Cassandra is only carbon nowSome ally'all don't appreciate how devastating the "BONG HITS FOR JESUS" case was, and it shows.
(Some ally'all *do* understand, tho, and that shows too.)
This might sound like a shitpost, but I promise you it's not. In 2007, the Supreme Court held 5–4 that children do not have First Amendment rights, in that a school is legally allowed to censor their speech *even when said children are not at school*.
It's obviously not the case that children only lost their Constitutional rights in the US starting in 2007, but the Supreme Court deciding precedent that kids are effectively subhuman when it comes to legal rights was a huge turning point.
There's something truly toxic and fucked up about the idea that children aren't independent people whom we owe a responsibility to, but are effectively a kind of property that can be controlled and coerced.
That view, enshrined in the incredibly fucked up framing of "parents' rights," is the same view that runs through KOSA, the UK's new censorship regime, YouTube's new "AI" filter, and so many other things.
Even if kids didn't first lose their rights in the US with the BONG HITS case, that sure as fuck should have been a wake-up call.
I barely even have words for what a fucked up idea it is that parents have *rights* and not *responsibilities* where their children are concerned. It shouldn't have to be a radical statement to declare that *children are people*, but it is indeed quite radical, even amongst supposed "progressives."
Let me say it again, then: children are people.
Seiðr@xgranade The patriarcal concept of children as property. Fucking up lives since the origins of registered history.
@Illuminatus Yep. What we're seeing now is, I'll posit, a new form of something very old.
Angela Glansbury 🚽@xgranade
thank you for getting me up to speed on BONG HITS
thank you for getting me up to speed on BONG HITS
@xgranade
sorry, i should have said BONG HiTS
sorry, i should have said BONG HiTS
Jacqueline@xgranade adults are seen as property of their employers too.
Capitalism as a system inherently removes your freedom as an individual and assigns it to someone else on the basis of economic relationships.
QueenLucita@xgranade Every child deserves a parent, but not every parent deserves a child.
Brad Rosenheim@xgranade Yes, exactly. This whole parental rights thing is basically a prescription to indoctrinate children against social norms, established fact, and well-grounded health advice. It is is basically bullshit that does not take the children's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into account at all.
Irenes (many)@xgranade Children are people.
Ψ*Ψ@ireneista @xgranade annoying, shrill, sticky little people, but *not property* - they should have rights
Jeffrey Yasskin@xgranade With help from @ireneista, we got a statement that parents have responsibilities into the #W3C #PrivacyPrinciples https://www.w3.org/TR/privacy-principles/#guardians.
It's not a legal venue, and I'm sure we messed it up some from Irenes' vision, but I hope it can help with some of these debates.
It's not a legal venue, and I'm sure we messed it up some from Irenes' vision, but I hope it can help with some of these debates.
Privacy Principles
Privacy is an essential part of the web. This document provides definitions for privacy and related concepts that are applicable worldwide as well as a set of privacy principles that should guide the development of the web as a trustworthy platform. People using the web would benefit from a stronger relationship between technology and policy, and this document is written to work with both.
apophis@xgranade first they came for...... ::reads notes:: the kids??? yeah no that makes sense
@apophis How does it not? The fascists have spent *years* bullying trans kids, to say nothing of what they did to the survivors of Sandy Hook.
@xgranade i just happened to be struck by the ironic collision of cliches, between "first they came for ___" (typically about nazis) and "they're coming for your kids" (typically a scaremongery by nazis)
khara
Christopher Snowhill@xgranade "The beatings will continue until morale improves." /s
gkrnours@xgranade from memory, the ONU say children have rights and not parent (over children)
Lunaphied@xgranade BONG HITS was such an obvious slam dunk first amendment case. When I studied it I was shocked that it was decided any differently. That shouldn't have even gone to court
@Lunaphied I lived in Alaska at the time, and initially just wrote it off as weird local news — school districts up there are pretty fucked, and are always doing weird shit that never really goes anywhere.
I'm with you, it never should have gone to court. It never should have seen any appeals, let alone to the Supreme freaking Court. The whole thing was absurd all the way through.
@xgranade that case should've been a huge moment of illegitimacy for the Supreme Court. Long before we got to the point we're at now. But anything to stop kids from am I right.
@Lunaphied Absolutely, yeah. Not like there weren't enough legitimacy crises already, either. Sandra Day O'Conner saying she wanted to retire under a Republican president, then the majority just... picking said president... that should have been a huge crisis.