> Children are people, not property, and they ought to be treated as such. Children certainly aren't property, and they certainly are people. Immature, 'work

> Children are people, not property, and they ought to be treated as such. Children certainly aren't property, and they certainly are people. Immature, 'work in progress' people. Our autistic son is a person, and not property. At the age of 17 years, he also has a reasonable command of language. The only reason he can talk today is because we spent years using various techniques to strongly encourage him to learn language. Most of these were positive reinforcement: do this thing and you'll get something you want. Some were negative reinforcement: if you do this other thing, then you lose something you want. This was an enormous and draining work. At the age of six, he was evaluated by a world class group of autism experts in the SF bay area, and we were told, point blank, that he would never speak. It's true that this is a special case, but it's meant to clearly illustrate the underlying truth: to have positive outcomes, most children require variable amounts of coercion. More to the point: I agree that it's relatively easy for most people and many children to work around DNS based censorship. I think it can be useful in some cases, but not as many as its proponents believe. It's still a useful tool.