State Moves To Criminalize Screen Time for Kids, Parents to Face $20K Fine for Violation

Should Colorado legislators get their way, smartphones and other electronic devices capable of connecting to the Internet would be verboten for kids under the age of 13 — and parents could face up to $20,000 in fines for violating the proposed law.

Intended “to make children free,” Initiative 29 is the brainchild of Parents Against Underage Smartphones (PAUS), a group of concerned parents whose mission statement includes ending “the insane practice of giving children smartphones”; but — while the spirit of the proposed law might be considered a laudable attempt to reconnect kids with nature — in actuality, its Nanny State overtones trump the unabashed appeal to emotion.

If successful in Colorado’s Legislature, the proposed strictures governing children’s use of Internet-connected devices will inculcate parents as de facto agents of the U.S. Police State in holding them accountable for kids’ screen time through an inexcusable, untenable quandary — shared in part with cell phone and electronics retailers.

Indeed, Initiative 29 requires store owners “verbally inquire about the age of the intended primary owner of the smartphone” — a mandated interrogation conditional to the voluntary exchange of goods for payment will undeniably turn parents who feel the question none of the State’s business into potential liars and, thus, criminals.

PAUS president and founder Dr. Timothy Farnum grew disheartened at the deleterious effects on his own children, which, he surmised, stemmed from their constant use of cell phones and forays into the sometimes wild Internet.

“They would get the phone and lock themselves in their room and change who they were,” lamented Farnum, board-certified anesthesiologist, to The Coloradan. “They go from being outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy, to reclusive . . . They want to spend all their time in their room. They lose interest in outside activities.”

Advertisment

“(With smartphones), the internet is always begging for your attention,” he added. “The apps are all designed to addict you. … For children, it’s not a good thing.”

However, what Farnum and the initiative’s supporters seemingly fail to grasp is the inordinate overreach by a State so invasive and burdened by excessive law, Big Brother already commands a seat at every family’s dinner table. To additionally mandate retailer interrogation and parental restriction, to boot, not only robs parents of the right to raise children how they see fit, it veritably secures the State as a coercive, fine-imposing babysitter.

“Frankly, I think it should remain a family matter,” asserted Senator John Kefalas, noting the commendable motive behind the legislation does not negate its boundary-trampling reach into our private lives. “I know there have been different proposals out there regarding the internet and putting filters on websites that might put kids at risk. I think ultimately, this comes down to parents … making sure their kids are not putting themselves at risk.”

Kefalas speaks to an increased dependence on government to step in where parents may fall short — Farnum’s proposal clears guardians of inherent responsibility for children’s activities and development, instead placing the onus on store owners to perform the tasks of, in essence, State spies — all at the barrel of a weighty financial gun.

Of PAUS, Salon notes,

“On their website, the group points to pediatricians who recommend limiting handheld screen time for kids and an article about Bill Gates’ thoughts on adolescent development and smart phones. They also have a YouTube embed of a Louis C.K. bit about cell phones.

“Among pictures of falling rain, sunflowers, crowds and the random image of Mel Gibson in ‘Braveheart,’ PAUS lays out its argument on their website: the internet is a dangerous place for children.

“PAUS explains, without sourcing much of their information, that the ‘damage begins in the cradle,’ citing parental negligence an overflow of electronic stimulation as the cause for future ‘physical damage’ and ‘stunted social, emotional, and cognitive development.’ Additionally, the group pins pornography and a ‘lack of meaningful connections in a digital society’ as reasons for higher rates of suicide in young girls from ages 10-14.”

To reiterate, the group’s goals might bubble from a place of concern for children’s wellbeing and an apathy becoming entrenched in society that could facilely evince its peril — but, to place a burden of financial culpability as steep as $20,000 after a single verbal warning for 13-and-unders’ use of electronic devices unduly penalizes their access to an entire planet’s wealth of online information.

In fact, the positive benefits reaped in youth having Internet access at the ready comprise a damning counter-narrative to Initiative 29’s foisting of any damaging effects onto the backs of guardians and business owners, who might otherwise engage in a voluntary exchange on their terms.

As Greg Pulscher points out for FEE, “Children’s inactivity is a major rallying cry for the advocates of the initiative. However, smartphones are not the cause of this idleness, smartphones are the symptom. Decades of regulations and cultural norms are treating children as delicate flowers which leads to these unintended consequences.”

