Besides, the free market has already responded to the porn problem - there are plenty of filters that parents can buy or download, such as NetNanny. Plus the porn sites have adult age verification checks. A lot of these parents just aren't doing their jobs and are letting their kids go online to meet who-knows-what.
SCOTUS doesn't have a leg to stand on this issue. If Internet porn were restricted then so could medical and healthcare websites. The porn industry is great at regulating itself Schlafly should worry about other, more pressing issues such as gov't spending and the UN.
You are right about the market responding to provide proper controls.
But as you well know, this is not about protecting children.
That is but thinly veiled cover for their real intent...
moralistic nannystate enforcement of restrictions on freedom to "sin."
The "holier than thous" don't want OTHER, free men and women, to choose what they view over their own computer, or TV, or at their local bookstores either.
And they want to make america "morally righteous again" by doing it via the aegis of laws and interpretations thereof that violate the bill of rights.
government run amouk.
When religion joins with political power, you get the inquisition... something a group of conservatives here a week or so back... actually defended.
disgusting.
Right. So even if the kids don't see the porn (and since most teenagers who have computers are better techies than their parents, of course any porn filters will be rendered null and void by them) the neighborhood sickos can be filled to the brim with porn and be ready to put their sick fantasies into action on the neighborhood kids.
There is no justification in the Constitution or anywhere else to protect pornography. There is no inalienable right to watch explicit and especially weird, violent, or child sex. If you want sex, go do your own.