Those kinds of laws are typically very vague.

This is New York's, for example:

> 1. He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to his or her life or health; or

Whether something is "likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child" is fairly subjective, since it's a balance of odds.

The worst part is such laws as written would be straightforwardly applicable to the police and prosecutors that see fit to harass parents and children, but yet again they're above the law they purport to uphold.

> "substantial risk of danger" Such vague and objective measures shouldn't be in law. I started to drive around Montana's unposted "reasonable and prudent" speed limit came back and was later deemed unconstitutional because "reasonable and prudent" was too subjective for an individual to know when or not they are in compliance.