Ophelia of Butterflies and Wheels (via which), and co-author of Why Truth Matters, is interviewed by D.J. Grothe on that very subject. You can hear her talking a lot of sense by downloading the MP3 here.
All of it is interesting, but my attention was particularly caught by an exchange (beginning round 13 minutes in) on what parents teach their children. The gist of what Ophelia says - and this isn't verbatim, it's my summary - is that while there's no obligation on any individual to believe what is true, parents have a responsibility not to teach their children what is untrue. She refers to Mill's harm principle and to indoctrination. She at once goes on to say that this then creates a tension, because parents do have a right to teach their children anything they want: Ophelia has no idea how a prohibition against teaching what is untrue could be enforced, and she wouldn't want it enforced. The upshot is (if I haven't misunderstood her meaning): it's wrong to teach children what's untrue, but parental rights trump the belief that it's wrong. It's a wrong that parents are legally free to commit.
All of which is clear enough. I have this additional thought about it. The non-enforceability of any responsibility there is not to teach children untruths must surely follow, in liberal societies, from not having public bodies issuing pronouncements as to what is - officially as it were - true and untrue. Even on matters where there is a scientific consensus, that consensus is left open to challenge. But more relevantly, on matters of ethics, politics, metaphysical outlook, there's no official truth that could be enforced.