Where policy and practice collide: Comparing United States, South African and European Union approaches to protecting children online
Open accessAbstract
That children have a right to protection when they go online is an internationally well-established principle, upheld in laws that seek to safeguard children from online abuse and exploitation. However, children’s own transgressive behaviour can test the boundaries of this protection regime, creating new dilemmas for lawmakers the world over. This article examines the policy response from both the Global North and South to young people’s online behaviour that may challenge adult conceptions of what is acceptable, within existing legal and policy frameworks. It asks whether the ‘childhood innocence’ implied in much protection discourse is a helpful basis for promoting children’s rights in the digital age. Based on a comparative analysis of the emerging policy trends in Europe, South Africa and the United States, the article assesses the implications for policymakers and child welfare specialists as they attempt to redraw the balance between children’s online safety while supporting their agency as digital citizens.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Comparative data across devices, time, and demographic groups enables evidence-based policy decisions, a critical component when addressing media regulation and education to avoid knee-jerk responses.
“Comparative data across devices, time, and demographic groups enables evidence-based policy decisions, a critical component when addressing media regulation and education to avoid knee-jerk responses (Lemish, 2015; Bulger, Burton, O'Neill, & Staksrud, 2017).”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Bulger, Burton, O'Neill, & Staksrud, 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy
Bulger, M., & Davison, P. (2018) · Journal of Media Literacy Education · doi:10.23860/jmle-2018-10-1-1 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Self-citationPopat, A., & Tarrant, C. (2023) · Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/13591045221092884 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bulger, M., Burton, P., O’Neill, B., & Staksrud, E.
- Affiliations
- Data & Society Research Institute (US)
- Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, South Africa
- Dublin Institute of Technology (IE)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Staksrud, Elisabeth
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-01-16
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 750-764
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2572199028
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 45.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Northwestern University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Social Justice Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Children's Rights and Participation
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Keywords
- child online safety, child protection policy, children's rights, online child abuse, online child exploitation, childhood innocence, digital citizenship, children's agency, comparative policy analysis, United States, South Africa, European Union
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review