{"id":602,"date":"2025-04-18T11:04:24","date_gmt":"2025-04-18T15:04:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/?p=602"},"modified":"2025-04-18T11:06:43","modified_gmt":"2025-04-18T15:06:43","slug":"behind-the-screens-sharenting-and-the-childs-human-right-to-privacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/2025\/04\/18\/behind-the-screens-sharenting-and-the-childs-human-right-to-privacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Behind the Screens: Sharenting and the Child\u2019s Human Right to Privacy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Meredith Mast, Associate Member, Immigration and Human Rights Law Review<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
The importance of children’s consent and privacy in social media | Credit: Mashable \/ Zain Awais | https:\/\/mashable.com\/article\/sharenting-parent-boundaries-social-media<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I. Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rachel Barkman\u2019s son was only two years old when he began correctly identifying different types of mushrooms.[1]<\/a> As Rachel and her son took foraging walks through the nearby Vancouver woods, Rachel would occasionally record and upload videos to TikTok of her son picking mushrooms to showcase his unique and entertaining talent.[2]<\/a> Rachel thought nothing of the videos until an unknown stranger approached her son in the forest months later and asked if he could show her some mushrooms.[3]<\/a> Rachel quickly began to reevaluate the online presence she created for her son: \u201cI\u00a0immediately went cold at the realization that I had equipped complete strangers with knowledge of my son that puts him at risk.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cSharenting\u201d refers to the growing tendency of parents and soon-to-be parents to use the internet to share information about their children online.[5]<\/a> Despite many parents holding innocent intentions when sharing images or videos of their children online, these posts create significant risks and privacy concerns.[6]<\/a> Children are often unable to meaningfully comprehend that their name and likeness are being disseminated across the internet, potentially reaching hundreds, if not millions, of people if the content becomes a viral sensation.[7]<\/a> In extreme circumstances, online content can gain millions of views within hours.[8]<\/a> By sharing personal or intimate details about their children on online social networks, parents curate their child\u2019s digital identity long before the child develops the capacity to willfully consent to such sharing.[9]<\/a> Broadcasting a child\u2019s development or formative years can have significant negative impacts on a young person\u2019s ability to develop their own sense of self and understanding of their privacy expectations.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Beyond the general concerns about respecting the privacy and autonomy of a child, sharenting poses legitimate risks to the safety and wellbeing of children.[11]<\/a> Regardless of a parent or guardian\u2019s intentions, posting images and videos of their children often reveals significant information about the child\u2019s location, age, daily routine, or special interests.[12]<\/a> Sharing such personal information on expansive social media platforms is especially concerning considering the risks of a child\u2019s information or image being misused or exploited by ill-intended individuals or child predators.[13]<\/a> Consider on report from the Australian Institute of Criminology, explaining that around 7% of individuals who shared images of children online received direct requests for sexually explicit child content from online predators.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

This Blog examines children\u2019s human right to privacy in the context of sharenting. Even in the most well-intended circumstances, the sharing of a child\u2019s image and information online impedes the child\u2019s right to privacy. The increasing phenomenon of sharenting, along with the associated privacy risks for children, demands stronger State measures to safeguard and uphold children\u2019s right to privacy. As the internet and social networks continue to develop, States must implement adequate safeguards to help children realize their rights.<\/p>\n

II. Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The online world was not originally constructed with the unique needs and vulnerabilities of children in mind.[15]<\/a> Yet, the internet and social media have come to play a major role in children\u2019s lives.[16]<\/a> \u00a0In Westen countries alone, an estimated 81% of children had some form of online presence before the age of two.[17]<\/a> As the digital world\u2014and children\u2019s immersion in it\u2014continues to expand, international human rights law requires States to consider how children\u2019s privacy interests are impacted.[18]<\/a> In particular, States should consider the risks parents create when they share images and information about their children online.<\/p>\n

A. Children\u2019s Human Right to Privacy<\/u><\/p>\n

A child\u2019s right to privacy is enshrined in two key human rights instruments: (1) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (\u201cCRC\u201d).[19]<\/a> The CRC, signed in 1989, outlines the civil, political, economic, social, health, and cultural rights of children.[20]<\/a> With the exception of the United States, the CRC has been ratified by every member State in the United Nations.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

