> Including minors, whose rights it's most socially acceptable to infringe, and who can't vote so politically they don't matter. It is absolutely reasonable to

> Including minors, whose rights it's most socially acceptable to infringe, and who can't vote so politically they don't matter. It is absolutely reasonable to advocate for those rights and what those rights are, and observe when they're being infringed. Minors have plenty of human rights as well as legal rights. The only thing you are worried about is your owm ability to indoctrinate other people's children who are not mature enough to see through propaganda, you want to get them as young and naive as possible because you feel 18yr olds are too hard to deceive I guess? Because why else would you insist on infringing on parental rights if your indoctrination is correct? > "minor" should not mean an utter lack of ability to learn about other viewpoints. Minor children have rights as well, and I'm arguing that "find out viewpoints other than those of your parents" is not in fact a right that should be restricted until you turn 18 That is not a right at all. You are talking about how things should be not what a democratic society agreed is a right. Parents can absolutley prevent their children from learning about harmful ideologies or content. They can even force schools to exclude their kids from sex-ed that isn't inline with their beliefs. They can homeschool them or raise them in the woods isolated from the world. The only alternative viee points children have to learn about are those prescribed in the education system as manadatory because those are skills they need to survive as adults. And even that is very debatable, beyond reading and writing most things are fluid there. You just really don't like the idea that people will raise religious kids. You should know that this is such a basic right that no law can take it away from parents, even I would participate in armed conflict over this. You have the right to free speech which I am more than willing to respect but you are arguing for freedom of reach here, and not just to anyone but to minors who are members of society explicitly designated as too weak and immature to care and fend for themselves and it is the entire reason people have children, to pass on their ways and themselves. People don't have children just to increase the population. And information and "view points" or even their ability to interact with arbitrary content/people can be considered harmful. TV and movies have to go through rigorous rating specically so that parents can prevents kids from discovering alternative view points. Think of it this way, it sounds like you want your secular world views indoctrinated to kids, but that also means every religion has the right to indoctrinate your child but not just that every corporate interest, the military, the porn industry, and so much more also must be allowed to indoctrinate your child against your permission. At that point in your ideal world, parents are merely food and shelter providers, nothing more. > That isn't a very politically feasible thing to advocate. It is, however, useful to argue the correlates: it's a good thing that children sometimes manage to work around restrictions placed on their access, it's a good thing that such restrictions are not perfectly secure, and it's a bad thing for them to become more difficult to bypass. You are justifying means because you like ends. Kids also kill themselves, get eating disorders and self harm as a result of bypassing these restrictions. It's not a good thing for parents to not be able to protect their children best they can, weaking of that ability is never a good thing. Children should have access to social services and the police though in case their parents are abusive, not just holding unpopular views. > I wish all the success in the world to anyone trying to work around restrictions they're under in order to learn when they've been prevented from doing so. And I wish unending failure and disappointment to anyone trying to build systems to control and lock down such access. For adults I agree. For children, absolutley no way! I advocate for the right to be raised protected from alternative view points and indoctrinated by parents. Parents have the right to live isolated from technology and any viewpoints in the woods and homeschool their kids and raise them to be vile nazis or extereme communists so long as they can read and write and are able to leave the family when they are 18. I highly recommend watching "captain fantastic" which is about a very liberal family raising their kids in the woods, shielded from alternative view points like this. Ultimately you should recognize that every responsibility and obligation comes with a right. Parents have an obligaion to their children for bringing them into the world and as a result they have many rights over them. But the ability to indoctrinate and regulate their children's viewpoints is not just their right but also an obligation they have to keep them safe both physically and mentally. Children are very easy to influence and indoctrinate, that's why anyone from the gun industry to the porn and tech industry tries to get to them as young as possible to see things their way. And parents have every right to get in the way. And the government doesn't get to decide what content is harmful so parents get to do that.