3 ms·
Most of the world (with the US as one of the most notable exceptions) has signed on to the rights of children and they have a right to a safe and sound upbringi
by tyfon 8y ago
Most of the world (with the US as one of the most notable exceptions) has signed on to the rights of children and they have a right to a safe and sound upbringing. When the parents fail to do that either due to drugs (including alcohol), religion or general neglect/disinterest the child doesn't lose that right.
- nkkollaw 8y agoI don't see how that's related to what we're talking about--except as an attempt to take an even more extreme set of cases to justify the need for regulating what everybody can and cannot read online. In the extremely rare cases where parents aren't able to take care of children, new guardians might be assigned by the government, but then they would take on the same responsibilities as the original parents, including not letting a kid starve himself to death because of an internet video. If you mean that the State is justified to intervene in some cases sure--but it depends how extreme these cases are. Certainly not what people post on the internet (on top of already existing laws that regulate dangerous behavior).