, be done.
It can also be seen as:
Contents |
USA Today technology columnist Andrew Kantor stated in an article about website filtering software that "Do it for the children" was common in debating matters of education, health, culture, and crime.[3] He claims that people think children are impressionable; that youth-related crime is particularly harmful; and that the rhetoric has been applied to various political agendas, sometimes with little or no relevance.
Internet censorship of, and content-control software foroffensive material, is often implemented as "done for the children". One of the largest attempts was the Green Dam Youth Escort, by the People's Republic of China, which failed to mandate internet content-control for all children in the country.
It is possible to claim that something is being done "for the children" as support in a logical argument, or as a counterargument. But if used to avoid logical debate, it is a thought-terminating cliché.[4] Doing something "for the children" is not a logical fallacy of itself. For example, it is reasonable to suggest and legislate to "add traffic lights next to schools so that children are safer from cars."
A recent example of this avoidance of a purely logical, practical debate can be seen in the Australian government's attempt to institute a mandatory ISP level Internet filter. Opponents of the filter claim that it will not work on the basis of cost, practicality (as it will be easy to circumvent), and their fears for what it may mean for free speech in the country, as it would give the government the ability to censor any website secretly.
The EFA, Electronic Frontiers Australia, has been one of the most vocal Internet-based critics of the proposed filter. Much of the government's argument for the filter was based on the premise that the Internet can be dangerous for children and therefore must be censored. They ignored many of the arguments of the internet sector, the business sector and the majority of the Australian political left wing. Prime Minister Ms. Gillard stated that the filter was more of a "moral judgment" than a pragmatic policy.