Notably, educational psychologist Dr. Peter Gray observes in Free to Learn,

“Surveys of game players in the general population, indicate that kids who are free to play outdoors as well as with video games usually, over time, choose a balance between the two […]

“Video-game play appears to compete much more with television watching than with outdoor play for children’s free time.”

Further, Initiative 29 and PAUS fail to account for an interminable list of reasons parents might provide children with cell phones and other smart devices beyond the simple pleasures of arguably addicting games and apps — whether for safety while alone, purely for portable connectivity to their guardians, or security in ability to summon necessary emergency services — kids’ possession of Internet-ready devices can encompass virtually any sound justification.

None of which deserve any additional excuses by the State to intervene in our private lives.

As with nearly any legislation, examining a slurry of negative ramifications expeditiously destroys any possible positives — particularly in the context of an invasive government, which seems intent only on watching our every move.

Indeed, the Nanny State’s onerous presence in children’s lives as they learn, grow, explore, and adapt to the modern digital world, is far more inclined than any amount of screen time to stunt natural curiosity, foster ambivalence, and strew resentment — particularly if parents are forced to dole out tens of thousands for the ‘crime.’

After all, unless a communist regime usurps power, it is the job of parents, not the State, and certainly not retailers, to see children prepared for the perils of adulthood — whether or not that preparation includes responsible use of the Internet.

76-Year-Old Woman Fined $200 for Not Shoveling Snow Fast Enough – Fights Back

Boston, MA — A 76-year-old woman must pay $200 for the oh-so-serious transgression of not shoveling snow fast enough for the whims of the City of Boston.

“I don’t think it was fair because it was icy and it was difficult to get up,” South Boston resident Lorraine Walsh told a local CBS News affiliate.

Walsh did, in fact, attempt to remove the snow from the sidewalk in front of her residence — even going so far as to apply an ice melter on areas she was unable to clear — but subfreezing temperatures and unforgiving winds soon forced her to retreat.

“Really windy if you remember,” the elderly woman, who incidentally says she enjoys shoveling, continued. “Fifty-five miles an hour all the next day.”

But the city does not want to hear excuses — Boston expects residents and businesses to shovel snow, or hire someone else to do it, within a short time frame following a major storm.

“The rules are, three hours after a snowstorm we’re asking residents to shovel their sidewalks and businesses to shovel their sidewalks and if you can’t shovel it, get somebody to shovel it for you,” Boston Mayor Marty Walsh — no relation to Lorraine — flatly stated.

While the city’s policy indeed pertains to safety concerns, the mayor did not offer an explanation for the obvious personal safety concerns the elderly face shoveling snow amid treacherous winter conditions.

Worse, though a resident would normally be fined a still-outrageous $50 for failure to clear snow, Walsh garnered a business fine of $200 because her family runs a small insurance business from the home.

More than 500 Boston residents and businesses were fined last week for failing to meet the city’s strict ordinances regarding snow removal — and city officials aren’t the least bit apologetic for doling out those fines.

Chief of Streets Chris Osgood, responsible for overseeing the effort to keep streets and sidewalks clear of snow and ice, says city workers are “constantly encouraging neighbors to help neighbors” ensure each other’s snow is removed to the satisfaction of the ordinances.

“The last thing we want to do is penalize people and write fines,” the mayor continued, ignoring that officials wrote hundreds of tickets last week and suggesting Walsh could file an appeal, “but if we don’t, we won’t have people shoveling sidewalks and we’ll have situations where people can’t get passed [sic] on the sidewalk.”

Walsh affirmed she will fight the ridiculous $200 charge, saying, “I do intend to call and I will write an appeal letter. We’ve never had a ticket like this before so I don’t know how strict they are with it, and whether I have a chance of appealing it or not, but I hope.”

Cities in colder climes around the country frequently ticket or fine residents for issues in the aftermath of winter storms, including failure to clear snow quickly enough and parking on routes officials need to plow. And while they all cite safety concerns as the impetus for restrictive rules, the factor of easy additional revenue generation shouldn’t be ignored.

But the mayor and chief of streets — as well as Boston’s ordinances — fail the sniff test against the reality of blizzards.

As a coastal city, Boston faces high snowfall totals each winter — but the flakes are nothing compared to often blustery, frigid winds. While these conditions would be uncomfortable but endurable for an average, healthy person to shovel snow, the elderly and infirm would face very real dangers from exposure.

Making the assumption a resident would be able to convince a neighbor to assist with clearing snow is a stretch — particularly in a big city — as is the inference an average person would have additional funds to hire a stranger or company to do so.

