An Answer to Kill Your T.V. about the Harm Principle...

To answer Marcel Duchamp's T.V. Killer: <-- This links to a copy of the original post from which you can click one more link and view or even respond to the original on a forum where I'm not welcome to post, and; therefore, I don't, even though these copies should be proof enough that I could if I was the sort to sneak around and do so under pseudonyms rather than simply copying the whole topic to my blog or linking to it on ILovePhilosophy.com.

Here's what Kill Your T.V. had to say a couple of days ago:

One of the major tenants of the enlightenment is the Harm Principle. According to it, unless there is direct physical harm directly from a person's actions it is an alright action legally. This doesn't go into ethics, but your question seems to me more about the law. It is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves. And if the person is not mature enough to be able to this, it is their parents responsibility to keep an eye over them. Which brings up the issue of parental protection vs. over protection. 
_____________________
"Look at yourselves. Some of you teenagers, students. How do you think I feel and I belong to a generation ahead of you - how do you think I feel to have to tell you, 'We, my generation, sat around like a knot on a wall while the whole world was fighting for its human rights - and you've got to be born into a society where you still have that same fight.' What did we do, who preceded you ? I'll tell you what we did. Nothing. And don't you make the same mistake we made...."
-Malcolm X

Note that Kill Your T.V. merely brings up several issues without actually discussing them, which is quite interesting in relation to her signature pointing out the feelings of a do-nothing generation highlighted by a quote from Malcolm X about inheriting the unfinished fight for human rights from elders who were mostly talk with little effective action. In sterling contrast, Kill Your T.V. fails to even proffer effective talk.

Let's analyze this non argument point by point.

1) The Harm Principle is a major tenant of the enlightenment. I am unable to find any mention under the European Enlightenment; however, from Wikipedia I found:

The harm principle is attributed to John Stuart Mill's most famous work, On Liberty. Mill defines the harm principle in chapter 1 as follows: "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Which seems sufficient for this analysis. Contrary to Kill Your T.V.'s next claim:

2) The Harm Principle determines that actions which don't directly cause physical harm are legal. Mill defines an Ethical principle about how power can be "rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community ... to prevent harm to others." Thus negating Kill Your T.V.'s following assertion:

3) Hypatia Theon's question is more about law than ethics: If this discussion were about whether the scope of law is limited by the harm principle, there are numerous counter examples; however, both Mill's definition and Hypatia Theon's thesis are primarily focused on ethical considerations, so although mention of the law is not a red herring here since determining precisely the local nature of  the force of law in the relevant community (Plano, Texas, U.S.A.) and how it might be applied as a useful tool to leverage change of a bad policy regarding cyber sex on AmiaWorld.net is a very relevant topic for discussion (Entirely eschewed by Kill Your T.V.) it none-the-less remains true that our overall topic is primarily applied ethics within which the law is potentially one part of  the particular instance of application of ethics.

4) It is the individual's responsibility to protect themselves. Hypatia Theon agrees as Mill certainly would, too. Naturally, this includes protecting ourselves, and by extension our family, from sexual predators.

5) It's the responsibility of parents to keep an eye on their kids. Of course it is, and that's what this (in the wide sense of not only these posts but our blogs, too) is all about. To be precise: Does our responsibility to protect our children from sexual exploitation extend to a right to open discussion on the forums of game sites of the management's policies regarding cyber sex?

6) Which brings up the issue of parental protection vs. over protection. Which is, to be sure, exactly where we might go astray as parents, so discussion seems in order, nicht wahr?