It is difficult to find a range on the political spectrum where the policy described in this article fits. I would be hard pressed to label those enforcing or contesting the policy as having any clear political leanings at all. Are the relatives of the childlike adults libertarians and the Lego administrators authoritarian rule makers? Or are the Lego people over-reaching nannies denying their fellow citizens' rights to free association in the name of protecting children whose independent families should uniquely bear the burden of their protection?
Presumably, the Lego people do not expect children to actually be raped at their facility, so the policy would seem to be designed to thwart pedophiles from meeting and grooming victims there. If so, then it may be less than wholly effective, given the reality that a substantial number of children are sexually molested by other children, and that a pedophile accompanied by a child is more likely to be able to approach and exploit a child than one who is by himself. I do recall being cautioned not to trust adult strangers, but I do not remember what if anything I was told as a child about the dangers inherent in being around a mentally disabled adult and his caregiver.