Seems like they are missing the most important step, which is verifying that those in the photo have consented! Sort of like keeping the car at the rental agency when I have a reservation...kind of the most important step.

I don't know what they would do if a parent signed the waiver but the child disagreed with the parent, or if the person taking the photo asked for permission on the spot and the child consented (even though they had a no photos status).

It depends on the state and it depends on the activity. For example, in my state children (of any age) can be put to work in a business owned by their parents but they cannot legally work in any other business, even with parental permission, until 14 (16 for some specific areas of work).

The question is whether parents an exploit their children for the parents' benefit. If you've ever watched behind the scenes videos of children / family / momma blogs or content creators, it is clear that the children are often bullied, forced, compelled, tricked, etc. to perform for the camera so the parent can make $$. Beyond abusive in many cases.

I'm not sure why a school needs to have a Twitter account anyway?
The legality of sharing is a bit muddy, which is what this California law is trying to address one aspect of it. It does get complicated, for example, if the school took a photo of children walking to school (on a public sidewalk), there generally would be no means to demand that not be posted by anyone (no expectation of privacy in a public space). And even the school took a generic photo (e.g., welcome back 3rd graders!) with no names or additional details, that is probably legal, too. And there are different rules if your student is an athlete. So it's not simple.

Texas and Florida are bad places to be a child.

It's not a political talking point. It is a reality that some people who give birth will look exactly like men (when clothed, obviously). Are you interested in accuracy when laws and policies are written?

This is a red herring that was invented by the anti-trans movement to try to find an anti-trans cause they could rally people behind. Rules for sports at national, regional, and international levels have addressed issues of gender and sex and fairness for decades and decades, with no serious loss of opportunity or safety issues.

Okay, so now go ask those who wanted to transition but were bullied, attacked, etc. Oh, wait, you can't, because many of them are dead.

The trans population, and particularly trans children, are a very small group. There's lots of uncertainty in what treatment is best, or who to treat, or when. As a tiny group, it is very difficult to complete any definitive study to answer these questions. But banning all access to care, to even consider offering a range of reasonable treatment options, is not a solution.

Politics overall is driven by power and money. To say that the Republicans support the working class - at a time when they are cutting services and resources for the poor to fund major tax cuts for the rich - shows a complete disregard for the facts. But I do agree the Democrats didn't put much effort into proposals that would benefit the working class, such as universal health care, universal preschool, subsidized child care, and instead got sucked into identity politics.

Banning is a form of regulation. "v. to govern or direct according to rule"

Sure, people post opinions and ideas and thoughts on X and Facebook, but they are not town squares, because:

A) They are not public (they are owned by for-profit companies).

B) They are not open to everyone (the for-profit companies decide who to admit).

C) Not all speech is given equal weight or attention, as determined by the companies' secret algorithms, and some speech - particularly paid speech, is given priority.

D) It's not free.

E) It's not safe for children given the mental health harms and the risk of bullying, sexual harassment, and abuse.

Facebook, X, Instagram, etc. are not Free Speech Town Squares, and therefore restricting children's use of those sites is not a violation of their right to free speech.

That's a ludicrous comparison. Facebook is not the "town square." It's an addictive product meant to siphon up the maximum amount of information from you so advertisers can target you with their ads and generate the maximum profit for Meta. It also allows predators access to easy information on children and gives them opportunities to engage them out of the prying eyes of parents and authorities.

Masks often don't work because they get in the way of the work or the company-supplied masks simply don't work (https://www.npr.org/2012/07/09/156375910/black-lung-why-respirators-are-not-a-solution). Working in a coal mine is extremely dangerous and people die all the time in the mines.

I've never heard of a single human death due to a windmill collapse or explosion. And I live in a state full of the things (they are generally hundreds of feet from streets, dwellings, buildings, etc.).

"But what about my privacy!" yells person who then turns over the names of all their friends, pictures of their cat, details of what they ate for breakfast, their favorite books, movies, songs, and concerts, their location, their birthday, anniversary date, family members' names, and every website they've ever visited.

"Asking me to prove I'm an adult violates my privacy!" they yell.

Are you really asking what one of the most valuable companies in the world could do to make their product less likely to result in mental health harm and sexual exploitation of children? Facebook KNEW its product was causing mental harm and resulting in numerous violations of children's rights, and they basically did nothing. Oh, unless you count actively working to make their products even more addictive.

Why is that "extreme"? There are plenty of products and activities that children are banned from using or doing. It's quite commonplace, actually.

I am not a lawyer, but this question of what a law "implies" is the basis of most disagreement in the law.

For example, consider the statement: "Government shall not infringe upon the right to bear arms." (This is not what the 2A says, but let's just work with this statement for sake of my argument). A literal interpretation, with no attempt to "imply" what those who wrote the law intended, would mean that government cannot block any ownership of any weapon for any person. Yet, others might point out that the statement doesn't say "weapon"; it says "arms," which could be defined in various ways - such as the arms that are literally attached to most people's bodies. Another literal interpretation might be that the government cannot block ownership of any weapons that were available at the time the statement was issued (a "freeze in time" approach).

Long story short, I don't agree that the 2nd amendment implies the government cannot restrict access to some weapons, and the Supreme Court has also held this position for a long time.

The rights under the Second Amendment are not unlimited, and even the conservative Supreme Court rulings of the past have held this view (see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...). Hypersonic missile ownership could clearly be prohibited under the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. Gun rights activists often ignore the fact that the government IS allowed to limit access to some weapons, which I think is what the parent is trying to point out.

I would start with a lease, first. Then, once you live with it for a few months, you can decide later if you want to buy.

You completely misunderstand what the CCP wants to accomplish and why it exists. And the U.S.'s leaders appear to have similar misunderstandings.

In the last 40 years, China has brought more people out of poverty into the middle class than in the history of the world. China has become a world superpower, leading in industry and technology, and rapidly in biotechnology and health. The next century will be dominated by China, and there's not much anyone else in the world can do about it.