Article 16(1) of the CRC explicitly establishes children\u2019s right to privacy, explaining that children shall not be \u201csubjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy<\/em>, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her hon[or] and reputation.\u201d[22]<\/a> Children also enjoy the right to the protection of the law against such interferences.[23]<\/a> Article 19 further obligates State Parties to take all appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of mental or physical harm, as well as maltreatment and exploitation.[24]<\/a> Inadequate protection of children\u2019s privacy online can increase their vulnerability to such harms.[25]<\/a> In the digital space, therefore, State Parties maintain an obligation to ensure that children\u2019s privacy rights are not being infringed upon or exploited.[26]<\/a><\/p>\n

Although social media and the explosion of \u201csharenting\u201d were not contemplated at the inception of the CRC, the Convention\u2019s principles on privacy and the best interests of the child provide a framework for how to proceed in this new age.[27]<\/a> Traditionally, children\u2019s privacy rights have largely been an issue for adults to determine.[28]<\/a> However, in the context of the digital realm, children\u2019s Article 16 privacy rights must be interpreted broadly.[29]<\/sup><\/a> Children\u2019s capacities and relative agency change as they age and mature.[30]<\/a> As such, their particularized privacy interest evolve along with personal development.[31]<\/a> What a child may consider intrusive upon their right to privacy often changes as they grow.[32]<\/a><\/p>\n

For instance, in the context of \u201csharenting,\u201d a parent\u2019s online communications about their child may begin long before the child can consent or conceptually understand the digital footprint that is being created. [33]<\/a><\/sup> Even in instances where young children may agree to the online sharing of their personal information, most cannot meaningfully comprehend that their name and image may be circulated worldwide and exist on the internet indefinitely.[34]<\/a> \u00a0Toddlers and young adolescents may not consider a parent sharing the intimate details about their lives or filming their day-to-day existence as a violation of their privacy.[35]<\/a> But older children who previously consented to a parent\u2019s online sharing may grow to find that the information shared is embarrassing or humiliating, thus taking a toll on the child\u2019s mental and emotional wellbeing.[36]<\/sup><\/a> The flexibility of children\u2019s evolving capacities requires require that determinations of their ability to consent to online sharing account for more than just their age.[37]<\/a> State Parties must consider children\u2019s ability to actually understand and comprehend how their information is being transmitted.[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

In 2021, the Committee on the Rights of the Child released General Comment No. 25 to expand upon the intersections of the CRC and the digital environment, as well as to provide guidance on measures State Parties must take to ensure compliance with the mandates of the Convention.[39]<\/a><\/p>\n

III. <\/strong>Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Committee on the Rights of the Child\u2019s General Comment No. 25 issued a broad call to action for State Parties to develop national legislation and domestic regimes to safeguard child privacy in the digital realm.[40]<\/a> The Comment instructed States to consider children’s evolving capacities and best interests, as well as implement and regularly review legislative and administrative measures to ensure that children\u2019s privacy rights are protected and rectifiable.[41]<\/a> However, there is no distinct brightline rule or framework for how such considerations should be applied in practice. .[42]<\/a> As States continue to develop individualized responses in this changing area, France and Minnesota have provided potential starting points for legislative approaches.<\/p>\n

A. France: Children\u2019s Image Rights Law<\/u><\/p>\n

In 2024, France adopted new legislation specifically aimed at safeguarding children\u2019s image rights regarding the practice of \u201csharenting.\u201d[43]<\/a> The Children\u2019s Image Rights Law expanded parents\u2019 obligations to protect their children\u2019s privacy rights online, while also highlighting children\u2019s right to privacy and to their image.[44]<\/a> The law provides that \u201cparents jointly protect the image and rights of their minor child[ren].\u201d[45]<\/a> In line with the recommendations from General Comment No. 25, parents must engage the child in exercising their image rights, taking into account the child’s age and maturity level.[46]<\/a> In practice, however, it remains unclear how such child-centric considerations will be effectively implemented or monitored.[47]<\/a><\/p>\n

