Here’s the scoop, short and sweet, kaibhfddhr
from Newday, about Colorado which may consider a ban on letting parents buy their pre-teens a smartphone:
A proposal cleared by state ballot officials for 2018 would ban the sale of smartphones to children younger than 13. Backers of the childhood smartphone ban would need about 300,000 voter signatures to get on the ballot.
It seems unlikely that 300,000 will support this measure, so I’m not too worried. But here are the details, in all their bureaucratic glory:
The ban would require cellphone retailers to ask customers how old the primary user of the smartphone is. They would have to submit monthly reports to the Colorado Department of Revenue stating they had done this.
Retailers that sell a phone for a youngster’s intended use could be fined $500, after a warning.
More laws criminalizing legal behavior. Great.
The campaign is being led by Denver-area dad Tim Farnum. Farnum is a doctor and tells The Coloradoan that smartphones are bad for young brains.
So one doctor is worried? Versus all the other people, including doctors, who get their kids cell phones?
Criminalizing parents who make childrearing decisions we don’t agree with is a terrible idea and has already resulted in parents arrested for things like letting their 7-year-olds walk home from the pool, or play in the park.
Colorado: Prove that we are not a nation swayed by the fearmongering, worst-firsters who would like to micromanage every aspect of our children’s lives!
Colorado kids: Text “Don’t treat me like a baby” to your state legislators!
.
.
109 Comments
For the record, Dr. Farnham is an anesthesiologist, not a pediatrician. Many people give smartphones to their children for reasons other than apps. My daughter carries hers for her Continuous Glucose Monitor. Thanks to life saving technology, thousands of families can give their Type 1 diabetic children MORE freedom with a smartphone. Judging from the number of friends with smartphones I’m guessing it won’t go anywhere.
What about parents who get their kids tablets, Gameboys, Play Stations, Nintendos, etc.? Aren’t all of those equally “dangerous” for young brains? Or are we only concerned about the alleged radiation from holding the device to one’s ear (which said “danger” is far from proven)? If that’s the case, Colorado can rest assured, because my kids rarely call on their phones. They mostly text and play games.
I had a discussion on FB last night where this group claimed that buying your kid a smartphone is comparable to getting them hooked on drugs or booze. What the heck?
This proposed law does not go nearly far enough. Parents should be required to hand over their children to the state of Colorado to be continuously monitored for any signs of independence and individuality, which would be immediately nipped in the bud. When you think about it, it’s the only way to keep them truly safe.
And this groups website is even more hysterical, basically implying that if you use a smartphone around where your baby or toddler can see–OMG, you have damaged them for life–that poor child might have gone to Harvard if you just hadn’t let them see a smartphone or an iPAD. Oh, the humanity/sarc
My son has had a smart phone since he was 6 years old and had to start spending weeks at a time across the country at his father’s house. We got them so that we could use Facetime and see each 0other while we talk. That made ALL the difference in how those visits went, whether he was horribly homesick or could cope. And even if I got him a smart phone simply because I wanted to, that’s my decision. Next thing you know, these people who think they know better than I do what’s right for my son will try to make it illegal for him to ride his bike around our neighborhood or to walk to school. Oh wait . . .
Most useless POS law ever proposed.
Apparently the good Dr. doesn’t realize that iPods, tablets, home computers and even TVs now have internet access and can do everything a smartphone can do. A smartphone is merely a handheld computer with a phone app.
Lenore. RE POSSIBLE BAN OF SALE OF SMART PHONES TO CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN 13 IN COLORADO. I am less convinced about this issue than the other ones you have profiled. While I respect individual rights and am not a fan of bureaucracy, sometimes the public good takes precedence. Kids today are being robbed of their childhood and technology is a big part of that syndrome. I think that having ‘wired kids’ is antithetical to their being ‘free range kids’ in many ways. I hope that you and other well-intentioned adults will think carefully about what is in the best interests of children and youth with regard to technology in their lives. As a child advocate for more than 60 years, I believe that we need to free our youth from electronic tethers as part of their freedom to roam and explore.
Respectfully,
Garfield Pennington, Associate Professor Emeritus, University of BC
I have an inherent distrust of technology, and I do not plan on allowing my children to own smartphones until I can no longer legally prevent them from doing so. However, this is idiotic.
Colorado, you legalized weed, and you intend to outlaw children with smartphones? Thank Christ I moved out of that state.
I’m not for this ban. I’m not for this kind of government interference. But I have to admit that a teeny weeny corner of my brain would love it. I want to see kids spending more time running around and less time staring at screens.
Garfield Pennington:
What about a parents obligation to raise their children as they feel is best? As a child advocate, do you not think that a fully engaged parent is better for a child than a mere government minion telling a parent “You can’t give that phone to your child”?
Or as Judas Peckerwood so eloquently puts it, give the child to the state, just take them away from the parents because the Gov knows best?
That electronic tether can be the freedom to roam, as Jennifer Griffin points out. It’s also an immediate way to contact emergency personnel or “Mom, I’m late, I’m on my way home”. Merely having a device does not make it problem, the parents need to teach the kids.
It’s not about micromanaging children’s lives.
It’s about micromanaging YOUR life and making you a criminal to feed the prison pipeline. As a bonus they might get to sell your kid by adopting him or her out.
The only thing the children are good for, is to be used for an excuse by the fascist nuts who run the United States.
@Garfield
I don’t think this is a case where ‘the public good’ takes precedence. I think a parent knows their own child, and should be able to decide for themselves when to buy their a smartphone/iPad/etc. If you don’t wish to buy any of these devices for your child, that is certainly your right.
I’m strongly opposed to giving kids Smartphones. I’m also strongly opposed to this ban.
