Technicals  🧾 📉

I didn’t say restrict their ability. No one here is saying children’s voices should be criminalized which is what an infringement on the First amendment actually is. The point is they’re 16 and shouldn’t be used on either side of the political spectrum for a serious debate.

You're right that no one is making a criminalization case, including me. Note how I said the "principle" of the 1st amend. I'm not claiming that you're making a legal case against the 1st. I'm arguing that you're making a principled case against the idea of free speech for minors

That’s a stretch. They clearly have the freedom to. I’m saying it’s immoral to do it. Plenty of things are legal and immoral.

So is it immoral for the child pawn or is it immoral 4 the chessmaster of that pawn? Because I said previously that I agree that adults shouldn't politically manipulate children. But your entire thread puts the onus on the child pawns instead of the chessmasters manipulating them

That’s all up to interpretation. I just said I don’t think kids should be becoming activist. At the end of the first post it’s discussing “teaching” fear. That’s in reference to those propping them up into those positions. I’m not blaming kids entirely

So then what if a child, of their own free will, not being taught to fear by an individual or an org. to do so, decides to be an activist 4 an issue they care for? Is this still disqualifying in your eyes? Also note that Yousafzai had plenty of help from orgs and world leaders.

If they want to volunteer for an org to be politically conscious then go for it. The second the org takes it a step further and puts forth kids rather than ideas is where I draw the line. Awareness? Cool. Political propaganda tool? Nah

This makes your position more clear. I completely agree with this. However, my interpretation of where the moral line is crossed & who is mostly responsible lies solely with the org in question. Your interpretation seems to include children as well, & this is where I don't agree