Why would you ignore the issues that the article represents, isn't the point of it in the first place to show that the theoretical interpretation and practical implementation of certain laws leave a lot to be desired?
Strictu sensu it's showing that some of them are being used as a vehicle for certain empowered individuals to enforce their own stringent conservative hetero-normative 'values' on others who 'dissent'. While the majority of laws (in an ethical regime) are indeed implemented to 'protect' people, it goes to show that they can also, and perhaps just as easy in a democratic and ethical regime opposite to dictatorial ones, be (ab)used to stigmatise others. I find that to be disgusting.
They are supposedly designed to protect children, the intention of which is of course a good thing. But the manner in which they are implemented is far from perfect, actually harming the children in the process.
There usually is a huge difference between the theory and practice of a law. If the solution is worse than the problem, then is it really 'solving' anything?