State intervention shouldn’t always be the go-to solution for every undesirable parenting practice.
While I’ll never align with the actual political party, motherhood has brought out a strangely Libertarian side of me that I never knew existed.
I’m also curious as to how this will stop children from using Smartphones. When a mom is standing in line at check-out and hands her fussy child a phone, will every Tom, Dick, and Snitchy now get to call the police?
You know what, my son didn’t get a smartphone until he was probably 14, but no way do I support something like this. Just as no one could force me to give my son a phone earlier, neither should a parent be kept from doing what works for them. Gah.
My two older kids bought their own smartphones at 12 and 13. I guess that makes them the criminals?
“More laws criminalizing legal behavior.”
There’s… um, not much reason for a law that criminalizes illegal behavior.
Some people need a hobby. Maybe volunteer for an animal shelter or something – where you can solve actual problems instead of trying to build hysteria around nothing.
or you could…you know…parent your kid
same thing was the _real_ cause of the bike helmet laws. Concerned parents couldnt get their kids to wear helmets so they passed laws saying all kids had to wear helmets.
Just goes to show it actually is easier to pass a law then to convince a teenager to do something he/she doesnt want to!
If the science behind restricting cell phone usage based on age is there – PSA that. Age limits on cigarettes don’t work nearly as well as education. Limiting cell phone exposure could follow a similar outline if public safety is truly at risk.
I think there’s a reason this isn’t going anywhere. And if we need more conclusive research then start applying for grants and writing research proposals. Lots of avenues here besides legislation.
I’m not sure that I agree. They’re not having the same childhood you had. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Back when I was a kid–and dinosaurs ruled the Earth–we had a phone in the house. One phone. One phone line. And, of course, my sisters would call up friends and yack on the phone. My parents eventually added a time limit because no one would be able to call in if my sisters were using the phone.
My roommate’s niece, when she was a teenager, would spend an afternoon online. Guess what she was doing? Chatting with her friends. And I’m sure it was pretty much about the same stuff that my sisters talked to their friends about way back in my day.
Now? The kids have smartphones and they spend their days texting, snap-chatting, etc. But the contents? About the same. Just like kids did back in my day.
It’s just that the medium has changed.
@brian
“Concerned parents couldnt get their kids to wear helmets so they passed laws saying all kids had to wear helmets.”
So – kids stop riding bicycles:
https://generationliberty.ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disaster
“When the laws were introduced in the early 1990s, cycling trips declined by 30-40 per cent overall, and up to 80 per cent in some demographic groups, such as secondary school-aged females. Today mandatory helmets are still a major factor deterring people from riding.”
@ Garfield Pennington “I think that having ‘wired kids’ is antithetical to their being ‘free range kids’ in many ways.”
*You* think that it is antithetical, either through your own personal experience with your own children or through research/study.
*I* think that, based on my experiences with my own children, technology has provided them with different “free range” experiences than I had.
For example, my 12 year old daughter – after helping her favorite local business clean up after a flood and helping that business owner by putting together an activity for our town “block party” – was invited to join the ADULT planning committee for all the block parties for this summer. She uses email to be a part of the communication of the team; she takes my cell phone with her so that she can reference the family calendar when the team is planning their next meeting date. She gets herself to and from the meetings (barring thunderstorms – we will give her a ride), takes her own notes as to what she has committed to do for the team, gets those things done, and uses email to confirm to the team when those items are complete (just like the other adults are doing), gets herself to the block party early to help with setup, helps run the block party, helps clean up, and if there is still enough daylight, gets herself back home. Could she do this *unwired*? Yes, but why should she when the rest of the adult team is using technology to make the project easier? It just makes sense for her to be a part of the team rather than outside of it.
My kids have used their “wired” world to connect to a published writer who took the time to review 14 yos novel that she is writing and give feedback, track moods to see how sleep/diet/other health issues were affecting her interactions with others, stay in touch with a friend in Uganda (who was in the US for a number of years) to help him improve his brick making that is done without electricity, completed extensive research on cultural and engineering topics as a basis for state science fair worthy projects, created movies about the planets (Look for Bear goes to Uranus and Bear goes to Mars on YouTube). Through all these things, these young ladies have developed interests, self confidence, and a broader world view that has taken them into exciting friendships, projects, and activities in their “unwired” world.
For “Kid A,” a phone or other wired device may be like giving a kid only candy for dinner. But for “Kid B” it may just be a balanced diet that makes her stronger and healthier in all aspects of her life. I don’t think others, who have never met my kids, should get to decide for me which it is.
I do not think young kids should have mobile phones. But this is just assinine.
Just what we need – more well-meaning but ultimately misguided social engineering through law and bureaucracy. What this doctor really needs to do is start a public education campaign. This is the lazy way out. Besides, some kids probably do have a real need for a phone.
So, what does this doc think is so damaging to kids’ health? Does he really a health concern, or more of a social one? There’s no actual evidence that using a cell phone has a measurable effect on human tissue, so is this a theoretical problem?
I just read a more detailed article about this – the good doctor is just worried that kids spend too much time on their cellphones, and not enough interacting face to face. Including his OWN kids. So, he hasn’t got the guts to tell his kids “no more” and wants the law to do it for him? Lame.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/healthtrending/this-group-wants-to-ban-smartphones-for-kids/ar-BBCS3Yc?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Lets hope the American capitalism kicks in and the electronics industry will slam that one. I’m not saying kids should have phones at all (especially after the reports of parents spying on them), but age restrictions are entire bull.
I agree that nobody under 13 (I’d put it much higher, actually) should have a smart phone, but this initiative is obviously an infringement of parental rights and parental decision making.
