Modern* protect children bills would be more accurate.
The playbook these days is to use children, terrorism, etc to justify something that fails to address that problem and pushes some other agenda.
This has been true anyway in the US and UK. I have no clue how true this is in France and I won’t pretend to know, but from some other comments on the potential implementation could be better than what we’ve seen so far. I hope so, anyway.
Banning alcohol and cigarettes from children seems to have worked, if not perfect, rather fine.
Modern* protect children bills would be more accurate.
The playbook these days is to use children, terrorism, etc to justify something that fails to address that problem and pushes some other agenda.
This has been true anyway in the US and UK. I have no clue how true this is in France and I won’t pretend to know, but from some other comments on the potential implementation could be better than what we’ve seen so far. I hope so, anyway.
Or requiring school busses to have swing out stop signs and making it illegal to pass them when they’re deployed.
Actual “protect children” laws don’t get talked about because absolutely nobody has a problem with them.
How is that even a comparison?