Texas is pushing a bill to block under-18s from joining social media platforms

[ScottSoapbox]

I love my guns what are you smoking and I understand rights, I also understand that someone without a fully brain needs certain restrictions as they lack the development to make correct choices, in truth the brain's thought center isn't fully devolved until you're in your mid to late 20's, this is medical science not feeling. So, restricting a child that doesn't have a fully formed brain and lacks the ability to properly and maturely interact is the correct response. This isn't a misunderstanding of anything, its medical and scientific fact.

Restricting a child does not mean they have no rights.

I can't say it any simpler.

Since you can't stop conflating issues, I give up.

 

[cyberblogger]

So minors have no rights?

A minor has no rights until the age of 18 or if a judge removes legal responsibility of the parents.

So, for every instance of a non-parental consent sex change operation of a minor is a multi-million dollar lawsuit that hasn't happened yet.

 

[cyberblogger]

We could still allow teens on social media in a moderated fashion, where adults parents or teachers must approve and monitor the conservation so things like bullying do not occur.

Well after looking at who reported+got me kicked off sites the majority was under 18 narrative followers and not any government agent. Even though they cancelled my committee that was in charge with pandemic response, I'm still permanently assigned as an agent. The CIA just told me to ignore the internet since their narrative has taken over. The contradictions to the narrative, I posted years before the covid event. The posts they attacked is when I was officially the mask/PPe expert for an agency called OSHA.

So I know those masks the bioterrorist in the WHO and the NIH at the time recommended are not any form of biological protection and will cause epidemics by spreading germs and make the wearer of the mask become susceptible to pneumonia. I had this as the warning on these masks and later they revised it to : "respiratory illness and possible death"

 

[candle86]

Restricting a child does not mean they have no rights.

I can't say it any simpler.

Since you can't stop conflating issues, I give up.

A child doesn't, this is established law, in the US a Child has no rights under the law, unless a judge decides otherwise, there is no confusion this is settled law.

 

[Norsiiii]

A minor has no rights until the age of 18 or if a judge removes legal responsibility of the parents.

Verifiably utter nonsense. All constitutional rights (and other rights) apply to minors - neither you nor the state can just steal a minor's personal property for no reason (the right against unjust seizure), the state cannot compel a minor to incriminate themselves when questioned (5th amendment), the state cannot arrest or punish a minor for making a political statement (1st amendment), a minor has the right to legal representation, et cetera, ad nauseum

 

[Ajax151]

Good, as for violates first amendment rights, you get your rights at 18 as an adult

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does NOT specify any age limit. So this blunt and broadstroke ban blatantly violates the Constitution, and probably also international law as well. (Not like the USA under Trump really follows either anymore.)

 

[Ajax151]

Said its introduction would help address what is "the most harmful product our kids have legal access to in Texas."

I guess limiting access to a guns is next in the line?

Don't hold your breath!

 

[Ajax151]

Verifiably utter nonsense. All constitutional rights (and other rights) apply to minors - neither you nor the state can just steal a minor's personal property for no reason (the right against unjust seizure), the state cannot compel a minor to incriminate themselves when questioned (5th amendment), the state cannot arrest or punish a minor for making a political statement (1st amendment), a minor has the right to legal representation, et cetera, ad nauseum

Amen

 

[Ajax151]

Guns are supervised until your good with them, but there is a difference and a big one. Using a tool like a gun is a concept that is easier to understand that complex social interactions, the brain develops early on how to use tools and follow instructions, however the brain is not yet fully devolved with complex social structures until people are nearly 30. While someone as young as 6 can know how to use a shovel or cut the grass, we wouldn't trust them alone or to talk to strangers because they are so very easily influenced, and we evolved this way on purpose because it allows for a person to be educated and values instilled but it also makes it very easy to manipulate them into doing things or easily influencing them to self-harm. These two items social media and gun access are totally different because the part of the brain used is different. If you take away the gun the kid will simply sneak in a knife to get his revenge, or a baseball bat, the solution isn't removal of tools the solution is removal of access to the root of the issue, and the root is unfiltered access to the internet especially the social side of it. You need to treat the root of the problem, if you remove kids from these environments, you will quickly see a rapid decrease in the amount of teen suicide, and teen shootings.