Perhaps of greatest significance, the law secures a right to erasure, permitting parents to request the deletion of their child\u2019s photos or videos.[48]<\/a> Accordingly, if a child no longer wishes for their image to be available online, or parents suspect that posted content is being misused for nefarious purposes, the child\u2019s parents have a course of action to ensure the content is removed from the online sharing platform.[49]<\/a> Parents must request that the data controller or social network in question remove the child\u2019s image.[50]<\/a> The network, in turn, must respond as soon as possible but no later than within one month, barring extraordinary circumstances.[51]<\/a><\/p>\n

B. Minnesota: House File 3488<\/u><\/p>\n

Similar to the Children\u2019s Image Right\u2019s Law, the Minnesota House passed House File (\u201cHF\u201d) 3488 in response to growing concerns over sharenting and children\u2019s privacy.[52]<\/a> The bill contains several provisions relating to children\u2019s compensation for appearance in their parents\u2019 or guardians\u2019 online postings which are beyond the scope of this Blog.[53]<\/sup><\/a> Additionally, although the United States is not bound by the CRC, the present bill remains informative on how to approach the safeguarding of children\u2019s privacy interests across the globe.<\/p>\n

HF 3488, in contrast to France\u2019s legislation, takes a child\u2019s right to erasure a step further. Rather than only permitting parents to request a social network to delete the child\u2019s image, the Minnesota bill enables children over the age of 13 to request the deletion of any content featuring their likeness.[54]<\/a> Individuals who are currently over the age 18, but were a minor at the time the content \u00a0was posted, may similarly make requests for deletion.[55]<\/a> HF 3488 further entitles children to commence a civil action against the creator of the relevant content if their rights are or have been violated.[56]<\/a><\/p>\n

Both the French and Minnesotan models serve as a prime starting point for other States to follow as they develop their own domestic regimes to protect children\u2019s privacy rights. Each approach aligns with the Committee on the Rights of the Child\u2019s recommendations by considering the unique needs and evolving maturity of children. By granting children or their parents the ability to request the removal of content featuring the child, these models seek to uphold children\u2019s autonomy and dignity in the exercise of their privacy rights.[57]<\/a> Nevertheless, substantial gaps remain in ensuring children have clear, practical pathways to seek redress and enforce their privacy rights.[58]<\/a><\/p>\n

C. Considerations Moving Forward<\/span><\/p>\n

The above models support children\u2019s right to privacy by implementing the right to erasure. By enabling children to take an active role in deciding when their image can be removed from the internet, States rightfully acknowledge that a child may withdraw consent, and that their understanding of privacy may evolve as they grow and mature.[59]<\/a> However, each model presents unique access to justice issues.<\/p>\n

Under the French model, the ability to exercise a cause of action to remove a child\u2019s image or video from a social network lies with the parent, rather than the child.[60]<\/a> Despite the French Civil Code\u2019s requirement that parents and guardians involve their child in the exercise of their image rights \u2014 including the exercise of the right to erasure \u2014 it only authorizes adults to initiate such actions.[61]<\/a> This introduces potential for abuse.[62]<\/a> For instance, a teenager may clearly express that a parent’s sharing of their image violates their privacy rights and may request its removal. However, a toddler or younger child may lack the capacity to comprehend the extent of their image’s online presence, and by the time they are old enough to understand, the content may have already been publicly accessible for a significant period.[63]<\/a><\/p>\n

Alternatively, the Minnesotan model grants a child the right to request the erasure of content in which they are featured.[64]<\/a> However, this model introduces a different obstacle to access justice. To exercise their rights, children must not only be aware of the law’s existence but also have the means to access and afford legal counsel.[65]<\/a> Additionally, the inherent power dynamic between parents and children may discourage some children from seeking redress for violations of their privacy rights.[66]<\/a><\/p>\n

Further, while General Comment 25 broadly instructs States to consider children’s evolving capacities and best interests, it fails to offer concrete guidelines on how on how these principles should be implemented within domestic laws, policies, and procedures.[67]<\/a> Limitations may arise in gathering sufficient input on how online sharing affects younger children, as their autonomy is frequently restricted by parental supervision, making it challenging to accurately assess their personal views on the matter.[68]<\/a> However, as children already impacted by sharenting mature and begin articulating their experiences, it is imperative that States actively consult these individuals in the development of future safeguards, in order to fully assess and address the specific ways in which their rights have been affected within the digital environment. Additionally, given the prevalence of sharenting and the concerns over children\u2019s ability to access recourse for violations of their privacy interests, States must work to educate children on their right to privacy to address issues raised by limited access to justice.<\/p>\n

