If you do think some things are off the table regardless of the parent's opinion, where is that line drawn? (again, I'm not judging, just trying to understand your point better)
With respects to cigarettes, I am open to being persuaded by the fact that an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse, depending on the context. That said, I remember my parents caught me smoking and had me smoke an entire pack to induce illness so that I would not want to smoke again. And it worked. So this is a topic more complicated than it first appears surface-level.
With respects to social media, if we were to apply the same standard as we do with cigarettes and physical child endangerment then we are opening ourselves to the possibility that information and tools of communication can be "harmful" in and of themselves. As the article points out, this puts freedom of speech directly under attack. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and therefore it is part of the government's very mandate and "raison d'etre" to protect and defend it. Moral busy bodies and their moral panics be damned, and I say that even though I despise social media and wish it didn't exist. But just because I don't like something doesn't mean that I think it should be illegal.
1. Would you agree that reasonable people exist who, right or wrong, believe that the psychological toll of SM on children, while not in the same universe as the physical toll of cigarettes, still manages to cross the line of "this is sufficiently harmful that the government must make parenting decisions"?
2. Are you open to the possibility that, in a hypothetical future with sufficient empirical data, those beliefs might be shown to be accurate?
I don't have children / a horse in this race, I'm more exploring your position about the role of government.
2. I'm open to the possibility that data could show this, but any proposed legislation would have to be weighed against fundamental human rights. There are a lot of "risky" activities that people, including children, can enter into and we don't legislate against that because people have the right (legally and morally IMO) to commit suicide by any means of their choosing.
I don't want to get into a philosophical debate here, but you can absolutely demonstrate that there are inalienable rights. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any diety, but rights derive directly from your nature as a human being. That nature being what your requirements for survival are.
As a human you have the capacity to reason and this is your primary tool for survival. That's not a belief, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. As humans we can't fly, we can't run fast, we aren't particularly strong, we don't have venom ... but we can think rationally.
We also have material requirements. We must breathe, we must sleep, we must protect our body from the elements, we have temperature requirements, we are susceptible to viruses, we require nourishment etc.
The combination of our ability to reason with our material requirements for survival mean that in order to survive as a human being you need to think and you need to be able to act. I would argue that anyone that disputes those facts, or believes otherwise, is subscribing to a belief system not grounded in reality and reason.
Your rights, as a human being, are the direct corollary of those two facts of nature. The ability to think is a requirement of your survival and that is why you have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. Your material requirements for survival are the root from which your rights to acquire and own property, to associate and to travel derive.
Within a political context, these become moral sanctions on certain actions. But the "natural rights" theorists will point out that these are all things that are fundamental requirements for your survival even in an isolated context. You can't wish or "believe" these facts away.
I'm assuming the "role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens" would extend to the rights of children as well as parents? Like you, I also don't believe people need to be protected from information (except in cases of extreme asymmetries of risk, e.g., national security). However, I think an important nuance is to distinguish between information and particularly nefarious methods of disseminating/collecting information.
As a potentially poorly thought-out example, the government protects our rights to self-defense. However, this right should not be conflated with assuming we have the right to any mechanism of self-defense. There are certain mechanisms of self-defense that the government puts limits on. E.g., I do not have an unchecked right to protect myself with a machine-gun or a nuclear arsenal. So while I agree with your fundamental principle, it still remains unclear to me where the limits of regulations/rights stand.
>the fact that an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse
I think this is the exact point the article was poking at: to some, social media is viewed as such a risk as to be tantamount to being abusive. It sounds like you are at least acknowledging that as a potential valid perspective, even if you disagree about the risk assessment. As a corollary, though, I'm not sure there is the same preponderance of evidence of real or imminent danger in social media as in the cigarette example.
This is child abuse, to be totally clear. I'm really sorry you were put through that.
I think it's pretty common for parents to give their kids alcohol before they're 18/19/21. And many kids in my high school did smoke. Where/how they got the cigarettes is unknown, but it's not like they were rounded up and jailed for the act of smoking while underage.
Or are you referring to punishing the parents?
Generally these kinds of laws go after adults who sell, or otherwise enable access, to drugs, or pornography, or violent films, etc., to children.
In my jurisdiction, it's a crime for a store to sell cigarettes to children under 19. And failure of parents to take basic steps to prevent their younger kids (up to 14) from getting their hands on them, is considered child abuse/neglect, much like if you allowed a toddler to drink poison.