Not sure that part’s absolutely necessary: if it’s publicly promoted to the extent that parents don’t have an excuse (eg, time, cost, access) other than low willpower/interest they are reasonably accountable for, then the public has fulfilled its duty to empower parents to direct the rearing of their children while protecting everyone’s fundamental rights.
However, I also think interested parents would popularly adopt voluntary solutions with enough public resources committed to promote & provide them in a major way.
While the public expense may seem extra, I think the government’s duty to protect fundamental rights justifies the expense.
Another comment mentions legislatively commissioned studies that suggest solutions similar to yours, but broader & less intrusive.
Recommendations included
A broad, national, private sector conversation should be encouraged on the development of next-generation systems for labeling, rating, and identifying content reflecting the convergence of old and new media.
Government and the private sector should undertake a major education campaign to promote public awareness of technologies and methods available to protect children online.
They also stressed the importance of adult involvement to provide child supervision & teach children internet safety, information literacy, & skills to evaluate inappropriate messages.
If the government had pursued these recommendations (it didn’t), I think it would have succeeded.
It’s also worth noting those & newer studies found client-side filters more effective than age verification for a number of reasons.
false positives & negatives are low & can be corrected
filters all internet protocols (not only HTTP or successors) regardless of geographic origin (including those beyond legal jurisdiction) or dynamism (eg, live chats also filtered)
highly granular (eg, can filter sections inside web pages)
You obviously don’t buy porn magazines for your teens and don’t show news from war zones to your young kids and keep eye on the movies/shows they watch
Though Australia isn’t the US, the US federal courts had an interesting opinion there: parents may always allow their children to access protected speech.
Even with sex-related materials, the Supreme Court has stated
the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their children.
They regarded as constitutionally defective laws that impose a single standard of public morality.
Instead, they’d allow laws that “support the right of parents to deal with the morals of their children as they see fit”.
Laws that take away parental control are also impermissible.
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166.
In another decision, they regard & defend parental responsibility & discretion in leaving access open to children.
The Fabulous Associates […]. Id. at 788. The court noted that “[i]n this respect, the decision a parent must make is comparable to whether to keep sexually explicit books on the shelf or subscribe to adult magazines. No constitutional principle is implicated. The responsibility for making such choices is where our society has traditionally placed it — on the shoulders of the parent.”
So, according to them, presenting such content to children ought to be left up to their parents, and laws shouldn’t infringe on their right to do that.
Not sure that part’s absolutely necessary: if it’s publicly promoted to the extent that parents don’t have an excuse (eg, time, cost, access) other than low willpower/interest they are reasonably accountable for, then the public has fulfilled its duty to empower parents to direct the rearing of their children while protecting everyone’s fundamental rights. However, I also think interested parents would popularly adopt voluntary solutions with enough public resources committed to promote & provide them in a major way. While the public expense may seem extra, I think the government’s duty to protect fundamental rights justifies the expense.
Another comment mentions legislatively commissioned studies that suggest solutions similar to yours, but broader & less intrusive. Recommendations included
They also stressed the importance of adult involvement to provide child supervision & teach children internet safety, information literacy, & skills to evaluate inappropriate messages. If the government had pursued these recommendations (it didn’t), I think it would have succeeded.
It’s also worth noting those & newer studies found client-side filters more effective than age verification for a number of reasons.
Though Australia isn’t the US, the US federal courts had an interesting opinion there: parents may always allow their children to access protected speech. Even with sex-related materials, the Supreme Court has stated
They regarded as constitutionally defective laws that impose a single standard of public morality. Instead, they’d allow laws that “support the right of parents to deal with the morals of their children as they see fit”. Laws that take away parental control are also impermissible.
In another decision, they regard & defend parental responsibility & discretion in leaving access open to children.
So, according to them, presenting such content to children ought to be left up to their parents, and laws shouldn’t infringe on their right to do that.