IV. Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The growing practice of sharenting poses unique risks to a child\u2019s human right to privacy. Even when an online post is well-intended, sharing a child\u2019s image and information online poses significant concerns regarding their safety and right to privacy. As exemplified by the legislative approaches adopted in France and Minnesota, there is a growing recognition of the need for new approaches to protect children\u2019s privacy rights. While the highlighted domestic approaches offer valuable insights and serve as a useful foundation for other jurisdictions, both models require further refinement and practical development. As similar laws and digital sharing continue to evolve, States must ensure privacy protections are not only codified at the domestic level but are also accessible, enabling children to exercise their rights as they mature and understand their privacy rights.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Kate Collins, TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop<\/em>, CNET (Aug. 7, 2022), https:\/\/www.cnet.com\/tech\/services-and-software\/tiktok-parents-are-taking-advantage-of-their-kids-it-needs-to-stop\/ [https:\/\/perma.cc\/S5NN-87Z6].<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> The practice of \u201csharenting\u201d or \u201cfamily influencing\u201d also raises significant concerns about child labor, but discussions of such issues is beyond the scope of this article. See <\/em>Marina A. Masterson, When Play Becomes Work: Child Labor Laws in the Era of \u201cKidfluencers,\u201d<\/em> 169 Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. 577 (2020); Joseph A. Cannataci (Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy), Artificial intelligence and privacy, and children\u2019s privacy<\/em>, at 12 n.16, U.N. Doc. A\/HRC\/46\/37 (Jan. 25, 2021).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Cannataci, supra <\/em>note 5; Comm. On the Rights of the Child, General comment No. 25 on children\u2019s rights in relation to the digital environment, at \u00b6 12, U.N. Doc. CRC\/C\/GC\/25 (Mar. 2, 2021) [hereinafter General Comment 25].<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Morgan Sung, Their children went viral. Now they wish they could wipe them from the internet.<\/em>, NBC News (Nov. 3, 2022), https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/pop-culture\/influencers-parents-posting-kids-online-privacy-security-concerns-rcna55318 [https:\/\/perma.cc\/L55H-HSKW].<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> See id.<\/em> (explaining how a mother\u2019s video of dancing with five-year-old daughter gained over six million views within a matter of hours).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Cannataci, supra <\/em>note 5.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> General Comment No. 25, supra<\/em> note 6, \u00b6 12; Sharing photos and videos of your child on social networks: what risks<\/em>, CNIL (Dec. 20, 2023), https:\/\/www.cnil.fr\/en\/sharing-photos-and-videos-your-child-social-networks-what-risks [https:\/\/perma.cc\/6S53-MABN].<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> CNIL, supra<\/em> note 10.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Id.<\/em>; Antonio Gatto, Antonio Corsello, & Pietro Ferrara, Sharenting: hidden pitfalls of a new increasing trend\u2013 suggestions on an appropriate use of social media<\/em>, 50 It. J. of Pediatrics 15 (2024).<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> John Bulter, Parents who share photos of children online more likely to be approached for sexual images of them<\/em>, The Guardian (May 1, 2024), https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2024\/may\/02\/parents-share-photo-kids-online-identity-aic-report-sharenting [https:\/\/perma.cc\/7AAW-XJLB].<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> General Comment No. 25, supra<\/em> note 6.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Gatto, Corsello, & Ferrara, supra<\/em> note 13.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at \u00b6 4 (\u201cThe rights of every child must be respected, protected and fulfilled in the digital environment. Innovations in digital technologies affect children\u2019s lives and their rights in ways that are wide-ranging and interdependent, even where children do not themselves access the Internet.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> \u201cChild[ren]\u201d refers to individuals under the age of 18, \u201cunless under the applicable law to the child, majority is attained earlier.\u201d G.A. Res. 44\/25, Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 1 (Nov. 20, 1989) [hereinafter CRC]; Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6\u00b6 67-68.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Rachel Abrams, Family Influencing in the Best Interest of the Child<\/em>, 2 Chicago J. of Int\u2019l L. 2, 102 (2023).<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> CRC, supra<\/em> note 15, art. 16(1).<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at art. 16(2).<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at art. 19(1).<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> See generally <\/em>id.<\/em> at art. 16, 19.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> See<\/em> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5; General Comment No. 25, supra<\/em> note 6.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Abrams, supra <\/em>note 20 at 101.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 79.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at \u00b6 70.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> General Comment No. 25, supra<\/em> note 6, at \u00b6 19; Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 83.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> General Comment No. 25, supra<\/em> note 6, at \u00b6 19; Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 83.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 83.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Sung, supra<\/em> note 7.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 83.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 83; CNIL, supra<\/em> note 9 (\u201c[P]hotographs and videos shared by parents can. . . damage [a child\u2019s] online reputation (with the risk of cyber-bulling) and have a negative impact in the school setting, or on their personal and professional future.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 114.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> General Comment No. 25, supra<\/em> note 6, at \u00b6 7.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at \u00b6\u00b6 19, 20, 23.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at \u00b6\u00b6 12, 19-21, 70.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> See<\/em> id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Magalie Dansac Le Clerc and Juliette LePortois, France introduces new law to enhance the protection of children\u2019s rights in France<\/em>, Connect on Tech (Mar. 19, 2024), https:\/\/connectontech.bakermckenzie.com\/france-introduces-new-law-to-enhance-the-protection-of-childrens-rights-in-france\/#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20erasure%20(or,photos%20shared%20by%20the%20parent) [https:\/\/perma.cc\/F5Q4-WXYB].<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> The French Civil Code defines a minor as an individual under the age of eighteen. C. civ. art. 388 (Fr.); C. civ. art. 372-1 (Fr.).<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> See<\/em> Le Clerc and LePortois, supra<\/em> note 43.<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[51]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[52]<\/a> H.F. 3488, 93rd Leg., 2024 Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2024).<\/p>\n

