[WorkingDead]

Those things are not equal. It's perfectly reasonable to take books with graphic depictions of sex and violence out of the children's section.

[WoahNoun]

Agreed, we should definitely keep the bible away from children.

[etchalon]

Why?

[rhino369]

I take no position on whether the books are pornographic--I haven't read them or investigated them at all.

But at least for young children, exposure to pornography is well-recognized as harmful. Not just morally, but psychologically. Maybe even as a form of child molestation.

[j_walter]

For the same reason a 17 year old can't go to a movie theater and watch an R rated movie by themselves. Society has said certain aspects of life (violence, sex, language) need to be restricted until people reach a certain age.

[lostlogin]

It isn’t applied quite like that though.

The bible is likely in the library and kids could reach it, and violence is acceptable to an arbitrary point which changes based on the media.

[etchalon]

Nothing "needs" to be restricted. There are people who prefer to restrict certain things to certain people of certain ages, because "reasons".

Meanwhile, kids like me were watching Sleepaway Camp at age 9 and it was fine.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm not confident that all kids could be like you, though. Even as an adult, I'd find it pretty disturbing if I were flipping through a book I liked, starting to identify with the main character, and then turned a page to see some side characters discussing their graphic sex fantasies about her.

[etchalon]

I'm not confident all adults can handle listening to Joe Rogan, but I'm not running around trying to limit its access.