Where the City of Boston and officials appear cooly rigid on the topic of authoritarian snow removal policies, Walsh wisely proffered some reasonable adjustments to passing out stiff penalties, asserting,

“Give us a little flexibility. Consider a warning. We realize it was windy and there were ice problems so we’re going to give you an extra day, that type of thing. That would be fair, wouldn’t it?”

Father Arrested & Charged After Child Accidentally Walked to School on a Saturday

Berwick, PA — A Pennsylvania father found himself under arrest after his five-year-old son — not understanding it was a Saturday — walked to school by himself.

Forty-three-year-old Jeffrey Wagner now faces a child endangerment charge for his son’s nearly two-mile walk to school amid freezing temperatures on a weekend morning, a local CBS News affiliate reports.

Wagner awoke to his son, Mitchell, insisting it was time for him to go to school, but the father explained there wasn’t school on Saturday and told him to go back to bed — then fell asleep, himself.

After Wagner dozed off — thinking the point had been made — the 5-year-old proceeded to dress himself and bundle up to walk to the bus stop. When the bus didn’t arrive, the diligent child decided to walk the two miles to get to class.

A concerned motorist spotted the boy and called police, who then picked him up  — and subsequently arrested his father.

According to CBS, Wagner waived a preliminary hearing and will now face the charge of child endangerment in county court — all because he slept in on a Saturday morning and Mitchell took it upon himself to walk to school

This Nanny State pursuit of parents guilty only of potential crimes disguised as illegalities marks a vast departure from daily life mere decades ago. As Lenore Skenazy snarkily notes in a blog post for Reason, it’s now as if “any child who ventures outside is immediately in such grave danger, no parent should ever allow it, even if they’re asleep.”

Just years ago, an itinerant child would have been picked up by the same police officer and delivered home with a stern ‘talking-to’ about the dangers of venturing out without a parent — and Wagner might have received a sharp rebuke — but nothing more.

Increasingly, however, that isn’t the case — and parents are finding that just getting their kids to school can be a complex ordeal mired in wholly unnecessary law and unjust punishments.

In Jasper, Tennessee, The Free Thought Project reported about a mother, who — fed up with her children’s repeated tardiness causing them to miss the bus — led her to teach what should have been a valuable and pertinent lesson, but ended in a stunning confrontation with the police state.

In March, Lisa Marie Palmer told her two children she’d had enough of last-minute car rides to school after they missed the bus, again — and they would have to walk the long three miles.

Palmer, concerned for their safety, did not just send the kids on their way — she drove in front of them — proceeding forward until they caught up, in increments.

But Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Chris Ladd spotted the children following the car and stopped to investigate.

Palmer explained the punishment to the deputy — which should have been sufficient for him to either go about other duties, or observe to ensure the children made it safely to school.

However, instead of acknowledging the creative and non-violent means the mother had employed to teach the importance of timeliness, Ladd astonishingly charged Palmer with child neglect — asserting in his report of the incident,

“Temperatures were cold, and traffic was beginning to become heavy with citizens heading to work … Mrs. Palmer was in no position to reach her children safely in the event of an emergency.”

Lisa and her husband Douglas even face the possibility of losing custody of their own children thanks to the obscene overreach of the Nanny State.

In Magnolia, Texas, a wholly different issue exists with transporting kids to school — parents there have been cited and threatened with charges or arrest, simply for dropping their children off on school grounds.

At Bear Branch elementary, principal Holly Ray insists parents either wait in the long car line to drop children off, or have them take the bus — otherwise, she says, they’re guilty of trespassing.

“She’s threatening to arrest people,” parent Wendy Jarman said of the unpopular principal to Fox News.

Ray has apparently enlisted the help of Montgomery County Constables to do her bidding, and a number of parents have received citations — others, disgusted with this authoritarian overreach, have withdrawn their children from the school.

“This has happened to many parents,” Jarman told Fox News. “They have been cited. They have been threatened, if they step one foot on school property, they will be arrested and charged with who knows what.”

Jeffrey Wagner, Lisa Marie Palmer, and Wendy Jarman are just a few examples of otherwise law-abiding parents who simply want to ensure their children receive an education.

Apparently, the Nanny State and its Police State enforcement arm feel sleeping in on a Saturday morning, teaching your kids a lesson about tardiness, and even dropping your children at the front door of school are grounds to be branded a negligent and criminal parent.

Anyone with common sense, however, would beg to differ.