[mixmastamyk]

You may be too deep in the community to appreciate, but younger teens have had family supervision for millennia and for good reason. Their brains are not fully formed yet.

That you can think up a problematic case doesn’t mean we throw out the concept for the other 90% of kids that benefit from involved parents. Some of the rest are suicide risks even when not being harassed. They’d benefit as well.

I personally grew up in a “lord of the flies” environment and wouldn’t recommend it. Would have been nice to have some guidance, even if not perfect.

[morbia]

> You may be too deep in the community to appreciate, but younger teens have had family supervision for millennia and for good reason. Their brains are not fully formed yet.

Of course, I'm not claiming otherwise. Hell, I'm not even saying that legally children should be entitled to privacy from their parents, clearly that isn't feasible or desireable in any way.

However, morally and ethically it is not black or white. It is not a case of "lord of the flies" or parental prison as a binary choice.

Honestly, I'm not even disagreeing with the original poster I replied to. I don't think they were wrong for snooping on their child's internet history. I just wanted to start an open discussion on a legitmate concern caused by snooping which many families go through. It is something that heterosexual parents often do not consider or appreciate because it was not part of their experiences when they grew up. To use your terms, they are "too deep in their community" to appreciate it.

[mixmastamyk]

Sure. The internet has become even more dangerous as time goes by however, so I don't feel like it should be the first or only solution to the real problem cases you mention.

[themitigating]

That's great, feel free to supervise your kids. You don't get to use the government to do it. Are you saying that the 1st amendment can have exceptions if a child's safety is at stake?

[mixmastamyk]

Oh but we do. Kids have been prohibited from entering bars and buying tobacco, by law for a long time. We generally think that's a good thing, and why it continues to be law.

[themitigating]

Ok that's fair. It turns out that guns are the leading cause of death for kids in the US. Can we make exceptions to the 2nd admendment?

[mixmastamyk]

Important to keep in mind that, the Bill of Rights limits the federal government, not individuals.

That said, I'd like to see some restrictions/consequences around gun violence in homes, but unsure how that conflicts with 2A; IANAL.

[themitigating]

I'm going to let NY know they can ban all guns since the bill of rights doesn't apply to them

[mixmastamyk]

Yes, the Constitution limits state govts as well, a slight misstatement written in a hurry.

Your obtuse pedantry is not useful. Particularly when it appears you still have missed the main point of the previous statement—that the Constitution limits government, not citizens.

Also, these laws restrict children, not adults as you're suggesting. Basically this whole subthread is irrelevant. Good day.

[themitigating]

Can states arrest people for what they say?