3 ms·
whenever both are true simutaneously: 1. child doesn't want to share his online presence with his/her parents 2. and the parents still insist on it then this
by VladRussian 15y ago
whenever both are true simutaneously:
1. child doesn't want to share his online presence with his/her parents
2. and the parents still insist on it
then this parent/child relationship has much more serious problem than just the issue of access to the online page, and applying the government force on the side of the parent against the will of the child - how would it make the situation better?
- jerf 15y agoBear in mind that parents can be liable for the actions of their children in a variety of ways. If a parent can be hit with negligence because they allowed someone to abduct their child because they were seduced away by somebody obviously creepy on $SOCIAL_NETWORK, then they need the power to discharge their legally-obligated parenting responsibilities. I'm not saying this PROVES this is a good law or anything, I haven't read it, I'm just saying that this should be taken into account when trying to figure out the correct child-parent rights balance. If you come down on the side of the child, you are also saying that you agree that the parent is legally blameless if something goes wrong. I'm not sure everybody is quite ready to take that step. You should also consider the full age range; I think a lot of people mentally consider only late teens, but it has to work for 7-year-olds too, and all other ages. Everybody is on the net now.