> I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law).
Oh? Well, what if you spank your child? -That certainly causes psychological harm. Does CPS take people's children away for clearly causing long term harm to them in that way?
> Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible)
This has been covered elsewhere. But you do realize that it's the government that runs those block lists, and that they can put whatever they want in there, don't you? For example, I don't think China approves of Chinese people reading naughty anti-government material. You see, people need to be protected from something so disconcerting and potentially harmful (to the government itself).
> How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.
They're going to be exposed to porn and even actively seek it out eventually anyway. I'm not saying little kids should be watching porn, but I'm not sure it would harm them either. Recently, my sister's 3-year-old daughter happened to witness a sex scene in some soap opera that was running in the background while we had dinner. She just completely disregarded it.