Letters: Parental rights | Optimism for Tom Keen

Parental rights over teens are skewed

Scott Maxwell’s column about Florida Republicans trying to ban teens from social media accounts, even with parental permission, is the height of hypocrisy (“Florida’s latest assault on parental and constitutional rights,” Jan. 17). So let me get this straight: Florida Republicans extol parental rights when it comes to what books teens can read, or the Republican Legislature can determine that a teen is too young to see a drag show even with parental permission, and the state can declare it just fine for teens to work dangerous jobs at low pay (now that immigrants are scared off), and a teen can own dangerous weapons without certification or a wellness check? But, parents are not allowed to get their young raped child an abortion?

Hmmmmm. What could possibly be wrong here?

Karen Kuzsel Wagner Ocoee

Keen’s win gives Democrats hope

In the Jan. 18 Sentinel, the proliferation of article, editorial and column on Tom Keen’s win in House District 35 shows just starved for a win the Democratic Party of Florida must be (Editorial: “All Floridians can share in House District 35 victory”). Hope springs eternal that this will be the beginning of the turning of the tide of Republican wins. Only time will tell if this is so.

One thing this race showed was that a No. 1 stated priority, “stopping Biden’s woke policies,” loses against a top priority of fixing the insurance mess. It has often been said that people vote with their wallets. Anti-wokeness doesn’t help someone struggling to pay for their homeowners insurance, which has skyrocketed in the past few years.

If the Republicans want to keep winning, then they need to climb down off of their anti-woke high horses and start concentrating on the issues that would make Florida a more affordable place to live.

Bill Andrews Orlando

Age-restricted internet is a slippery slope

The Florida Legislature is currently debating whether to impose restrictions on internet access (HB 1 and HB 3), ostensibly to protect young people from exposure to sexualized or subjectively inappropriate content.

While at first blush this might seem to be a fine idea, there are unintended consequences to consider.

The bill calls for everyone who may desire to visit such sites to verify their age before accessing any content that might be deemed “harmful to minors.”

Taking into consideration the highly publicized book banning in Florida which has resulted from similar “protective” bills, it would, in essence, be a blanket call for all internet users to identify themselves to all websites. This, in effect, is a call for the establishment of an internet ID.

You can bet that, as a protective measure, web service providers would lock down their sites with gateways, requiring identification, in fear of arbitrary suits or criminal actions.

The whole thing is a very bad idea, and an attack on the First Amendment.

While Second Amendment advocates will fight to the death for their right to possess firearms, they are more than willing to relinquish the right of free citizens to browse the internet in relative obscurity.

James Daly Oviedo