What would make a whole lot more sense to me would be banning smart phones in school – i.e., if kids bring them, they must be checked in at the office. Or they’re simply not allowed at all. That would do more good, and actually be legitimately within the state’s jurisdiction. (And while they’re at it, how about the schools not giving elementary school kids laptops . . .)
Maybe people should ask Why people are giving preteens phones. The first kids in our circle who had smartphones were kids of divorced parents who needed to keep coordination between multiple parties. Then, it was the kids whose parents work multiple jobs to keep a roof over their heads, so they could text when they got home so mom & dad could work without worrying, and have internet to do homework without walking to the library in a dangerous neighborhood. My kids were among the last at ~12/14 … because I wanted them to be able to check bus schedules to get home from activities & keep more of my workday for work, & receive all the text messaged reminders from teachers themselves instead of them littering my phone.
Parents aren’t quite as lazy and unthoughtful as we seem.
Colorado kids in Canon City, Colorado, were arrested a while back for sending each other selfies that law enforcement rated as pornography. They faced jail time and life on the sex offender registry.
These kids were mostly children of or related to correction officers in a city near multiple prisons.
One way to prevent recurrences of these fiascos is to outlaw phones with cameras.
Seems like overkill to me. But I don’t live in Colorado.
Do you wonder if this is based on the idea is that kids should always be supervised, so they shouldn’t need a cell phone? If you take away their phones, maybe those terrible parents will finally keep their kids inside where they belong. It seems like one more way people want to criminalize those who can’t afford to have their children baby-sat 24 hours a day.
Lets just do like in the giver. No feelings no pollution no choices but who needs all those mistakes.
I love your comment Garfield Pennington!!
“Do you wonder if this is based on the idea is that kids should always be supervised, so they shouldn’t need a cell phone? If you take away their phones, maybe those terrible parents will finally keep their kids inside where they belong.”
Um, there weren’t cell phones when I was a kid and I wasn’t supervised all the time, nor was I kept inside. Likely the same is true for you, unless you’re very, very young. Why is this suddenly so necessary?
My parents taught us to stick together, and if something catastrophic happened – such as a broken bone or concussion – to knock on nearby doors and ask the householder to call our parents. Any reason that’s so very impossible now?
This is the stupidest freaking thing I’ve heard of since some parents were arrested because their 5 year old was missing teeth.
So, there is no law on their books as to how old a child can stay home alone, but when and if they do, they shouldn’t have access to a cellphone to call 911, their parents or in case they are lost on a fieldtrip? The pot-smoking predators will love this, nice to know your kid won’t have a cellphone in their backback when they’re abducted from the bus stop or left in a hot car.
Oh, and naturally, being somewhat dense, they don’t realize that a laptop or tablet can do everything and I mean everything a smartphone can do and yet those are readily handed out in our schools. Now we’re to believe the school can do a better job protecting our kids from online predators than we can?
Get a clue!
and….as with my kids, aged 16 and 20, you CAN give them smartphones and NOT give them internet service!
sorry, one more thing…
another bad example of punishing the wood-be victim, rather than actually punishing the criminals who prey on them
seriously, if that kid weren’t allowed to be on that phone, the creep wouldn’t have been able to prey on them, keep the creeps off the cellphones, got a law for that? no, don’t suppose you do
“sorry, one more thing…
another bad example of punishing the wood-be victim, rather than actually punishing the criminals who prey on them
seriously, if that kid weren’t allowed to be on that phone, the creep wouldn’t have been able to prey on them, keep the creeps off the cellphones, got a law for that? no, don’t suppose you do”
Why is your only concern potential (in person) predators? Personally, I’m concerned about all the kids having smartphones because the average age of first exposure to pornography has become shockingly low – many researchers believe it typically happens around 8, these days, with habitual use happening not much later. Which is an impersonal predator, granted, but why is that so much better?
As we were leaving the park today brothers who are 5 and 7 years old were arriving. I said hello and the 7 year old showed me a cell phone and excitedly said, “Mom said we could come to the park!” Do I call 911 to:
A. Report children at the park.
B. Report children with a cell phone.
C. Both A and B
D. Don’t call 911. Say, “That’s great. Wish we could stay but the baby needs a nap.”
I picked D.
@nancy
You don’t let your 20 year old adult daughter have internet service on her phone?
@nancy
Pot-smoking predators? Abducted from the bus stop–what?
Part of me can’t help wondering if this might be something that a lot of parents are secretly in favor of, because they see the ill effects on their kids of spending way too much time staring at screens, but they’re afraid their kids will hate them if they’re not allowed to do what all the other kids are doing. No one wants to be the meanie –well, almost no one; my parents certainly never minded — and kids can be very relentless about wanting all the things that other kids have — but if there were a law making it illegal, then the parents would be off the hook. “I’m sorry, sweetie, you know how much I would LOVE to give you your own smart phone, but I can’t because it’s against the law.”
Parents secretly in favor of?
No, I don’t want the government telling me what I’m allowed to allow my kids to do.
My kids have tracfones – not sure if they are considered smart or not, but they can get internet, text, and call, take photos, etc. I am teaching them sensible usage while they are young enough to be subject to my rules and monitoring. They also have their own computers with internet. Do they always use them sensibly, no, and neither do I use mine sensibly all the time. I don’t believe they are in grave danger due to having access to a few gizmos.
I have my reasons for wanting my kids to have phones. I don’t impose my reasons on other parents. It’s up to them if they want to say “no” to their kids. Extend me the same courtesy.
“So, he hasn’t got the guts to tell his kids “no more” and wants the law to do it for him?”
I don’t think this is true. The article I read this morning said that he *had* taken the smartphones away from his kids who were, I think, 11 and 14 or thereabouts.
