[Viennacon]

Better reason not to use it, and not to let your kids use it

[Joe 6-pack]

What about when kids are in school and the school is acting in loco parentis? Will teachers and administrators be held to the same degree of culpability?

Didn't think so...

[G Larry]

FB is NOT your friend!

It is an intrusion and waste of time.

It is also a mechanism for invading your computer without your knowledge.

Bingo, you’re now somebody’s free server!

Money Laundering?
Child Porn?

You don’t have to be hosting unknowingly, just acting as a pipeline is enough to get you in trouble.

[luckystarmom]

My daughters turn 18 in a few weeks thank goodness.

[Mortrey]

If only BenghaziBarrySoebarkah/Soetoro was held responsible for all he/she posts on the gubmint’s website.

SHEESH!

[FlingWingFlyer]

I sure as he!! hope the “court” doesn’t rule that the kids are responsible for what their parents post on Free Republic. LOL!

[GeronL]

Since schools are now “co-parents” shouldn’t they be partially responsible?

/s

[BobL]

Good call. ANY PARENT that let’s their kid on Facebook should be required to take responsibility for what the kid does.

If parents don’t like it, then don’t buy them a stupid I-Phone. There are plenty of Jihad Phones (also called burners) available that have just as much voice and texting capability.

[M-cubed]

oh-oh! ...Travon and Michaels parents are in TROUBLE!

[nathanbedford]

This opinion violates a basic precept that there shall be no responsibility without authority.

If parents are prohibited from disciplining their children they cannot be held responsible for the acts of the child. Parents may not spank, parents may not threaten children, parents are liable to be brought into family court at the instance of a child he was prompted to do so by his school.

It is wrong to strip parents of authority while imposing liability for the acts of a child whom they cannot control.