When delving into the history of censorship and age appropriateness you must first examine how children were treated and viewed from a historical perspective. What is felt to be inappropriate in today‘s society was commonly accepted by previous generations. Some societies viewed children as depraved, causing the adults around them to treat children as miniature adults. In ancient Greece and Rome children were immersed in literature, song and celebrations of sexual acts. Relationship between an adult male and an adolescent boy were not uncommon. Christian societies of the Middle Ages encouraged young people to marry as close to puberty as possible, twelve being an average age for females and fourteen for males. This was done for two reasons, to improve the odds of childbearing and to prevent pre-marital sex. In Medieval and Early Modern Europe adults and children shared the same room or the same bed, usually because it was the only one. Children to learned about sex by observation.
There is great debate over when
the concept of childhood innocence began.
Philippe Aries, author of Centuries of Childhood,
believes that
the concept began in the 17th century. Aries argued that before the
17th century “children were mixed with adults as soon as they were
capable of doing without their nannies” (Hawes and Hiner 1985). This introduced
them to adult behavior at an early stage. The publication of John Locke’s
Thoughts Concerning Education, published in the 17th century,
supports Aries theory of when the concept began. Locke presented
children as being blank slates. This meant that the environment around children
would influence what type of person they would grow up to become. This caused
many parents to take a longer look at what children were exposed to .
Some feel that the concept began before the 17th century. Linda Pollock
believes that there is evidence to support the fact that some parents began
doting on their children as early as the 16th century. She does concede that
there were still many others who continued to view children with contempt during
this period. Another belief, held by Lloyd DeMause, was that “each generation
of parents grew in their capacity to love and care for children, they became
better parents than those of previous generations, and thereby provided an
essential foundation for general social progress” (Hawes and Hiner 1985). With
this statement we can conclude that DeMause believes that the concept was one
that developed over time. We may never have an actual date as to when the
concept began. What seems to have most likely occurred was that it was a belief
that progressed over time and with its progression the desire for censorship
arose.
The first acts of censorship revolved around protecting children’s sexual
innocence. In England, physicians began advising parents on what should be
exposed to children. They encouraged parents to shield their children from
literature, operas, and plays, fearing that their content was too graphic. The
first real act of censorship came in 1728 when the works of Edmund Curl came
into question. It was believed that the works contained several lewd passages.
The Attorney General argued that the “obscene poems” would lead to the
“corruption of youth” (Heins 2001). It was this argument that lead to the
creation of a new common-law, the crime of obscenity. This would become the
first of many laws that would be created in the name of protecting children.
The State of Arkansas has recently passed a law (5-68-501. Definitions. 5-68-502. Unlawful acts.) to strengthen restrictions on minor’s access to pornographic materials. It mandates anything deemed ‘harmful to minors’ be segregated and the bottom two-thirds of the covers obscured. It also distinguishes between younger and older minors. Supporters of the law say the intent is not to restrict materials for adults or change the definition of harmful to minors, just to make it harder for minors to access. Those who oppose the law say it is vaguely written and would place unreasonable restrictions on adults and business owners. They claim the definition of harmful is overly broad and could include legitimate literature. The law is not currently being enforced while the courts determine whether it is constitutional.