@nancy- “The pot smoking predators will love this…”
Huh? Your comments are honestly the craziest thing I’ve seen all day.
As for phones, we have a *corral* for them where everyone in our family (parents too) leave them when we get home. I think many adults are on them too much and having some basic ground rules for responsible use is better than any ban.
This is off topic but I had this thought about how they would consider not letting children use cellphones because they’re too dangerous but firearms are okay? That’s hilarious to me.
Back on topic, this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. This is not even close to being something the government should be allowed to legislate. If you don’t want your kids to have a phone don’t buy them one. Don’t infringe on my right to let my children have them. I’m not going to justify my reasons either, because it doesn’t matter. Personally I think processed foods are dangerous and don’t buy them, but I wouldn’t dream of trying to support legislation thet made boxed macaroni and cheese illegal. This is so dumb.
Of course it’s ridiculous. Please remember that it’s not even close to being enacted into law. It’s not even on the ballot, and probably will never be. It’s passed the really low threshold of demonstrating that it’s written in a clear and not misleading way. Basically this guy and maybe some of his friends put together some paperwork and attended some committee meetings. There aren’t even legislators involved who you could call; it’s a citizen initiative. So we haven’t all lost it here in Colorado!
Personally, we just got our kid a smartphone, but no service, so he and his dad can play Pokemon together. Screen time (for all of us!) is an ongoing conversation but he’s a well rounded kid and I’m confident that some video game time isn’t going to damage him.
I didn’t have a cell phone as a kid, but I did have access to payphones and neighbors if I needed a phone. That’s not always the case now. I’m not saying phones are required for kids to be by themselves, but for a lot of parents nowadays, it’s something that helps them loosen the reins a bit.
To be fair, I would make my hypothetical 16 year old pay for phone internet if not pay for her phone and the 20-year-old would definitely be in charge of her own phone, so yeah, I would not be putting internet on those phones.
Yeah, overkill. I too generally disagree with young kids having too much technology, but why is a law replacing parental decisions?
Prisoners have to use a public pay phone. How else are parents in jail going to call their kids?
Jess. & SKI. My 2 oldest (Both 16) have Smartphones. THEY EARNED. The 13 y/o given a Basic Phone. She ‘Lost ” 4 weeks in. Umm. No. Not getting you an Expensive Phone because you Lost the Flip Phone . Gibbs can solve crimes with a Flip Phone! (And Mom dealt with Pay Phones so. Yeah.)
@Garfield Pennington
While I don’t like the electronic umbilical cord (Xbox, FM, smartphones, etc) banning them from these things is not the answer. On the contrary, banning them from it will make them want it even more!
Kids don’t need to experience going outside. For example, they can download an app and become a virtual farmer! All joking aside, I agree that electronic dependence is getting in the way. However, what’s the answer to curbing this?
A smartphone is like any other tool. A hammer, for example, can be used to construct a house or to pound someone’s face in. A smartphone is no different. It can be used for free range activities or it can turn a child into a brain-dead zombie.
Why not a basic phone instead of a smart phone? One that you can only make and receive calls and texts from and has no camera in it. Use paper maps instead of smart phone map apps. Use paper diaries and calendars instead of a phone calendar.
Many great and interesting comments in this thread.
Cellphones are new to this generation of parents, but they have been part of life since today’s 11-year-olds were born.
The problem with this proposed law is that it would take choice and control away from parents. Like the child who uses hers as a glucose monitor, or the kid who needs to refer to calendar, these are tools of today’s world.
Families should be free to determine when and if a child is ready for a cellphone. And kudos to the parents who encouraged the kids to “earn” theirs.
The lessons of responsibility, the benefits of social connectedness, etc., far outweigh concerns and especially those that have not been demonstrated.
Once again, we have one person’s experience as the catalyst for a blanket law. Of course, no one thinks about the costs of creating reports, record keeping and then tracking that at a governmental level.
For all the people who talk about smaller government, this is patently ridiculous. I expect this is going nowhere, but it does speak to the larger free-range issues of trying to legislate things that are not understood and the attempt to create legislation to allay fears of what “could” happen.
My childhood was free-range (even as the earth’s crust was not yet cool) because my parents instructed me on proper behavior and responsibility and trusted me to do the right thing. Those instructions and mostly that trust were powerful because they gave me the chance to feel what every kid wants–that I was grown up enough and responsible enough to earn their trust.
@Donald
“A smartphone is like any other tool. A hammer, for example, can be used to construct a house or to pound someone’s face in. A smartphone is no different. It can be used for free range activities or it can turn a child into a brain-dead zombie.”
Is this true of everything? Should children have fragmentation grenades? I guess the grenades can be used as paperweights or doorstops, after all.
“Why not a basic phone instead of a smart phone?”
For some kids, sure, that’s a good option. But even just reading through the comments here, several people have given reasons why their kid should have a smartphone (face time with a distant parent, for instance).
In any case, the point is, who should be making the decision? Perhaps some kids do have/use too much technology. But some kids have and use it appropriately. Do you want a blanket law for all families?
Hi,
I am a blogger at MexicanCandy.org & was wondering if you would allow me to write a guest article on your website.
I will provide you with a well-written article related to Mexican candy (or other related topics). I am sure your readers will like it. 🙂
Here are some samples of my writing:
http://kaboutjie.com/sleep-routine/how-to-ensure-a-good-nights-sleep-for-your-kids/
http://www.tgdaily.com/default/7-reasons-why-summer-is-the-best-time-for-kids-to-learn
This article will be specially drafted for you and will not be posted anywhere else. Apart from that; I also invite you to post a guest article at my blog.
Regards.
