Opinion | Why would Alabamians allow politicians to parent for them?

As parents, we all know how annoying it is to have our parenting judged by others. Much worse, those doing the judging do so without clear knowledge of what is led to the parenting situation they so haughtily judge. 

 It is useful to contemplate parental “Karens” as Alabama SB 187, the “App Store Accountability Act,” makes its way through Alabama’s House after passing in the Senate. If parents do not exactly take well to parenting advice obnoxiously provided by strangers, what will they think of politicians dictating parenting styles from Montgomery? Do they want to reduce what is both exhausting and exhilarating to words in a law book?

Sadly, that is what proponents of SB187 are in the process of doing right now. Alabama’s politicians are arrogantly substituting themselves for Alabama’s parents, and in the process of imagining they can legislate good parental outcomes.

 SB187 would, among other things, mandate age verification and parental approval for minors under the age of 18 when it comes to the downloading or purchase of apps utilized by smartphone or computer users. Implied in the Act is that lawmakers want to aid parents in the protection of young people from potentially harmful online content.

On its face, some will briefly forget how annoying parenting advice offered without request can be ahead of asking what is not to like about an Act that protects young people. It is not an unreasonable question, but it is one that the answer to reveals the superfluous, insulting, and worst of all, the dangerous nature of 187. Do they think they can help parents with laws? How insulting. Which requires a backtrack.

First, there is nothing mandated in SB187 that parents cannot already do on their own. Please stop and think about the previous point, parents in particular. Really, who among us requires a law to be good, conscientious, and watchful as parents? By extension, who among us would blithely hand over screen-time rules to lawmakers?

It all speaks of the superfluous nature of 187, but also its insulting qualities. Parents put so much time and effort into parenting, only for legislators to arrogate themselves oversight of young people. Sorry, but no law or collection of laws will ever come close to replacing what parents painstakingly do for their kids daily.

To which some will not unreasonably point out that SB187 is not meant for the parents who routinely go beyond laws existing or imagined in the protection of their offspring. As in the proposed law it is about protection for the young people whose parents are not as conscientious and watchful, but who need top-quality supervision just the same. The previous rationale perhaps sounds noble, but looked at more critically, it is strong evidence of just how perilous SB187 could be. 

Seriously, how harmful it would be if the passage of a law billed as protection for children (or the children not presently being parented enough) gives parents false comfort of the sort that results in them reducing their vigilance even a little or, in the case of seemingly indifferent parents, frees them to reduce their vigilance even more. As opposed to protecting those who need protection the most, that which reduces keeping a watchful eye on children to laws would create a false sense of parental security at a time when insecurity resulting in greater parental oversight is most needed. 

As SB187 heads to a vote, the easy thing for legislators to do will be to vote “yea” for what perhaps sounds good. Except that there is nothing good about reducing what is so important to the counting of heads, and much more troubling, there is little that’s more distasteful than politicians substituting their lawmaking for the full-time job of parenting.