We could still allow teens on social media in a moderated fashion, where adults parents or teachers must approve and monitor the conservation so things like bullying do not occur.

So riddle me this: if the brain is not fully developed until 30 or so, then why the arbitrary age of 18 then? I think we have all seen this movie before, and slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear.

 

[Ajax151]

Yeah, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. That's elementary stuff.

It does not follow that all laws = rights.

I'm glad you are happy to beg the State for the crumbs they decide to give you, but I'm cut from a different cloth.

Rights are inborn. You have a right to your life, your own body, your own liberty, and the fruits of your own labor (I.e., property rights).

Laws are man made, change constantly, and often contradict each other.

The fact that we protect minors as a society, or that you dislike guns or misunderstand laws does not change peoples' rights.

I lobby for gun education, I think gun safety classes and marksmanship should be readded to standard curriculum in schools, as for Social Media it plays into how easy it is to manipulate kids, it's been proven especially in teenagers to trigger the same pleasure centers in the brain as cocaine or beer and it is the leading cause of bullying and abuse. The solution is to block it like you do alcohol or Tobacco sales to minors.

By that same pseudo-logic, it will most likely be raised to 21 then in the near future like alcohol and tobacco are currently. Be careful what you wish for. Of course, I think the age limit for alcohol and tobacco should both be lowered to 18, but that it s the topic for a different discussion.

 

[Ajax151]

A child doesn't, this is established law, in the US a Child has no rights under the law, unless a judge decides otherwise, there is no confusion this is settled law.

The Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that minors have Constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. See Tinker v. Des Moines, et al.

 

[lonetac]

A minor has no rights until the age of 18 or if a judge removes legal responsibility of the parents.

So, for every instance of a non-parental consent sex change operation of a minor is a multi-million dollar lawsuit that hasn't happened yet.

minors 100% have rights. What are you smoking?

They objectively truthfully have rights. This is not debatable.

 

[Ajax151]

minors 100% have rights. What are you smoking?

They objectively truthfully have rights. This is not debatable.

Amen. And historically, when things like that have been said about literally any other demographic group, it has NOT ended well.

 

[Ajax151]

Verifiably utter nonsense. All constitutional rights (and other rights) apply to minors - neither you nor the state can just steal a minor's personal property for no reason (the right against unjust seizure), the state cannot compel a minor to incriminate themselves when questioned (5th amendment), the state cannot arrest or punish a minor for making a political statement (1st amendment), a minor has the right to legal representation, et cetera, ad nauseum

Amen

 

[candle86]

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does NOT specify any age limit. So this blunt and broadstroke ban blatantly violates the Constitution, and probably also international law as well. (Not like the USA under Trump really follows either anymore.)

wrong again but keep trying. I as a parent can tell my kids they aren't allowed to speak, I can delete anything they post I wish, I can order them to be silent, I can prevent them from making any speech I disagree with and can punish them for it, that's because they don't have the 1st amendment except in a very narrowly granted area. As for International Law, the US wasn't stupid enough to sign the treaty that gives rights to kids, because it hinders proper parenting meaning America isn't subject to that communist document. Do I little research, also might I suggest you learn how to multi quote, at least pretend to be intelligent

Verifiably utter nonsense. All constitutional rights (and other rights) apply to minors - neither you nor the state can just steal a minor's personal property for no reason (the right against unjust seizure), the state cannot compel a minor to incriminate themselves when questioned (5th amendment), the state cannot arrest or punish a minor for making a political statement (1st amendment), a minor has the right to legal representation, et cetera, ad nauseum

Wrong I as a parent can seize any of my child's property at any time for any reason until they reach the age of Majority, and its because under the law I own everything they own. When a school takes a phone they aren't taking a minors phone they are taking the adults phone that is legally borrowed by the minor child, legally a child can't own anything until age 18

 

[Xelions]

So Texas trusts a 17-year-old to operate a car, work a full-time job, and be tried as an adult in court — but not to watch YouTube without parental permission?

Me at <18

Do you have the damn tape!?

I'm not referring to the MJ files classified. I'm referring to XXX R21+ rated porn!

