I challenge you to describe how someone who has the ability, and the ethical justification for an action, dose not have the right. If the parents' justification is based on the child's well-being, then that justification fades when an action is counter to a child's well-being. And a teenager does have the ability to recognize that some things may be counter to their well-being. If, on the other hand, the justification is based on the parent's preferences, that is not a right, only a preference. Parents do not have a right to enforce what is merely a preference, any more than any human being can enforce their preferences on any other human being.
You seem to be using 'right' in a different way to me. I'm not going to accept a challenge unless I actually understand your terms.
Actually I prefer discussion over some calling out to prove myself correct over opinion based matters.
I was using the term right as a legal, united nations term. The word 'rights' having a defined meaning and set of guildines. eg
UNICEF - Convention on the Rights of the Child -. Personally I dont consider withholding a leisure based book from a kid a violation of the UN bill of rights for children.
I don't consider particluarily harmful to a child's well being if its an isolated case either. Taking everything away from a child they enjoy would be determiental to thier growth, taking one book or pastime meh.
I also wouldn't place a teenager in the same catergory as a child. By 15 in many locales, a teenager has the right to move out of home and make any of their own rules.
A statement stating a child has ethical justification for x action is really going to become a debate about personal ethics.
Children, and teenagers, may well feel they have ethical grounds for disagreeing with parent, and be wrong in terms of possible harm.
Ethics are slippery suckers. There as as many version of what is ethicals as there are people.
I also didn't say I thought parents had the 'right to enforce a preference', but in realistic terms over actual rights, that is a basic strong truth of parenting children. It's justified by most society's social contracts and norms. Parents are allowed to do what they think best for thier children unless it harms the child.
In most legal senses, I doubt a child (again teenagers are different) would have much success in the small claims court arguing that their parents took away a toy the parent thought was unsafe - even if they proved toy was really safe.
House owners in most places have the legal right to choose whats in thier house, (aside from the obvious things enforced by law/standards liek fire alarms in some locales). If they don't wont green couchs, they can get rid of them. If they dont want books by authors with the name starting with G, then they don't have to. It may not be fair, but the mere fact something is unfair doesn't grant you a legal right, or imo even a moral right automactially.
In day to day life, humans constantly enforce their preferences on other humans, not just parents over children, but bosses over staff, the diner that closes before the evening meal, the IP court that wont allow game designers to use hairy footed half-humans, buses that run every hour and that's ten minutes before you leave from work, etc etc.
Having the ability to do something, and the moral belief that you are right doesn't equal the right to do something, at least not as I define 'rights'.
Edit: I still don't personally agree with the parent btw - just making that clear.