phew!

It's still early Sunday morning and so far I've gotten about 35 emails about my op-ed in the Washington Post on the vile Internet cartoon, "Happy Tree Friends."
They're running about 2-1 in favor of the column. The people who like it are calling me courageous and thanking me and wanting to sign up for a campaign against media violence and specifically this site. Those that oppose it are mostly making ad hominum attacks on my parenting style, charging me with neglect for letting my kids at any time watch the Internet unsupervised.
Wow. While I'm glad I've hit a nerve, I guess some of the critics didn't read the part where I said one of my sons discovered this site at summer camp. I'm wondering if they think I shouldn't ever have anyone else care for my children. Perhaps I should home-school them. I feel guilty -- not!
But I'm concerned these readers missed a larger point. I'm a very, very blessed mommy, with a part-time job of my choosing and time to chase my kids around the house and supervise, to a huge extent, their media experience and everything else. But I'm in a very small minority here. My worry is mostly for the majority of kids growing up today who don't have this luxury....
I also got some criticism for not advocating censorship of the Internet. Here, I'm wondering just how this would take place, and certainly welcome ideas. Should the U.S. government file suit against people who design content that one reader called "cultural terrorism"? Who would set the standards, and how, on the Internet, could governments control this? It's not something I researched in the story as I think the Internet on the whole has been a huge boon to society and am not comfortable with the idea of censorship. But I'm sure curious what these advocates of controls might suggest.