[Condor51]

***I agree that it is the job of the parent, but believe they need government's help. Who says it is not the job of the government? What support do you have for your assertion?***

Excuse me for butting in dinoparty BUT...

1. Who says it is not the job of the government?
   The U.S. Constitution.

2. What support do you have for your assertion?
   The U.S. Constitution.

3. I agree that it is the job of the parent, but believe they need government's help.
   See #1 & $2. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant Congress the 'right' nor power to help parents play computer nanny.

In case you missed the Roberts' and Alito hearings the second most 'hot' topic was the Commerce Clause. Since it sounds boring and not about abortion, the MSM ignored it.

You see, SCOTUS has finally reined in the abuse of it by Congress - after 60 years, and they 'ain't' too pleased. Especially Di-Fi and Durbin. As when you limit Congresses power to cite the Commerce Clause as the foundation for a bill you limit what they can do. If strictly interpreted, Congress would need to meet about six weeks a year

The Commerce Clause is the basis for every Federal gun control law, every 'hate crime' law, and every other stoo-pid Federal law not specifically allowed by the US Constitution. All of which are then patently unconstitutional. Like DiFi's recently struck down 'Gun Free School Zone Law'.

In fact in the recently passed Sexual Orientation Hate Crime Bill in the senate. Section 2 (IIRC) specifically referenced the Commerce Clause as it's legal basis solely in an attempt to make it constitutional - and avoid a SCOTUS smack down.

Ergo, having the gubmint get involved in what can be "viewed" on a computer screen has diddley to do with Commerce and as such they can't so shiite about it.

The Constitution doesn't allow 'feel good'; or 'gee whiz, it'll help parents'; nor 'gosh, but we meant well' laws. And it's about time SCOTUS is doing what they are supposed to.

Okay, your turn. Where do you get your assertion that Congress can CONSTITUTIONALLY get involved with playing nanny.

[dinoparty]

You simply pointed out that the commerce clause has been abused, and now it is getting reigned in. I agree with that. I have agreed with Scalia/Thomas on just about every commerce clause case that I've seen recently. The point is that it IS intended to provide for the regulation of interstate commerce, and commerce over the internet is a prime example. You know that its not just about "staring at a computer screen", its about commerce between two computer screens in separate states.