Colorado Voters Will Get A Chance To Prevent Preteens From Using Smartphones
from the making-the-state-an-adoptive-parent dept
Some enterprising Colorado residents have turned a small tech panic into a stupid ballot measure. (via Free Range Kids)
Dr. Timothy J. Farnum apparently doesn't like the way his teenaged kids act. He blames this on smartphones.
"They would get the phone and lock themselves in their room and change who they were," he said.
With one of his sons, then 12, he thought the problem became bad enough to warrant taking the phone away.
"(With smartphones), the internet is always begging for your attention," he said. "The apps are all designed to addict you. ... For children, it's not a good thing."
Because parenting is hard, Farnum has decided to see if the state can't pick up his parenting slack. He has introduced a ballot measure that would ban retailers from selling phones to preteens, even indirectly. If this anesthesiologist can find 300,000 like-minded idiots willing to follow him into legislative infamy, his proposal could possibly become law.
To drum up support for his idea, Farnum has cobbled together a website that probably looks terrible on mobile devices. It certainly looks awful on the regular web.
And it's full of terribleness -- half-arguments and citation-less assertions, not exactly the sort of thing you'd expect from a board of directors composed of people with medical degrees. Here's just a few of the convincing arguments Farnum deploys:
Years from now parents will look back on our time and shake their heads and wonder how we allowed this atrocity. Allowing our children to be robbed of their carefree days of wonder, laughter, and normal natural development. Yes, they will wonder, didn't they see it?, didn't they see their children stop achieving, stop playing, stop laughing, ceasing to be free? Instead, isolating themselves in their rooms choosing soft and cushy electronic lives over their real ones. Didn't they see the damage?
Or:
Currently, parents are supposed to do everything, and the manufacturers, content and service providers, basically everyone in the whole industry gets a free pass. Parents are somehow supposed to be up to date on the current recommendations on usage from experts, and enforce these recommendations, plus guard their children everywhere they go. This is not only unfair, it is altogether impossible given the saturation of our children's environment.
Or:
The wild west free for all that we have now has left parents with little clear direction, and has caused incalculable damage to children. The American Academy of Pediatricians came out in 2000 with their recommendations, reaffirmed them in 2012, and yet parents are unaware, and children continue to be harmed.
FINALLY. A citation to something other than Farnum's gut instinct, or how the world should change to better accommodate his strained relationship with his sullen, withdrawn children. Something written by someone other than an anesthesiologist.
Or not. There's no link to these recommendations or direct quotes from any AAP report. It's as if Farnum believes you can just type something on the internet and readers are obligated to believe it.
The AAP certainly doesn't suggest legislation should take the place of parenting, no matter how Farnum skews it.
The AAP recommends that parents and caregivers develop a family media plan that takes into account the health, education and entertainment needs of each child as well as the whole family.
“Families should proactively think about their children’s media use and talk with children about it, because too much media use can mean that children don’t have enough time during the day to play, study, talk, or sleep,” said Jenny Radesky, MD, FAAP, lead author of the policy statement, “Media and Young Minds,” which focuses on infants, toddlers and pre-school children. “What’s most important is that parents be their child’s ‘media mentor.’ That means teaching them how to use it as a tool to create, connect and learn.”
What a revolutionary idea: parents engaging in the act of parenting! But if that's not for you, there's Farnum's ballot measure [PDF], which is prefaced with phrasing guaranteeing it will never be taken seriously.
WE THE PARENTS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THIS MOST MAGNIFICENT STATE THROUGH FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE AND MOUNTING SCIENTIFIC DATA HAVE COME TO BELIEVE THAT SMARTPHONES ARE ADDICTIVE, HARMFUL, AND DANGEROUS IN THE HANDS OF CHILDREN.
THE MANUFACTURES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS OF SMARTPHONES HAVE CONTINUED UNABATED TO PROMOTE THEIR USE IN A RECKLESS AND WANTON MANNER, WITH NO CONCERN FOR OUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH OR SAFETY.
OUR GOVERNMENT BODIES ON ALL LEVELS HAVE FAILED TO GRASP THE LEVEL OF ADDICTION, THE SEVERITY OF THE HARM, OR THE UNMENTIONABLE STARK DEPRAVITY OF THE DANGERS.
