Question

the idea of a legal curfew for minors may have been conceived with good intentions. in practice, however, these policies have been shown to be ineffective, unfair and counterproductive - not to mention a violation of parental rights, according to the american civil liberties union. in fact, curfew laws may be downright unconstitutional. in the town of sumner, washington, a father allowed his fourteen - year - old son to go to a convenience store after 11:00 p.m. sumner had adopted a curfew law that prohibited people under the age of eighteen from being in public places or businesses past that hour, with limited exceptions. the father was fined by law enforcement. he subsequently pursued a legal challenge against the town. the case went all the way to the washington supreme court, where sumners curfew ordinance was struck down. the law was judged to be select the three supporting claims that the author makes to argue that legal curfews for teens are an unnecessary violation of individual liberties and should be abolished. youth curfew laws discriminate against young people. youth curfews may be enforced in a racially discriminatory way. youth curfew laws violate the rights of parents. youth curfew enforcement does not effectively reduce urban crime.

Explanation:

The text mentions curfew laws violating parental rights. It also states such laws are ineffective, which implies they don't reduce crime. And the idea that they target only young people is a form of discrimination. There is no mention of racial - discriminatory enforcement in the given text.

Answer:

1. Youth curfew laws violate the rights of parents.
2. Youth curfew enforcement does not effectively reduce urban crime.
3. Youth curfew laws discriminate against young people.