Emily
playing devil’s advocate. I actually agree. Legitimate uses aside such as the glucose monitor, too much screen time in the early years is killing socialization and interpersonal interaction. I’ve seen cases where kids were right next to each other, and TEXTING instead of actually talking. Does anyone else see the problem in this?
We are losing the ability to have full proper communication, such as reading body language.
Five year olds are having to be taught how to play because they spend too much time on screens.
And yes, there is legitimate concerns about addiction. Think adults and Facebook.
@BL, Bike riding declined because the 90’s were the true beginning of “helicopter parenting”, “stranger danger” and the exponential rise of video games.
“Why not a basic phone instead of a smart phone?”
Do you really want to discuss this and hear each parent’s reasoning? Because all of us are in different situations that inform our decisions. So is the above a question or a judgment? You can’t judge without knowing the other family’s situation.
I will just say, for those who may not know (I didn’t know a year ago), a tracfone is a pretty cheap option. It costs about $20 for the phone (you can buy it anywhere – WalMart whatever), and then you go online and buy a package – I chose one that includes a set amount of calls, texts, and data every 3 months, and I believe that cost another $20 per quarter. This was my kids’ 10th birthday gift, and I don’t think it’s an outrageous amount to pay. It’s also very easy to change the package, change who pays, cancel service, or replace if lost. You can also buy the service for an old iphone that someone in the family upgraded etc. All things considered, this isn’t the gross extravagance some seem to think it is.
I didn’t need my kids to have data or a camera on their phone, but I did want them to have text and calls (for my convenience), and tracfone was the best option I found for what I wanted.
Other than that, I have my reasons, but mine may not apply to your kids at all.
For those who think having a phone = learning bad manners, I have a few thoughts.
1) You can teach your kids good manners if they have a phone. I have gone through the spiel a few times. At least they will have a clue when they get to an age when it matters more. It’s like how do you teach a child how to behave at a restaurant, if you never take them to restaurants? You can tell them what to do, but it’s not the same as going and doing it.
2) Do you think it’s bad for society when little kids write love notes to their parents? Does “I love you mommy” written on a piece of paper, with mommy 3 feet away, signal the death of social intercourse? So this morning my kid texted me “have a nice day” before she surrendered her phone. She could have “said” the words, but it’s cute to have a written note that I can look at when I want to. And for her to have the little hearts I texted her on the last day of school, which still make her smile.
There’s a place for different kinds of communication. We need to develop proper etiquette so that the texting doesn’t compromise more important social interactions. Kids are capable of learning this. Yes, it is annoying when they clearly don’t know it. Kids are annoying sometimes. Kids are learning.
Why not a basic phone instead of a smart phone? One that you can only make and receive calls and texts from and has no camera in it. Use paper maps instead of smart phone map apps. Use paper diaries and calendars instead of a phone calendar.
Why not – I buy what i want, and you buy what you want?
My first thought was, “I would think they would WANT every kid to have a cell phone. With a tracker app.” Because you know, if the kid is lost, kidnapped or such, they could just track the phone. Maybe someone should start an alternate petition with that. (Please, no!)
Crazy Cat Lady, I think they have that covered with embedded chips.
While I do understand the concern that too much screen time hinders development- socially, physically, etc-I actually think that the hysteria over technology is just as bad and against Free Range principles as hysteria about stranger danger and all the other things we discuss over here. Sure, in too-high doses, screens are unhealthy. But they’re not the scourge everyone makes them out to be and they’re nothing to panic about. I know I’m on the younger end of the parents here. I’m still in my 20s (I started having kids very young). I guess I have a different perspective because while I’m old enough to remember a world of clunky phones and slow internet that tied up the phone line, I’m not really old enough to remember a world without cell phones and internet. It’s the world I grew up in and these things are even more a part of the world now, and that genie is not going back in the bottle (and I don’t necessarily think it should either).
Just like our kids need to learn how to walk to school alone, or stay home alone periodically, and general independence skills, manners and etiquette, they also need to learn how to use technology properly- to regulate usage, proper tech etiquette, to balance their tech lives with their real lives, to be safe online, to not do stupid things online. Simply pretending you can keep them off the grid because it didn’t exist when you were growing up is not the answer. I am free ranger not because I’m trying to replicate how I grew up (and I grew up in the 90s, so I can’t say I had a super free range childhood like you 70s and 80s kids had) but because I believe it’s generally a healthier parenting style. It’s not good to get hysterical about anything, really, and screens are no exception. Be a parent, set limits, say no to behaviors you find unacceptable. Don’t ask the nanny state to step in and do your job for you.
I thought free range was about getting away from screens. How about a simple phone without internet or camera instead of a smart phone.
“I thought free range was about getting away from screens. How about a simple phone without internet or camera instead of a smart phone.”
I thought free range was about letting parents decide what’s best for their own kids. How about you raise your kids your way and I raise my kids my way (barring abuse, etc. in either case, of course).
I agree this is stupid, but a monetary fine is not a criminal penalty, it’s a civil one.
@Teresa I think we’re about getting away from helicoptering and hovering–I don’t think that most of us are Luddites. I had a free-range childhood, but I also watched TV and movies, owned a Tandy computer and played games on Atari and Commodore.
Someone mentioned using a pay phone in an emergency, when they were young.
Pay phones are becoming as rare as hen’s teeth, and, if you can find one that is actually working, expensive (911 calls are free, but just calling home would be expensive)
So, yeah, cell phones are a good thing for kids to have.
As for the good Doctor worried about interactions? Parenting: you’re doing it wrong.
I didn’t examine the proposal, but just from the excerpt in this post, the title seems wrong. It sounds like the retailer would be the one in trouble (with just a fine) and the parents would not be criminalized at all. Still a bad idea, but not what your title makes it sound like.
“I agree this is stupid, but a monetary fine is not a criminal penalty, it’s a civil one.”
Huh?
See, as an example, Oregon Revised Statute 813.010.
I think that giving smart phones to youngsters is a really bad idea.
That said, this bluer-than-blue liberal thinks *yet another* feel good law is dumb beyond imagining.
I’m no luddite and I watch TV and use a lap top but it wasn’t so long ago when I didn’t have a smart phone at all and relied on a landline phone. Using a smart phone and the ordinary mobile phones before them means being less prepared in a physical sense. Once young people started carrying mobile phones around they took less care to equip themselves with extra money, maps, spare clothing and food as they could always rely on Mum or Dad to pick them up in case they got in trouble.
“That said, this bluer-than-blue liberal thinks *yet another* feel good law is dumb beyond imagining.”
Right, conservatives never pass buttinsky-type laws to control anyone. Like what a woman can do with her own body, for instance.
Incidentally, Colorado is a pretty purple state – do you know for sure that the people pushing this are liberal?
@Teresa –well I grew up in the suburbs of southeastern VA–didn’t really need extra clothes or a map to bike or walk around the neighborhood or go to the beach, the mall or the roller rink. Unless you count family camping trips or Girl Scout camp. That being said, if there had been cell phones that weren’t the size of large bricks back then, I definitely would have taken advantage of that over all the quarters spent on pay phones. And I would not have said no to a smartphone.
And what happens when the only cell phones that can be purchased are smartphones?
My oldest was 11 or 12 when she got her first phone. She rode the school bus home in the afternoons, getting off at the stop that was just outside the elementary school her brother attended. It was perfect because she would be dropped off at the time her brother was getting out, then they would walk home.
Until the day her brother called me from the school office letting me know that his sister never arrived. After some more discussion, it was revealed that the bus had never arrived. He walked home and an hour later, his sister arrived.
Turned out that the district had been short buses that day due to several field trips. My daughter’s bus had pulled double duty, adding extra stops and pick-ups to the route. The middle school principal and the superintendent of the district all agreed that the ball had been dropped in regards to notifying parents of this.
She got the phone the next day — it wasn’t a “smartphone”, but it was a step below one (the least advanced phone the store carried) — in the event something like this happened again.
“A smartphone is like any other tool. A hammer, for example, can be used to construct a house or to pound someone’s face in. A smartphone is no different. It can be used for free range activities or it can turn a child into a brain-dead zombie.”
If I had a penny for every time I’ve heard this argument, I’d be a billionaire. But it’s total hogwash. If you think the tools we have at our disposal don’t affect who we are, what choices we make, and how we think, you haven’t given much serious thought to the human condition. We don’t make and use our tools while remaining completely unaffected by them, as if we were some kind of gods – we use them, and they shape us. Do you seriously think you’d be the person you are if you didn’t have an opposable thumb? (But it’s just a tool! It can be used for any purpose as well as any other!)
This is true even of simple, straightforward tools like hammers – ever heard the saying, “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”?
But it is far, far, FAR more deeply the case with tools like language and other media of communication. Language is a tool, but do you honestly think that which language you grew up speaking has no effect on how you perceive the world and think about it?
I had a housemate who found talking to people, even her closest friends, intimidating, and took to using texting instead of talking any chance she could. (I gather this is actually not uncommon today.) Do you really want to say that’s just a tool, and the psychological impact of that tool is just an accident?
How about turning this around: if what tools we have and use routinely doesn’t affect who we are and become. deep down, what in the world do you think does have such an effect?
@anna
“I had a housemate who found talking to people, even her closest friends, intimidating, and took to using texting instead of talking any chance she could. (I gather this is actually not uncommon today.) Do you really want to say that’s just a tool, and the psychological impact of that tool is just an accident?”
Sorry, but am I supposed to see this as something negative? Some people are extroverts and some people are introverts. Some people are better at writing than face to face interactions–that’s always been a fact of life.
“Sorry, but am I supposed to see this as something negative?”
Um, yeah, you are supposed to? I’m an introvert too, but real in-person interactions with other people are the stuff of life. Especially when we’re talking about friendship. Technologies that help people cut out in-person interactions with their friends are helping those people opt out of being alive. Which might be easier sometimes, but it’s certainly not making anybody’s life better or fuller.
I think this is will be good for parents like us. Mine is still too little but i would never give her a phone before 15!
I think people tend to seriously overreact when it comes to kids and technology. People behave as if it is the most dangerous thing out there, and move to restrict usage for as long as possible rather than educate. Like abstinence-only sex education, and the war on drugs, complete restriction from all electronic devices for most of a person’s childhood is likely to backfire and yield the complete opposite of the intended effect.
I also think people forget that a kid’s first phone doesn’t necessarily have to be state of the art. If you can’t afford something fancy, are afraid of them losing it, or otherwise using it irresponsibly, there are always cheap out-of-date models, which can’t do much more than calling, to start out with before moving up to the smartphone.
@anna
Well actually I’m an extrovert, but I see no problem with tools like smartphones that help children and others who have difficulties with verbal communication, whether it’s due to shyness or other issues, such as speech impediments, autism, etc. My cousin has autism, and being able to communicate and write stories online has really helped him to make friends and come out of his shell. Sorry, but I’m still not seeing a negative here.
@Zema
If you already don’t wish to give your child a smartphone before age 15–which is your right as a parent–then how will the legislation help you?
Mya whatever phone you choose don’t get it from the government . those aren’t worth it. You do better getting someone old phone.
Zema Khan–
So why do you need a law? It’s fine for you to not buy her one before she’s 15. A new law wouldn’t change anything about that.
“I think this is will be good for parents like us.”