WE AS PARENTS FIND THIS MATTER TO BE SO WIDESPREAD, SO INSIDIOUS AND OF THE VERY HIGHEST PRIORITY. NO HALF MEASURES, INEFFECTUAL EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS, NEW APPLICATIONS, OR PROMISES FROM MEGA-CORPORATIONS OF IMPROVEMENT WILL SUFFICE TO CAUSE THE GREAT CHANGE NECESSARY TO RESCUE THIS AND GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN TO COME FROM THE CARELESS AND EXPERIMENTAL INTRODUCTION OF SIMILAR TECHNOLOGIC[AL] DEVICES AND ADVANCEMENTS BY PROFIT DRIVEN CORPORATIONS.
It's pretty much a conspiracy theorist's message board post, only with some nonsensical legislation attached. The proposal would require retailers to ask customers if they're buying phones for preteens and, apparently, refuse the sale if the answer is "yes." Retailers are also required to put up signage informing customers of the new state-enforced policy and train employees to dig into the details of customers' purchases. Then they'll have to turn this information over to the state.
(4) RETAILER SHALL VERBALLY INQUIRE ABOUT THE AGE OF INTENDED PRIMARY OWNER PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE SALE OF ANY SMARTPHONE.
(5) RETAILER MUST DOCUMENT THE RESPONSE OF PURCHASER AND KEEP A RECORD OF THIS RESPONSE.
(6) RETAILER MUST FILE A MONTHLY REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT PROVIDES A LISTING OF:
(a) THE TYPE OF PHONE THAT WAS PURCHASED EITHER SMARTPHONE OR CELLULAR
(b) THE AGE OF THE INTENDED PRIMARY OWNER AT TIME OF PURCHASE
This is a really disturbing addition, as it places smartphone sellers under a more pervasive form of regulation than sellers of other age-controlled items like alcohol, cigarettes, and porn. And it makes no sense at all to maintain these records, as the proposal contains no avenue of state recourse against parents who lie to retailers about the cellphone recipient's age.
Retailers who violate the law face steadily-increasing fines, starting at $500 and topping out at $20,000. Retailers are given an "affirmative defense" to use when accused of violating the law, but can only use this defense twice in a 24-month period. And it's not really an affirmative defense. It's really nothing more than a statement of compliance with mandated sales policy changes that can be used to shield the retailer from fines if it's determined to have violated the law.
Finally, to cap off the nonsense this is, Farnum's own site presents this contradictory argument:
It absolutely is a parents right to choose how to raise their child. But it is also our American parents right to form an alliance together and try to make manufacturers and service providers accountable for the mess they have created.
It is a parent's right to choose. Here's some legislation taking that choice away! And some sort of plan to collect reparations from local retailers for the evils perpetrated on society by manufacturers. Somehow this proposal managed to survive the scrutiny of state ballot officials, which doesn't say much for their judgment skills.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: colorado, preteens, smartphones, teenagers, timothy farnum
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
CO Ballot Initiatives -- Thank You Amendment 71!
Thankfully this will put a stop to a lot of these nut-jobs putting random things on the ballot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CO Ballot Initiatives -- Thank You Amendment 71!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://wfla.com/2017/06/20/sebring-mom-who-let-snake-bite-baby-wont-be-prosecuted/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Punish EVERYONE for the fuckery of just a few.
Brilliant!
Before we do that, we need to make a law where stupid people like you are not allowed to vote first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You'd rather put a child at risk than to have a law which protects them and has no effect whatsoever on your behaviour.
Way to go, eh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'd rather put a child at risk
This should read The child's parent(s) would rather put a child at risk
Let's assign blame here where it belongs. If you want to really make a difference, criminalize shitty parenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY.