 

[Xelions]

You all be careful now... The U.S.a. may have signed the CRC

Yes, minors have rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) outlines a wide range of rights for all children under 18, including the right to life, health, education, and protection from harm. These rights are recognized and supported by governments around the world.

But they haven't ratified it. They have only ratified some optional protocols.

Do keep in mind for those unintelligible gits! They have certain constitutional rights just not as many as an adult has. And 1 right they certainly do have is, if you beat the crap out of your kid I'll come over from OZ and beat the logarithmic 10x crap out of you! - no seriously you gotta be careful, the line between punishment and abuse is slim!

 

[Ajax151]

wrong again but keep trying. I as a parent can tell my kids they aren't allowed to speak, I can delete anything they post I wish, I can order them to be silent, I can prevent them from making any speech I disagree with and can punish them for it, that's because they don't have the 1st amendment except in a very narrowly granted area. As for International Law, the US wasn't stupid enough to sign the treaty that gives rights to kids, because it hinders proper parenting meaning America isn't subject to that communist document. Do I little research, also might I suggest you learn how to multi quote, at least pretend to be intelligent



Wrong I as a parent can seize any of my child's property at any time for any reason until they reach the age of Majority, and its because under the law I own everything they own. When a school takes a phone they aren't taking a minors phone they are taking the adults phone that is legally borrowed by the minor child, legally a child can't own anything until age 18

Dunning, meet Kruger.

(Mic drop)

 

[Norsiiii]

wrong again but keep trying. I as a parent can tell my kids they aren't allowed to speak, I can delete anything they post I wish, I can order them to be silent, I can prevent them from making any speech I disagree with and can punish them for it, that's because they don't have the 1st amendment except in a very narrowly granted area. As for International Law, the US wasn't stupid enough to sign the treaty that gives rights to kids, because it hinders proper parenting meaning America isn't subject to that communist document. Do I little research, also might I suggest you learn how to multi quote, at least pretend to be intelligent



Wrong I as a parent can seize any of my child's property at any time for any reason until they reach the age of Majority, and its because under the law I own everything they own. When a school takes a phone they aren't taking a minors phone they are taking the adults phone that is legally borrowed by the minor child, legally a child can't own anything until age 18

Again, literally verifiably untrue. A minor can legally have a job, and legal earn money, which is legally their property, and for which they are legally responsible to pay taxes. If they buy something with that money, that is THEIR property, not yours. If you take it from them, they would have legitimate grounds to file a police report and press charges against you for theft. This is not even remotely a theoretical or contentious area of law, it is very well established fact. At this point you're trying to argue that the sky is green or that water is dry, its absurd....

The only 'right' you have as a parent, as against your child, is the looming threat of imposing restrictions on the discretionary liberties that you allow them to have. You do not have any actual legal right or ability to stop them from making any speech, for instance, beyond the threat of grounding them if they do not obey you. If they say or publish something you don't like, you have no ability to sue them or obtain a court order requiring they delete it just because you want them to, because again you have no actual LEGAL recourse to police their speech, and nor does the government.

Similarly with the other rights, you have zero ability to compel them to self incriminate beyond the threat of grounding them, nor does the government because of the 5th.

 

[candle86]

Again, literally verifiably untrue. A minor can legally have a job, and legal earn money, which is legally their property, and for which they are legally responsible to pay taxes. If they buy something with that money, that is THEIR property, not yours. If you take it from them, they would have legitimate grounds to file a police report and press charges against you for theft. This is not even remotely a theoretical or contentious area of law, it is very well established fact. At this point you're trying to argue that the sky is green or that water is dry, its absurd....

The only 'right' you have as a parent, as against your child, is the looming threat of imposing restrictions on the discretionary liberties that you allow them to have. You do not have any actual legal right or ability to stop them from making any speech, for instance, beyond the threat of grounding them if they do not obey you. If they say or publish something you don't like, you have no ability to sue them or obtain a court order requiring they delete it just because you want them to, because again you have no actual LEGAL recourse to police their speech, and nor does the government.

Similarly with the other rights, you have zero ability to compel them to self incriminate beyond the threat of grounding them, nor does the government because of the 5th.