You mean parents who don’t know how to say the word “no”? Parents who don’t know how to set their own limits? Parents who don’t know how to teach and guide kids to live in the world we actually live in, and instead want some outside force to ensure that your kids live in a bubble? When your kids misbehave in public to you point to a police officer and tell them that he’s going to take them to jail? Seriously, if you don’t want your children to have phones before age 15 that is perfectly fine, but do your own darn parenting wouldja?
You’ve got to wonder though, barring extenuating circumstances, if a parent wishes to wait until 15 until giving their child a phone, if that’s more about parental insecurities and anxieties than the actual capabilities of the child to handle the responsibility of having the device. I find it fascinating that many of those who are happy to criticize the proposed age limits written about in many of the pieces on this site, are saying that Zema Khan’s idea is perfectly sane.
There nothing wrong with any phone at any age as long as the person using it use it responsibly. When I first heard about tablets I thought expect for dyslexic folk why would anyone need it. Then I got one and for a bookworm it’s prefect. But I still like old fashion books too.
Yeah, I used to think audiobooks were for people who wouldn’t or couldn’t read. Now I’m hooked, and so are my kids. 🙂 We still read with our eyes too.
Damnit Dr. Farnum, if you don’t like cell phones for kids, then don’t buy YOUR kid one but don’t tell me that I can’t buy my kid one!
Colorado is a bastion of liberalism that believes in big government. I really believe if somebody challenges this and it makes it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be shot down big time!
Excuse me, Dr. Farnum seems to have a bug up his butt for smart phones, not ordinary cell phones. So my request to him still stands. If he doesn’t like SMART phones for kids, then he shouldn’t buy his kid one but he doesn’t have the same right to tell me or anyone else for that matter, that we can’t buy a smart phone for our kids!
“I had a housemate who found talking to people, even her closest friends, intimidating, and took to using texting instead of talking any chance she could. (I gather this is actually not uncommon today.) Do you really want to say that’s just a tool, and the psychological impact of that tool is just an accident?”
So she made use of technology to perform a task that otherwise would have been a problem? That sounds like the definition of a tool.
I think this is will be good for parents like us. Mine is still too little but i would never give her a phone before 15!
How will this law impact parents like you? Were you afraid that you’d be incapable of not buying a phone before age 15 without such a law?
“Why not a basic phone instead of a smart phone? One that you can only make and receive calls and texts from and has no camera in it. Use paper maps instead of smart phone map apps. Use paper diaries and calendars instead of a phone calendar.”
As a self-professed Luddite-leaning person, this was my attitude- until I got one! Last year I finally replaced my flip-phone with a smart one. The primary motivation was the birth of my first grandchild and the desire to show off photos that were bigger than 1″. I’ve never had a problem using paper maps, but I sure like NOT having to repeatedly check written instructions while in traffic, and that calendar that automatically syncs with the one on my home computer has been a life-changer! There are some GREAT tools on these hand-size computers, and I’m not going to deny that many children could make great use of them.
Our family has always had Trac-phones. Very affordable. We have always paid for ONE children’s phone, which was given to the oldest child- the one in charge when we weren’t home, and the one most likely to be out and about and needing rides. When gainfully employed, the eldest bought her own phone and plan, and the family phone passed to the next child. Second also bought his own phone as soon as he could pay for it himself. Phone passed to the third, and youngest. Or would have, but he was already employed, and took a pass on the freebie flip phone in favor of his own smart phone.
As a healthcare provider who works with children, I think limiting screen time is essential for proper development. However, this law is asinine and tramples the rights of parents to make their own decisions.
In the same vein, kids shouldn’t have access to blenders because they might make milkshakes instead of kale smoothies.
ah shucks.
I just feel like dropping the big fat childhood obesity bomb right here, Garfield.
Other than diet of course, the other big reason for ballooning babies is lack of physical movement.
I’ve said this before:
When I as a kid, really needed a break from my dysfunctional family – I checked out the kitchen door in a rash rush….and physically connected with a real world that sure helped me to get my mind off my troubles.
Now – when that “rash rush” requires an adult chauffeur (who while contributing to the opportunity for departure, will no doubt supervise the bejesus out of said child’s exit, destination, whereabouts, and all the other wherefors and whys…..
well, crap. Why bother? Why not just exit in a deliciously sedentary, digital kind of way? Just reach for a teckie toy. And tune in, turn off, drop out, ignore, etc. ad nauseum.
And how often does this happen?
No-one ever wants to know, who is actually and in fact addicted to them there teckie toys. And why would they?
Addiction is serious cash, trash.
So do I think smart phones are wise accoutrements for kids?
Depends.
A random diversion.
A useful communication tool…
Just don’t let it bring the cops to the door, kid.
I really can’t believe this. Under age 13? What about teens and even adults? Most teens are masters at texting and knows every crooks and cranny using a smart phone. I for one who is an older adult are not near as savvy as they are. I still have problems with certain things on my phone. I think this law is unjustified. I also feel it is up to the parents of younger boys and girls whether the phone is used properly or not. Still, would any teen or younger follow all the rules? Supposedly not. They are not perfect and misuse can happen because of their inquisitiveness. Hell, I even tried going to a porn site at one time. It is so easy to do. Pretty soon, these cell phones will do our thinking for us and they already do some of it. Talk to Google and Amazon, they will tell you that these smartphones are going to be smarter than you. Their working on it and finding ways to hook you to their digital system. I found this on 60 minutes recently and it is scary in a way how they are trying to control your brain to react on what they want. It works too. I believe it is called mind conditioning. No matter what, your smart phone is never going away. It is there to haunt you of every message that comes in whether it is legit or not. I get so many of these messages, I just answer them because I know it is an ad, a scam, or possibly phishing. So, I feel that smartphones are useful and not be banned by CO for the age that they specify.
