The question isn't whether protecting children is a legitimate government interest. The question is whether government should replace parental judgment with a one-size-fits-all state mandate.
If the standard is "some parents fail," then there is virtually no limit to government intrusion into family life. Conservatives have traditionally argued the opposite: parents, not bureaucrats, bear primary responsibility for raising children.
Calling something the "least restrictive means" doesn't make it so. SB 2420 requires app stores to verify ages & obtain parental approval before minors can access countless apps that have nothing to do with pornography. That's a much broader intervention than simply targeting adult websites.
Government always has an interest in preventing harm. The real debate is where that authority ends. I don't support replacing parental responsibility with state supervision simply because some parents fail to do their job. Liberty requires accepting that families, not government, are primarily responsible for raising children. Period.
ICE detain father at traffic stop—leave 5-year-old abandoned alone in back seat.
Agent drove car from where dad was arrested—to an empty parking lot.
Left 5-year-old son locked in car.
"I couldn’t get out of car," boy said. "Police didn't want me to."
Mom was far away at work — she eventually managed to contact his babysitter to come get her son.
But their car was also stopped by agents who demanded proof of citizenship.
Incident occurred in Robertsdale, Alabama—about 25 miles east of Mobile.