Also, that's a win-win here, if they didn't have kids then they wouldn't be making this stupid proposal in the first place. The only lose here is for the idiots that think they can have kids without the responsibility that comes with being a parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're back to Correlation vs. Causation
Yeah. A 12 year old boy locking himself away in his bedroom is more likely to be caused by puberty than a smartphone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Video games and smartphones have since been demonized as dangerous to kids. Never that THAT coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
age descrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: age descrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: age descrimination
Those types of laws exist because smoking and drinking do provable damage to the bodies of teenagers and pre-teens. Nothing in this bill shows a causal link between cellphones and any kind of harm done to teenagers and pre-teens. Anecdotes about kids locking themselves in their room or “becoming different people” when using a cellphone can inspire sympathy, but anecdotal evidence should not be used as the basis for a law such as this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: age descrimination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So his other child still has their phone? Why is he proposing a law that he is not already following?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least it wasn't a smartphone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
If a parent cannot, or will not take charge of their child's development and emplace appropriate limits on device usage, passing a law isn't going to improve anything.
All that passing this law will do is criminalize the actions or lack of actions on the part of parents who are indifferent to their childrens' wellbeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
It is actually an attempt to stop smart phones being sold within the state, as every sale could be an indirect sale to a preteen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
It's a decision for the parents as to whether or not their child is responsible enough to have a phone.
There's also the safety issue, parents may get "dumb phones" instead of smart phones so that their child can communicate with them if something happens.
That law would prevent that communication and could cause direct harm to a child that might otherwise been able to reach out to their parent to get out of a dangerous situation.
If I were a parent in Co, and something happened to my child because of that law, I'd sue the state for their next 10 year's budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
Nothing in that law makes it illegal for a parent to lie to the retailer about their age.
I could see a lot of parents lying about childrens's ages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
#1 - 911
#2 - Parent #1
#3 - Parent #2 / Grandparent / Uncle / Aunt - whatever.
Think the I.C.E. numbers that "feature" phones used to have.
Remember I.C.E.?
In
Case (of)
Emergency
That is why the law is overreach and dangerous.
Let the parents do the parenting, state and feds, keep the fuck out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
That proposition, as written, does not not prohibit a parent, say, in Denver, driving 100 miles to Cheyenne, and buying a phone there.
Cheyenne is 102 miles from Denver. If the parents drives to Cheyenne and buys a phone there, that would not violate this law.
Like I said, If this law goes through, I will consider opening up a cell phone store in Cheyenne, and I will encourage parents who want their under-13 children to have a phone to come to my Cheyenne store, if I open one, to buy a phone there, where Colorado law will not apply, either to them, to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
So it would not be against the law for a parent to go to Wymoing to buy a phone or their kid, a parent to lie about their kids' ages, or for kids to possess a cell phone.
In short, this will not stop a determined parent who wants to their kids to have phones. It will only inconvenience the parents when they drive all the way to Cheyenne to buy a phone.
In short, this is a measure that will only make cell phone retailers lose business to stores in places like Cheyenne, where this law does not apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Colorado Voters have always had that ability.
And there is nothing in the law the criminalizes a parent for lying about a child's age on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is he talking about a smartphone or a swig of Dr. Jekyll's potion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've heard this before...
Just imagine the outcry when Dr Farnum discovers that 12-year-olds can read comic books on their smartphones! And do you know what that leads to? Porn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We've heard this before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good thing Dr. Timothy J. Farnum's kids don't live in Oregon
or I'm sure this would have happened to them by now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGXSPf9b-xI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blast from the past ...
30+ years later I'm making 6-figures and have a great life thanks mainly to that computer and all the time I "wasted" in front of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That even educated parents are fucking stupid.
Rather than deal with having to be the adult and supervise his own fucking spawn, he wants the state to do it.
He'll have no problem finding 300K stupid parents, who will lap up every conspiracy theory on his website (believing a Doctor knows the truth - See Also: Anti-Vax Dr. who is STILL getting paid to claim autism connection despite repeated beat-downs).
My kids got mad because I told them to stop using the phone!!!
It was scary for me, they were gonna hurt me.
You pay the fing bill, find your balls and turn off the phones if you dislike it.
Being an adult it is ONLY your responsibility to tell your kids how to behave, & correct behavior you don't like.
Look at all of the bullshit he is willing to do to avoid having to be the 'bad guy' in his kids eyes.
Just because YOUR KIDS can't handle smart phones, doesn't mean all kids can't handle smart phones. You want to make retailers liable for not asking if the phone MIGHT end up in the hands of someone under the age of 13... in a country where parents constantly hand the phone to their children to distract them.
