| > It's called consent. You don't appear to understand what that word means. This has nothing to do with consent. > For a minor, their parent or guardian must consent to show them adult or other traumatizing content. Pray tell how adult content is "traumatizing"? Before the internet kids used to pull porn magazines out of the trash or sneak down late at night to watch their parent's adult channel subscriptions. Finding it on the internet is the modern era's version of that. Probably in a few more decades we'll have a new version of it again. > Despite your personal experience, parents and guardians ultimately have the right,authority and responsibility to do their best to ensure the well being of a minor under their care which could mean no porn or even no meat in their diet. You don't have to agree. I fully achnkowledge that parents have the _right_ to control content if they so wish, however my argument is that they are absurd for doing so. It's not a matter of the child, it's a matter of the personal morals of the parents. > But let's say porn is not harmful or addictive, showing porn to people against their consent No one's talking about showing children porn against their consent. > This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with. That is absolutely what this is about. |
No, that's the strawman you want it to be about. Neither I nor no one else talked about preventing any willing person from interacting with sexual content.