Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The following content must be filtered or blocked: Obscenity as defined by Miller v. California (1973); Child pornography as defined by 18 U.S.C. 2256; Harmful to minors; Some of the terms mentioned in this act, such as "inappropriate matter" and what is "harmful to minors", are explained in the law.
The debate over parental notification policies in California schools reached a boiling point Thursday morning as two lawmakers nearly had a physical confrontation on the Assembly floor.
On September 15, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2273 also known as The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act or CAADCA. [37] [38] [7] The most controversial parts of the law were that it requires online services that are likely to be used by children which is defined as anyone under 18 years of age to estimate the age of child users with a "reasonable level of certainty".
Section 59 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 says: [14] 1) A person is a vulnerable adult if he has attained the age of 18 and— (a) he is in residential accommodation, (b) he is in sheltered housing, (c) he receives domiciliary care, (d) he receives any form of health care, (e) he is detained in lawful custody,
Rumors that San Luis Obispo County school districts are placing litter boxes in restrooms to accommodate students who identify as “furries” are false, school district administrators say.
“During the week of April 29 through May 3, 2024, all public high schools, including charter schools, will be required to provide students in grades 11 and 12 with information on workers ...
Based on interview and survey data, student media topics that are censored include sexual assault, politics, athletics, women’s reproductive rights, and the #MeToo movement. [12] In 2021, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that 60% of student newspapers at four-year public institutions faced some form of censorship. [14]
Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County , 4 Cal. 5th 607, 413 P.3d 656 (2018), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that universities owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities.