Of course it only stops children that want to be stopped, aka it protects them from stuff they want to be protected from.
See also my last sentence:
It weights more than protecting children from the consequences of their own free decisions in this case, imo.
Of course, you can disagree here.
The fundamental question is, do we want to let the subject decide by itself, or do - as the lawmaker - the decision for all subjects.
For drinking alcohol I’d prefer latter, because:
Young humans are less resistant against the bad effects of alcohol than adult ones. (==> Makes sense to restrict only a part of the population.)
It can be addicting. (==> Hard to make own decision.)
There can be peer pressure to take drugs. (==> Hard to make own decision.)
The damages would be expensive for the health care system. (==> Negative effects for all of us, not just the individual.)
If you dont think people can get issues from watching things, you should look up issues people have gotten from having a job of reviewing flagged content on social media sites.
I’m a little confused at what you’re writing, as it seems like you think the children that should choose if they should access a porn (or other adult content) site. They will of cause continue to watch. Just like they would eat doughnuts as a meal all the time if they had the choice.
If you dont think people can get issues from watching things
I do not not think this.
it seems like you think the children that should choose if they should access a porn (or other adult content) site.
Yes. The website should have a warning about its content (one could also make a law that it has to put more information there, about the risks and whatnot. we have this for other things). If the child is old enough to find such content and be curious, they’re probably mature enough to make their own decision.
They will of cause continue to watch.
If it’s that bad that it hurts them immediately, they won’t. And otherwise, it’s still not like they’d get addicted, and so I do not think a short exposure would have negative enough effects to strictly enforce age verification.
Just like they would eat doughnuts as a meal all the time if they had the choice.
Children are allowed to buy food (here in germany). They just need the money and access to a store.
I’m glad that you have well adjusted children that doesn’t have any issues and can say no to stuff like a mature person. Not all have that. A lot of pressure is applied to children today that weren’t a thing when I grew up, being constantly connected and have big corporations getting kids addicted to constant information stream. Setting the bar at, if a child is able to use a web browser as an indicator of maturity, is a very low bar.
Regarding doughnuts, then children are most of the time limited on how much money they have, have other interests that cost money, and (hopefully) parents that makes sure they don’t eat doughnuts for all their meals.
I have been focusing on porn, but age checks should also be applied to gambling, social media, and other things that can screw up people.
Of course it only stops children that want to be stopped, aka it protects them from stuff they want to be protected from.
See also my last sentence:
Of course, you can disagree here. The fundamental question is, do we want to let the subject decide by itself, or do - as the lawmaker - the decision for all subjects.
For drinking alcohol I’d prefer latter, because:
For gore and porn I don’t see such points.
If you dont think people can get issues from watching things, you should look up issues people have gotten from having a job of reviewing flagged content on social media sites.
I’m a little confused at what you’re writing, as it seems like you think the children that should choose if they should access a porn (or other adult content) site. They will of cause continue to watch. Just like they would eat doughnuts as a meal all the time if they had the choice.
I do not not think this.
Yes. The website should have a warning about its content (one could also make a law that it has to put more information there, about the risks and whatnot. we have this for other things). If the child is old enough to find such content and be curious, they’re probably mature enough to make their own decision.
If it’s that bad that it hurts them immediately, they won’t. And otherwise, it’s still not like they’d get addicted, and so I do not think a short exposure would have negative enough effects to strictly enforce age verification.
Children are allowed to buy food (here in germany). They just need the money and access to a store.
I’m glad that you have well adjusted children that doesn’t have any issues and can say no to stuff like a mature person. Not all have that. A lot of pressure is applied to children today that weren’t a thing when I grew up, being constantly connected and have big corporations getting kids addicted to constant information stream. Setting the bar at, if a child is able to use a web browser as an indicator of maturity, is a very low bar.
Regarding doughnuts, then children are most of the time limited on how much money they have, have other interests that cost money, and (hopefully) parents that makes sure they don’t eat doughnuts for all their meals.
I have been focusing on porn, but age checks should also be applied to gambling, social media, and other things that can screw up people.