Your understanding of US law is baffling, yes I can take their money if I want, yes I can sell their stuff if I want, this is established law, they could petition the court for emancipation, but thats the only recouse they would actually have. As for speech, they legally can't publish without parental approval until 18, any agreement with a minor is legally unenforceable unless you have parental consent, what does that mean? It means that until they are 18 its my house, my rules, and yes I can login into their social media and delete the account, yes I can seize the phone and destroy it if I wish. The law is very much pro parent and for a good reason, because the ability to correct behavior or limit what a child can do is deemed necessary. As for can they get a job, only if I permit it.

to give it to you simply, the right of a child to own property is defined by
[HEADING=2]Uniform Transfers to Minors Act[/HEADING]

This at its core enabled a minor to get gifts given to them as real property but it also makes it clear that until the age of Majority it is to be held in custodial care and managed for the minor as the minor is unable to actually own title anything. If the gift giver does not set it up as a trust where they hold title the law implies quite clearly that the parent(s) with custodial authority take over responsibility for the property, which includes disposal of property if deemed necessary for health, wellness or safety much the same way any other trustee would handle it, and since a parent by law is deemed to know how to best provide and take care of the child this would be a very hard legal argument for the child to win on, unless they can provide the parent acted maliciously, and I do have firsthand experience on this.

I like you was once very confused on this as a teenage 25 years ago, my mother kept taking money I got, and I wasn't allowed to control it, what had happened is she placed all gifts, payments, ect that I got including from my summer job into a trust account I had zero access to until I was 21, when I talked to a lawyer about it, he told me she had the right as defined in the above mentioned law and I'd be wasting time going to court over it, as she legally has that right.

I also got to experience the free speech nonsense you seem to think applies as well, I made a public statement around a group of her friends, one she disagreed with, in response I was punished for the speech, and forced to call people to apologize for said speech, she also revoked my ability to use public chat rooms or web forums for 2 months and then the following 6 months only under her supervision and I wasn't allowed to make speech she found disagreeable. I called the local police about it and was likewise informed she's allowed to discipline as she sees fit as long as it doesn't rise to the level of assault anything goes.


So keep thinking what you want, but please be aware what you think has no basis in actual reality, and to clarify one final point, a parent can 100% forbid their minor child from working, and can legally file action on any company that continues to give them work once they've informed the company they don't want their child working there.

What im going to assume is your either a teenager or recently an adult and don't actually know better.

 

[cyberblogger]

minors 100% have rights. What are you smoking?

They objectively truthfully have rights. This is not debatable.

I don't know what country you are from. But anyone under 21 in the US is a minor and can't legally do some things until afterwards.

 

[scavengerspc]

A child doesn't, this is established law, in the US a Child has no rights under the law, unless a judge decides otherwise, there is no confusion this is settled law.

It's always so easy to spot this type even a mile away.
So confident in a statement that is bullshit from beginning to end.
So while kids don't have the full breadth:

Do children and teenagers have constitutional rights?

If you're a child in the United States, you can't legally vote, drive, hold public office or even see some movies without an adult with you. But that doesn't mean you don't have constitutional rights.

people.howstuffworks.com

"Under the law, children in the United States are fully formed human beings with the same basic constitutional rights that adults enjoy"

Full sources and citations are at the bottom.

 

[lonetac]

I don't know what country you are from. But anyone under 21 in the US is a minor and can't legally do some things until afterwards.

I dont know what country you are from, being under 21 in the US is not a minor and you still have rights regardless of age.

im not here to debate you bro. Go around being wrong, its the objective truth.

 

[cyberblogger]

I dont know what country you are from, being under 21 in the US is not a minor and you still have rights regardless of age.

im not here to debate you bro. Go around being wrong, its the objective truth.

They have minor rights.
Which don't involve a lot of things including sex changes that the communist socialist were screwing up kids with.
Which the US should round up all the socialist and communist and kick them out of the country along with Soros.

 

[candle86]

They have minor rights.
Which don't involve a lot of things including sex changes that the communist socialist were screwing up kids with.
Which the US should round up all the socialist and communist and kick them out of the country along with Soros.

No it's anyone under 18 is a minor why don't you turn 18 that's only certain things you don't allowed hand comes tobacco alcohol everything else was is free game.

No what we know about the prefrontal cortex formation I think we should restrict the age of majority to 28. And that applies also for joining the military for anybody jumps down my throat.