Nothing you said changes the fact that the history, text and tradition of the US Construction contains nothing that prevents the law from banning indecency.
The Construction is like a contract. It means what the parties who entered into it meant and understood it to mean. We don’t get to write new stuff into it without amending it the proper way. The idea that the framers intended the right to free speech enumerated in the first amendment to grant the right to deliver depictions of graphic sexual acts to children is ludicrous.
The parent in this case is ludicrous.
No one delivered things of a sexual nature to children. This is 100% on the parents.
1. The parents are responsible for who has physical access to the laptop.
2. The parents are responsible for not having the laptop password protected or sharing this with the kid.
3. The parents are responsible for not having a firewall in place, or restricted search filters etc.
4. The parents are at fault that the kid “likely” searched for these things, or opened a closed browser, or bookmark...
A liberal will argue, that to protect our children we need to ban guns.
Hypothetically: I the parent left a loaded gun on top of my end table in the bedroom in plain sight (physical access), I never taught the kid about gun safety, I didn’t have a gun lock (password), and when the kid kills himself the liberal will blame the gun, not me the reckless parent. Same problem.
The first ten amendments are supposed to be “unalienable” and they use terms like “shall not.” These first ten amendments are supposed to be hard rules, absolutes, timeless. These ten amendments are what made America special, what made the American a citizen and not a subject.
Today all ten of these amendments have been abridged.
Can you name me one of the first ten amendments which has not been abridged?
Sadly, the culprits in destroying this CONTRACT between the people and their government was destroyed just as much by so-called conservatives as by socialist left wing idiots. Example, Bush W. and his Patriot Act which is in typical government newspeak anything but patriotic.
For many so called conservatives, all you need to do is say “national security, public safety,” or mention their idea of “morals” and you can $hit on the Constitution.
That is no different than a libtard that will strip you of all your rights so they can save the planet and create an egalitarian utopia in their socialist fantasy world.
True liberalism is about maximizing liberty - a nobel cause but which has little in common with modern liberals.
True conservativism is about a traditional Constitutional view and enforcing this document, not trying to redefine or circumvent it.
At the heart of the US Constitution are limits to government powers (which everyone wants to expand today when it benefits them, until it’s them on the side that pays or gets their rights infringed upon) and decentralization.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It's funny how people love to claim how the Constitution doesn't specifically mention something by name when it's something they want to go after, but then feel like their rights are trampled on when others do the exact same thing to them.
How about we don't crap all over the US Constitution, from the left to save the environment, create a social safety net and equality between the races, sexes and sexual orientations; or the right for national security, public safety, or common decency / morality?
If you don't want a kid to see porn, keep them off the computer, or keep the computer off the web, or install a password and only let them use it with supervision, or install a free firewall to block such sites, restrict the search engine to safe searches, don't fill up the bookmarks, browser history and cookies from such sites, or best of all teach the kid not to seek out such material. I have been writing back and fourth with you for a greater part of this day on a computer with no filtering and no restrictions what so ever. Do you know how much porn was delivered to me? Zero.
Everyone loves to save the children, or to use them as victims: Ryan White (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White). He was a hemophiliac that was discriminated against because he had AIDS. The Homo community of course took this innocent child (who likely got AIDS from contaminated blood because of a homo) and used him to push their agenda. Ironic twist.
Today you have a lot of folks that are on a moral crusade against what they perceive as porn and they also love to use children for their cause. Lets not pretend porn gets shot at your face when you turn on a computer.
This makes sense: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/19/trump-signs-take-it-down-act-criminalizing-deepfake-and-revenge-porn-00357151 People are getting hurt (there are damages), it's against their will, etc. This is someone trying to hurt someone else intentionally. But the article of discussion in this thread does not make sense. There already are many safeguards in place or are available and if a kid is exposed to porn on the web it's a parental issue, not some porn sites fault.
Personal funny side bar on this topic. I once was in the Army many years ago. I got deployed many times and was interested in the news and current events since these impacted my life. While in a training area in 2002 and training for my next deployment, on a government laptop, on duty, I made the horrible mistake of navigating to the site www.Whitehouse.com (not www.whitehouse.gov). I was blasted with popups coming at me so fast that I literally couldn't close them as fast as they were popping up. The female anatomy was on display in it's full glory on my laptop. Those days are long gone.
Today, you have to basically look for porn and in many cases have to get around obstacles in order to get to such a site. Employers, public access points have firewalls, the searches are restricted on the machine itself, etc etc etc. If it were 2002 I would agree with you, it was possible back then for that to happen. Today, not so much, unless you have a parent that simply takes zero effort to prevent this. It's just the typical game of trying to use "the children" as an argument to go after something.