[53]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[54]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[55]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[56]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[57]<\/a> Id<\/em>; C. civ. art. 372-1 (Fr.).<\/p>\n

[58]<\/a> See<\/em> Erica Kayata, California passed a law to financially protect children used in online content. But does it go far enough?<\/em>, Ne. Glob. News (Oct. 10, 2024), https:\/\/news.northeastern.edu\/2024\/10\/10\/californias-child-influencer-law\/#:~:text=But%20recently%2C%20California%20joined%20Illinois,are%20compensated%20for%20their%20work.&text=California’s%20new%20law%20requires%20parents,they%20earn%20from%20these%20posts. [https:\/\/perma.cc\/5Y67-W9VB].<\/p>\n

[59]<\/a> General Comment No. 25, supra<\/em> note 6, at \u00b6 19.<\/p>\n

[60]<\/a> Le Clerc and LePortois, supra<\/em> note 43.<\/p>\n

[61]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[62]<\/a> See<\/em> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 120.<\/p>\n

[63]<\/a> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 83.<\/p>\n

[64]<\/a> H.F. 3488, 93rd Leg., 2024 Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2024).<\/p>\n

[65]<\/a> See<\/em> Kayata, supra <\/em>note 58.<\/p>\n

[66]<\/a> Cannataci, supra<\/em> note 5, at \u00b6 120.<\/p>\n

[67]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at \u00b6\u00b6 19-20, 23.<\/p>\n

[68]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at \u00b6 120.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Meredith Mast, Associate Member, Immigration and Human Rights Law Review I. Introduction Rachel Barkman\u2019s son was only two years old when he began correctly identifying different types of mushrooms.[1] As Rachel and her son took foraging walks through the nearby Vancouver woods, Rachel would occasionally record and upload videos to TikTok of her son picking […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":65,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,24],"tags":[308,47,307,305,306,309],"class_list":{"0":"post-602","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-human-rights","7":"category-international-law","8":"tag-child","9":"tag-children","10":"tag-parents","11":"tag-privacy","12":"tag-sharenting","13":"tag-social-media","14":"czr-hentry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/65"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=602"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/602\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":604,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/602\/revisions\/604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}