When Marlene Kane’s sixteen-year-old son Andrew asked her to drive him to the nearby town of Midland last December, she was surprised to hear that he wanted to meet with someone he had met while playing the online game World of Warcraft – and even more surprised to learn that the person he was meeting was a 42-year-old mother of four from Texas. Experts on sexual solicitation of youth online were less shocked however. In fact, for them the only surprising thing was Lauri Price’s sex. Everything else about the scenario – how they made contact, Price’s openness about her age, Andrew’s willingness to meet her, and the lack of deception about her intentions – all fit the evolving picture of how youth are sexually exploited online.

All of this contrasts with the popular image of an “Internet predator,” which over the years has been built up to be similar to the monster in the movie Alien: a pedophile, most likely a man in his forties, who conceals himself within a false Internet identity and uses it to win the trust of a young girl, leading up to an offline meeting which ends in an abduction and rape. Recent research, however – particularly work done by Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, and Kimberly J. Mitchell of the Crimes against Children Research Center and Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire and by Michele L. Ybarra of the organization Internet Solutions for Kids – has shown that this picture is almost entirely false.

To begin with, the research has shown that social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are not any more dangerous than other online environments. In fact, the only online environment that does correlate to receiving sexual solicitations is chat rooms, and in general online sex offenders rely on tools such as e-mail and instant messaging (IM) to develop relationships with their victims. What these technologies have in common is that they are immediate and intimate – chatrooms and IM, in particular, mimic a live conversation. In this way we might see the movement of youth away from chatrooms to social networking sites as an improvement in terms of their safety from online sexual solicitation. Although the research available does not specifically consider online games as a means of communication, their chat systems resemble chat rooms and IM, in that conversations are carried out in real time and there are relatively few barriers to contacting someone – you can chat with anyone who is on the same “channel,” and channels are generally public.

While it was once thought that posting personal information online was a particularly dangerous activity, the research has shown that it does not, by itself, increase the risk of receiving sexual solicitations. Instead, it is one of a number of behaviours that may be considered risky. The more of these behaviours a youth engages in, the greater the risk of receiving sexual solicitations. In addition to posting personal information, behaviours identified as being risky are include sending personal information to people not known to you, interacting online with people you don’t know, having unknown people on a “buddy” or contact list, talking to unknown people online about sex, seeking out online pornography, being rude or aggressive towards others online, using the Internet to embarrass or harass others, and downloading images from file-sharing programs. It’s important to note that these behaviours are associated with receiving sexual solicitations online, not necessarily the cause of it. Rather, the evidence suggests that engaging in four or more of these behaviours is associated with a general risk-taking attitude that increases the risk that a youth will receive and respond to online solicitations: research has shown that the same youth are risk offline as online. Although we don’t have a full picture of Andrew Kane’s online behaviour, it’s clear that he had engaged in at least two of these behaviours: sending personal information to someone he only knew online and talking about sex online. Like the vast majority of reported victims, he went willingly to his offline meeting: only one of all the cases in the American study involved an abduction, and only one in twenty involved forced sex. (Investigators have remarked that victims often remain loyal to offenders even after the relationship has been brought to light, which can make prosecutions difficult.)

The most unusual thing about the case was the sex genders of the two people involved: nearly all (99%) of those who solicit sex online are male, and 79% of victims are girls; of the 21% who are boys, most are gay or are questioning their sexuality. At 42, her Lauri Price’s age was somewhat unusual: while American research has shown that 60% of offenders are over 25, recent Canadian data found that only about 35% of those accused of “child luring” were over 35. Aside from those, however, Lauri Price was fairly typical of those who solicit sex from youth online. To begin with she was white, as are 84% of online predators; as well, she had no history of violence (like 95% of predators) or prior arrests (79% of offenders studied had no prior record of non-sexual crimes, although unlike Price some did have records of sexual offences.) Most importantly, Price was absolutely typical in that she did not disguise either her identity or her intentions: 80% of offenders are open about their age and 85% make clear their interest in sex with the victim. Moreover Andrew Kane, at 16, was a fairly typical victim: 99% of victims studied were between 13 and 17 years old, and none were younger than 12.

In order to protect young people online we need to understand – and to make them understand – what we are protecting them from. To begin with, we have to be aware that not all children are equally at risk: certain behaviours, such as seeking out sexual material or talking about sex online, and certain other factors, such as being female, being gay or questioning one’s sexuality, or having previously been abused sexually, substantially increase the risk of receiving and responding to online sexual solicitations. As well, we must recognize that offenders do not generally disguise their identities or their intentions but openly attempt to position themselves as potential sexual partners. In a way, the term “predator” is more accurate than we knew: like predators in the animal kingdom, they target the most vulnerable – those young people who are prone to taking risks, particularly in their sexual behaviour; those who are insecure or confused about their sexuality; and those who have already been wounded. Armed with this information, we can learn to watch for warning signs and risky behaviours in our children, we can be candid with them about the kinds of behaviours and material they may encounter online, and we can teach them about the realities of how adults can exploit young people’s inexperience, insecurity and developing sexuality.

MNet Resources

For Teachers

The Safe Passage section on our Web site contains essential tips for teachers on how to teach kids to enjoy the benefits of the Internet while recognizing its potential risks. Many schools, school boards and provinces have also licensed the Web Awareness Workshop series, which includes a workshop version of Safe Passage that covers the same material in greater detail and provides handouts and worksheets.

For Parents

Resources for parents can be found on our recently updated Be Web Aware site, which covers a broad range of topics including online safety and risk-taking. Parents also have their own version of the Safe Passage section of our Web site. Many community groups have also licensed our Parenting the Net Generation workshop which covers many of the issues that arise when young people go online.

This is a special guest blog by Jonathan Avery, a recent M.A. graduate with a degree in communication and media studies from the University of Ottawa. You can access more material written by Mr. Avery at http://www.knowyourmedia.com

Have you ever wondered why Canadian private broadcasting networks such as CTV and CanWest air certain television programs over others? Why, for instance, does CanWest air House, or CTV air Grey’s Anatomy, over other television programs?

It would be to simple to suggest that a network’s choice to purchase the rights to a program solely comes down to affordability and audience preferences – that audience preferences dictate the types of programs networks purchase in order to maximize the size of their audience. In the Canadian market, however, it’s not so simple: broadcasting regulations have a significant impact on the types of programs made available to Canadian audiences. Some would argue that these policies not only constrain programming choices that should be left to Canadian audiences, but undermine the ability of the Canadian broadcasting industry to compete with our American neighbors. Others, on the other hand, argue that these regulations serve a vital cultural imperative and are necessary to create a unique Canadian broadcasting industry that can compete on an international level.

Canadian television is regulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The goal at the heart of the Act is to strengthen Canadian society by providing content that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity. The Act requires that the Canadian broadcasting industry be owned and controlled by Canadians, and further demands that it encourage the development of the Canadian expression and maximize the use of Canadian talent and creative resources.

The Act also includes rules regarding Canadian content (commonly known as CanCon) that require a specific amount of air time that must be devoted to Canadian programming. To ensure this occurs, Canadian private broadcasters must devote, on an annual basis, 60 per cent of their overall television content to Canadian programming measured over the course of the entire broadcasting day, and at least 50 per cent between 6 p.m. and midnight. This does not include sports, national or regional news programming. To be classified as “Canadian,” a program is judged on the following criteria: whether its producer and key creative personnel are Canadian, the amount paid to Canadians for services provided to make the program, and the amount spent in Canada on lab processing.

Canadian broadcasting regulations, therefore, restrict the types of programs Canadian private broadcasters can purchase and air by requiring a specific amount of time devoted to Canadian programs. Regardless of Canadian audience preferences, Canadian private broadcasters must adhere to these policies. They cannot simply purchase the rights to any program they choose, even if it would attract a large Canadian audience. The question is, are these policies doing what they are supposed to be doing? Is favouring Canadian content genuinely enhancing the cultural fabric of Canadian society?

A simple glance at weekly prime time television on CTV and Global Television shows a schedule dominated by such shows as House, CSI, Grey's Anatomy, 24 etc. Though produced by American firms, each of these shows has associations with Canada. For instance David Shore, one of the co-creators of House, was born in London Ontario; CSI is co-produced by Alliance Atlantis Communications, which is affiliated with CanWest Global; Sandra Oh, one of the stars of Grey’s Anatomy, is from Nepean, Ontario; and several members of the cast of 24, including Keifer Sutherland, are Canadian-born. However, all of these programs -- filmed in the U.S. and dealing with American subject matter -- are overwhelmingly American in their overall impact.

These programs may feature Canadian artistic talent and may be associated with Canadian production companies, one of the requirements of the Act, but how do these programs enhance Canadian culture?  David Taras, a known Canadian communication scholar from the University of Calgary, argues in his book Power and Betrayal in the Canadian Media (2001) that many programs deemed “Canadian” under CanCon rules do very little for the enhancement of Canadian culture. In this book, Taras states: “Canadian TV will be Canadianized by first being Americanized” (186). Although Taras was commenting on programming available during the 80s and 90s, his arguments still apply even amidst policy changes made in 1999 to increase Canadian content production – that even though these programs may star Canadian born actors or be produced by Canadian production companies, they focus almost exclusively on American themes, issues and settings.

Of course, there are successful Canadian programs that do highlight Canadian culture. Programs such as Corner Gas (CTV), Flash Point (CTV), Little Mosque on the Prairie (CTV), Whistler (Global), The Guard (Global) and Degrassi: The New Generation (CTV) all air during primetime hours. These programs not only take place in Canada but also do not hide the fact that they are filmed in Canada. Would these distinct Canadian programs exist if the Canadian Broadcasting Act did not? Without the Canadian Broadcasting Act, would there be any imperative to produce distinct Canadian programs? In general it is more expensive to produce original programming than to purchase it, and audiences often prefer American programming. For Canadian broadcasters, the costs of creating distinctly Canadian shows often outweigh the benefits – recent successful exports, such as Flashpoint and Being Erica, only illustrate the rule that in order for Canadian programs to be successful they have to be indistinguishable from American shows.

As more Canadians turn to the Internet for their media needs, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) is becoming increasingly concerned over its ability to ensure Canadians are exposed to Canadian content. While the Internet provides access to endless amounts of content, though, it also provides the opportunity for Canadians to be involved in the production of their own content; without the need to appeal to a mass audience, online content may be free to be more “Canadian” than what is available on Canadian network television. (For example, the National Film Board’s online archive is one of the most popular sources of video accessed through iPhones.) It is possible that within ten years the notion of “CanCon” will be an anachronism – and that we may be consuming more Canadian content than ever.

References

Taras, David. (2001). Power and betrayal in the Canadian media. Canada: Broadview Press.

Jonathan Avery is a recent M.A. graduate with a degree in communication and media studies from the University of Ottawa. You can access more material written by Mr. Avery at http://www.knowyourmedia.com