I want to make a correction on my recent post. The sentence at the near bottom stated as:
I get so many of these messages, I just answer them because I know it is an ad, a scam, or possibly phishing SHOULD BE I get so many of these messages, I just DONT answer them because I know it is an ad, a scam, or possibly phishing. Sorry about the error.
“Kids today are being robbed of their childhood and technology is a big part of that syndrome.”
In what specific ways are cell phones (or other electronic devices” “robbing [children] of their childhood”? How, precisely, do you define robbing, children, and childhood?
These are not sarcastic questions. The concept of children HAVING a childhood is the product of the Industrial Revolution; before that (and well into it) children did work. On farms–where most of the population of the Earth lived–they did chores such as basic care for animals, working in the dairy, tending to the fields, assisting with harvests, and other activities. In cities it wasn’t uncommon for children to be employed in factories (the beer industry drastically reduced child labor by introducing mechanical means for making glass bottles).
As for “children”, this is a loaded term. We can assume, given the wording of the legislation, that anyone under 13 years of age is considered a child, but there are complexities. There are legal ways in which a child can be given majority status despite being less than 18, for example. And less formally, would a 12 year old who cares for their siblings because their parents are deadbeats or too drugged up to do so (or in jail, or dead) be considered a child? This happens in some rough neighborhoods, after all.
As for “robbing”, this implies intentional harm. It also very strongly implies that you have a very specific definition of “childhood” that you wish us all to comply with. It is inevitable–and as a professor you should be well aware of this–that your personal biases will creep into this issue. After all, you’re ignoring the fact that many kids find smartphones useful and fun, dismissing their opinions and replacing them with your own. BY DEFINITION you are doing what I’m accusing you of. So why should we bow to your preferred brand of childhood, instead of opting to work with our children–whom you have never met and cannot speak for–to determine what’s best for them?
Or, to put it much more briefly: Why should we accept the opinion of someone who we have never met, who has never met our children, and who has no skin in the game, over and above our own considered opinions on how to handle the realities of the 21st century?
Childhood does not end at 12, atleast i never gpt the message it did. I hate when people say this young teen are still kids and need to act like it.
@Amy–while some teens mature faster than others, there is still quite a bit of difference-physically and psychologically- between a teen and a younger child.
This will not work. Most of Colorado’s population lives in Denver, which is only 102 miles away from Cheyenne. A parent would wants to buy the under-13 a cellphone could drive to Cheyenne to buy one.
There is no way the State Of Colorado can stop a parent from driving to Cheyenne, Wyoming to buy their kid a cellphone.
And the law does not criminallize. The law enacts civil penalties for cell phone stores who knowing sell to kids under 13,
Although I agree with the premise of not allowing children and teens to have smart phones, I do not agree with the government getting involved. Parents have a God-given right to decide what is best for their children and that doesn’t and should not come with the governmnet’s influence in areas that do not concern the law about more serious actions and situations.
I would argue that the younger a child is when given access to social media, cell phones, and the internet the better they are at handling the responsibilities when it matters- like going through puberty. Hand a 16 yr old access to the world, pornography, social media pitfalls, etc without prior experience is much more dangerous.
I would also argue that children watching how their parents use technology and social media is a better teacher than a short lecture and cell phone contract.
But the bottom line is, it’s really no one’s business. Certainly not the government’s responsibility.
My 8 and 11 yr old have phones, because I wanted them to have them. I usually don’t limit screen time because there is no evidence that screen time hysteria is anything more than a boogeyman. Your children can and will regulate themselves if you give them the opportunity to. Leading by example is the best way to teach that, not timers and the sky is falling doomsday blanket statements about the internet.
My eldest got a tracfone for her 10th birthday last October. 8 months later, she has 4 or 5 people in her “contacts” whom she calls / texts / accepts calls from. She has several games which she plays on car rides and such. She looks up various things on the web using her limited data allowance.
Does having a phone stop her from having a childhood or developing properly? Let’s see. Since last October, she finished the 6th grade with honor roll all year. Participated in 4 school sports, band, theater, choir, and youth group at school. Was a member of a gymnastics performance team throughout the school year, performing at various public venues. Ran three 5K races. Earned a dozen scout badges / patches / pins. Rode horses, biked, swam, fished, camped, boated, hiked. Traveled overseas (with family). Read dozens of books. Completed a variety of community service. Cooked, did laundry, cared for pets, spent quality time with family. Cultivated friendships. Worked on difficult issues.
Having a phone has not been an issue. What I do see as an issue, with this specific child, is how TV affects her when she watches more than a limited amount. We are not perfect here, but nobody knows what my kid needs better then me and her. Same goes for the other kid – different personality, different needs, but we can handle it without government interference.
Sorry, I meant 5th grade, not 6th grade, in the above.
My 11 year old has had a flip phone since she was 8 (no landline in our house) and got a smartphone this year. She negotiated for the smartphone when we thought her flip phone had broken (line was actually hacked) and she paid for it herself out of her allowance. We have issues with her being on the phone too much when we are home. My parents similarly complained about me watching too much TV, and now as an adult I hardly ever watch TV.
My daughter also has a full range of extracurricular activities and free play time with her friends. She would much rather go to a friends’ or do something other than hang out on her phone, but will hang out on her phone when nothing is going on.
Jenny c, sorry it took me so lomg to respond. I see what you are saying, I just hate kids seem to be ashured out of being kids so quickly. From peers to parents kids are getting the message that they need to be “over” being kids or else they aren’t cool or mature enough. Cool if a kid does mature faster, but i don’t think saying kids (young teens) should go out and olay/hang out is a bad thing.