Number one, while those gentlemen were unquestionably wise and learned, you'll forgive me for not considering them my "betters".
'Nuff said.
Children have access to porn on the internet without any difficulty. And when porn is easily available as it is now, kids see it without any problem. And the easy availablitiy of porn lowers the bar for sexual content in entertainment not considered porn, so kids are becoming more and more sexualized.
You comment that it's parents' duty to protect children and not the government is a statement borne of ignorance and arrogance. Children aren't citizens that warrant protection?
Some speech is not worthy of protection - slander, libel, false advertising, incitement of crime or terrorism, treason, and probably some others. Traditionally, and with good reason, pornography was on this list - UNTIL the ACLU, leftist activist judges, and porn producers, changed the federal law so that local communities including states now have no local control.
That IS leftist.
If parents cannot be bothered to care for their children, it is not a justification to run the lives of others.
You seem quite willing to call other men your "betters". Why is that?
"Some speech is not worthy of protection..."
I guess we should all accept YOUR definition of what is "worthy" speech, eh?