Stronger minimum-age laws for social media — we already have a federal law dating back to 1998; it’s just honored mostly in the breach — have broad popular support but have also drawn criticism. My latest column examines what I consider among the most powerful arguments against such laws: that they amount to a governmental usurpation of the authority of parents.

I note that governments

routinely use their powers in ways that could be said to infringe parents’ rights but are more commonly understood as helping parents. Many of these policies are not controversial. Society doesn’t let parents assess their children’s maturity and competence and then set individualized ages for buying liquor, cigarettes, or guns, going to casinos, or driving cars. Even places that have legalized marijuana make exceptions for kids. Parents can’t legally opt their children out of seat belt laws or send them to work in factories. We use zoning laws to keep strip clubs away from schools and playgrounds, instead of asking parents to issue stern warnings about how to walk home. “Most States,” the Supreme Court observed last year in a Texas case, “require age verification for in-person purchases of sexual material.”

routinely use their powers in ways that could be said to infringe parents’ rights but are more commonly understood as helping parents. Many of these policies are not controversial.

Society doesn’t let parents assess their children’s maturity and competence and then set individualized ages for buying liquor, cigarettes, or guns, going to casinos, or driving cars. Even places that have legalized marijuana make exceptions for kids. Parents can’t legally opt their children out of seat belt laws or send them to work in factories. We use zoning laws to keep strip clubs away from schools and playgrounds, instead of asking parents to issue stern warnings about how to walk home. “Most States,” the Supreme Court observed last year in a Texas case, “require age verification for in-person purchases of sexual material.”

Government policies to protect children can improperly intrude on parental authority. But which ones we should support and which oppose has to be a matter of prudential judgment. Like most parents, I think strengthening the current laws passes the test.

© National Review