Free speech: difference between porn and violence?

I'm just curious why selling violent video games to minors is protected speech but selling pornography to minors is not? Is it solely because of our puritan hangup regarding sexuality? Is it b/c selling porn to minors can be construed as preying upon minors? I don't really have an opinion either way, but as my daughter is more likely to have sex when she is old enough than to kill someone, I'm just wondering why the difference between the two?

honestly, I don't have clue.

Not that they can't obtain it if they so desire. Damned Internets.

:shrug:

GOOP supporters seem to really like violence, and elected GOOPers seem to really like hookers.

generally want to repress the female side, and nature. Keep sex locked away, this seems to be more of an English concept, not Swedish, or French. The French were known even back in the 1700's for being horn-dogs, quite the opposite of the English. The English lived on an Island nation, which is very small, so 'sexual purity' is 'prudent', and seems to be instigated biologically. This keeps the population down to a manageable size. The Irish are (the more sexually 'repressed'), smallest island oldest inhabitants (although all of Britain was 'Irish before the Roman/Germanic invasions).

Porn is just 'natural'(sexual curiosity), but its not supposed to be socially endorsed. Social endorsement represents degenerate behavior. Look at Clinton, after Monica, 10 year olds were, and still are doing 'BJ's' on buses. Do you want a society where sex is ok where and whenever,with whomever?

Even the Romans had times when they tried to 'control' sexual behavior. Was it Alexander who sent his daughter to an island because she was a 'party girl' and bad example of 'elite sexual degeneracy'?

All power-people go for illicit sex, Dems, Repubs,always has always will.

This ruling was out of bounds though, but it then falls to the parents, who in this day and age are largely absent.

Yes, it's about the sexual hangup.

It's in the bible silly!

it appears the only reason we dont let our kids play in the porn word is because we are prudes? is this really how we define hip? letting our kids do porn?

as a parent, of course, i will try to monitor and talk about whatever media my daughter is exposed to. i'm truly just wondering why the distinction in our society. sex is a matter of life - it's natural (though i don't know if porn images are natural per se). violence, i guess to a certain extent, is natural too. but, it seems, we are more willing to except violence than sex. kind of a make war not love type of psyche?

is that what makes us, oh, sexually sophisticated, evolved, progressive, feeding our kids porn? that is what almost every person on this thread has suggested. correct? that kids ought to be fed porn, and if not, we parents are prudes.

raising my kids i monitored what they watched and played and it was not just relegated to sex or violence. there are a number of various unhealthy programming i did not allow my kids to watch. starting the youngest of age.

sponge bob and ed ed and eddy off limits because they were stupid, honored stupid and stupid is not allowed in our house

power girls, because though heroes and female empowered, they were angry all the time, even when happy.

so i dont buy into feeding kids one and not the other

still, i want to know, from the replies on your thread, are they suggesting our kids be fed porn.