He's an idiot & perhaps he should use that educated mind to think perhaps HE needs parenting classes & not to ride a self righteous high horse of the state must be the bad guy parent for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would have failed the second his kids looked at his website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More likely they will find out when their classmates beat the hell out of them because their Dad wants the state to take away their phones.
Of course this will get added to the Geocities special that smartphones cause violence in children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They've done nothing! ... Nothing they would do is enough!
And, seriously... "unmentionable stark depravity"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CO huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Religion 101
Part 2. Invent a god that dictates no one can like that thing you don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Academy of Pediatricians came out in 2000 with their recommendations, reaffirmed them in 2012, and yet parents are unaware, and children continue to be harmed.
This sentence caught me as odd. Arguing that restrictions should be put on manufacturers because parents are unaware?
Why not make it a law not to be an uninformed, irresponsible parent? Last thing we need is children learning that it's OK to be a technologically illiterate idiot in the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this goes through, I could see cell phone stores in Cheyenne getting a lot of business from people in the Denver area to avoid this law.
If anyone is planing on opening a business in Cheyenne, I would recommend opening up a cell phone store there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no one stopping you from given your kid a DUMB Phone. All they're mostly good for is Voice Calls, or pain in the butt Text Messages. Or don't give your kid(s) a phone at all. I didn't grow up with a phone. I had to go home to make a call, or a friends house to make a call. I seemed to have lived through being a kid without a Cell Phone!!! Same with all the other kids around me.
A Call phone is not mandatory. Try being a parent. The Government is a far worse parent to have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheyenne is 102 miles from Denver, so I could see a lot of parents, who want to their kids to have a phone, driving into Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, or New Mexico, to buy a phone for their kids.
This proposed law does not prohibit a parent from going out of state to buy their kid a phone.
And if this goes through, that is exactly what will happen. Cell phone stores in those states, that are close to the Colorado border, will get more business.
And even adults, who think it is none the governments business who the primary owner is going to be, will also buy all their phones out of state.
All this will do is cause retailers in Colorado to lose business to other states, where this law would have no effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal anecdote.
Like, whenever his son is surfing the web or immersed on his smartphone, he (or his wife) just walks in and casually asks his kid what is he doing and starting a conversation with him, showing him that there is a genuine interest on his part to be included in his kid's life without being perceived as invasive. So his son shares his interests with him and tells him what kind of stuff is he browsing, who's talking to, if it is a school friend and whatnot, making the exchange to flow naturally and building mutual trust.
So, leaving that personal anecdote aside, I think the question isn't even about how could ever this stop a parent from buying a smartphone for their kids outside the state, but rather how lazy and unattached some parents seem to be if they want a law that in the end will make them believe it will be easier to keep their children from engaging in harmful attitudes, most of which come from the lack of actual parental supervision and being involved in their children's lives.
Instead, they invent this new boogey man just like Cartoons, Comic Books, Heavy Metal, Videogames, etc., were labeled as back when I was a kid, while preaching vapid sanctimony to bamboozle people and make them believe that anything that catches children's attention is inherently harmful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? They're trying to bad any smartphone under the age of 18? Even their awkward incomplete acronym can't get a decent message across.
"Currently, parents are supposed to do everything"
Yes, they are. It's called parenting. If you don't like it, you should have thought about the job description before you signed up for it.
It's quite simple - you choose to buy something and introduce it into your home / give it to your kids, it's your job to ensure that it's acceptable for those kids. This may mean researching the recommendations and enforcing rules if you decide to allow it in your home. You also have the option to say no to your own kids if you don't want one - just don't try telling more intelligent, committed parents what they can do.
"plus guard their children everywhere they go"
Do you feel like you need to do that without the phone, I wonder, or do you just feel that weird compulsion when they have one in their pocket? Either way, this seems to suggest an unhealthy mental state of the parent, not the child.
"They would get the phone and lock themselves in their room and change who they were," he said.
With one of his sons, then 12..."
Erm, 12 year old boys have been doing that since long before the phone was invented, let alone smartphones. Whether due to puberty or trying to get away from the asshole helicopter parent who thinks he has to follow his children everywhere they go, whoc knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Report from 2000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]