Expert-come-lately Plunkett, citing the memoir of child star from the Nineties, tells the Gazette,
Developmentally, a child or teen has real limits on understanding, let alone meaningfully consenting to, being put on a global stage in perpetuity in their own most intimate spaces — their home and daily life. That has a lot of harms and risks, including: an erosion of sense of self and autonomy and agency; real boundary violations from viewers who feel they know the child personally and will try to engage with them directly; and outright financial exploitation or abuse where a parent is making a lot of money off of them. They can come of age and realize they were put to work without their consent and perhaps even their knowledge, and have literally nothing to show for it, which then carries its own psychological, emotional, and relational harm. There are also practical limitations for kids who arrive at adulthood and realize they spent their childhood working online and now don’t have the peer networks, interests, or preparation for college or a first job that their peers have. That’s all to say nothing of the harms and risks they may experience while making the content.
Welcome to the party, pal! Petersen, as the creator of the non-profit “A Minor Consideration,” made all of that indisputable online, in TV appearances and in legal battles on behalf of such victims as Gary Coleman more than thirty years ago. I posted about former child actress Sarah Polley’s open letter to her former director in 2014. Polley, who evolved into a director and Canadian legislator as well as an excellent adult actress, made all of these same points.
Plunkett and Robinson, unlike Polley, unlike Petersen and unlike me, want the law to to take over. (Ethics Alarms motto #2: “When ethics fails, the law takes over and usually makes a mess.”) Of course they do: they are middle-aged female academics, and more reliable progressive peddlers of expansive government control one could not find with an ICE-sized posse.
In this post I argued that child stars should be banned, but I never once suggested that a legal ban was appropriate or reasonable. ethical industries and platforms should ban them. I argued for a social, cultural, societal and ethical consensus that parents exploiting their babies, toddlers and children before they could give meaningful consent is wrong, indeed child abuse, and those who engage in it will be shamed, shunned, denigrated. That applies neatly to social media “influencers” as well.
This is an ethical problem, and only ethics can solve it.
I was just revisiting the Catholic church’s concept of “the age of reason,” which, when I was a kid, was age seven. It was the age at which a child would be old enough to sin. I wonder whether adults have long thought kids were morally competent as young as age seven.
Where did Shirley Temple stand on this issue?
Shirley was one of the proverbial exceptions that proved the rule. She was freakishly smart, and her parents were responsible and protective. They had a once-in-a millennium talent, she loved what she did, and it was the Depression, meaning that she could ensure a better childhood for herself and her family while so many were struggling. When she aged out of her moptop career and was trying to forge a new career as a teen, an MGM exec exposed his junk to her in an interview. Shirley’s mother blacklisted MGM from then on. Her autobiography is fascinating.
Unpaid child labor isn’t even the most unethical element. The invasion, the destruction of privacy has lifelong consequences. Digital culture is destroying the concept that there are moments and memories in your life that are precious or intimate that shouldn’t be shared with the world – only with those closest to you.
And there’s barely a mention by these so-called experts that criminals are using children’s images to target or to profit from them.
No study is needed – just common sense to tell you that putting your children’s lives online for all the world to see is risky business on multiple levels.
Question: you are a movie director, and want a movie that includes child characters. Examples: Home Alone, The Sixth Sense, Annie, and the type of movie that Shirley Temple played in. Is there an ethical way to do that, without AI and child characters played by actors over 18 years old?
No. (Paul disagrees. “Gotta have those kids, Jack.” was his answer when I proposed an industry ban.)
That is a very absolute statement, and has a consequence that certain types of films and TV programs cannot be made anymore. This includes many movies and TV programs (Walt Disney!!) that appeal to children, and require child characters to be believable. Little House on the Prairie, and other TV programs on which we all were raised.