Yes, I am well aware of what I am advocating and I stand by it. There is a constitutional protection with regard to association and the Supreme Court has determined that these laws which "protect" children from internet porn are unconstitutional. I agree with them.
I find the SCOTUS to be in error as the state has a vested interest in maintaining a standard of social responsibility. Children, whether you like it or not, are a social responsibility as well as personal responsibility. The more personal liberty a society gives, the more social responsibility must be accepted by every member of that society. You have the freedom to view porn. You do not have the freedom to access that porn at the expense of a parent's rights to restrict their children. The social norm is that porn is not acceptable for children. The social responsibility you accept in retaining social liberty in this case is offering proof of age to view porn. It's really not a difficult concept.
There is a big difference with porn stores: a parent cannot put a block on them, they can block websites.
There is no difference. If a site delivers porn in exchange for money, then they have a responsibility to uphold proof verification standards just like any other adult entertainment enterprise. If the site delivers porn for free, then the site is under the same restrictions and penalties that you or I would be by delivering porn directly into the hands of a minor. Keep in mind that home is not the only place with internet access.
No one's rights are abridged because of showing proof of age on the internet?
No, no one's rights are being abridged by showing proof of age to view porn. There is no constitutional guarantee or right that grants unrestricted access to pornography.
What about people who have no proof of age?
I would suggest that they learn the meaning of social responsibility...personal liberties are being hindered by their lack of motivation to have proper id. I do not see you so concerned with their inability to purchase hard copy porn with lack of the same proof of age.
What about the lack of a credit card example I provided?
It is irrelevant for the same reason that lack of credit card can hinder you from shopping at non-porn sites on-line. There is no Constitutional guarantee that a vendor or merchant accept your form of payment or verification. They name the price for their services and what form that price will be rendered in. Totally irrelevant unless you are ready to take on Amazon.com for not taking COD for delivering books.
The world is not a parent's babysitter.
No one said the world is.
Parents are solely responsible for their own children's upbringing
Completely untrue. Society is responsible to protect its weakest members. Our society sees adult materials as being age sensitive. That is just a fact you are going to learn to live with or you will be a very disgruntled citizen for a very long time.
and as I have stated numerous times on this site: "People's rights do not end because other people decide to have children."
State it until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that no one's rights are being abridged or ended with laws requiring proof of age to view internet porn. There is no Constitutional guarantee that grants unrestricted access to internet pornography.
I realize that is difficult to understand because we have been conditioned to believe otherwise.
It is difficult to understand because it is socially dysfunctional.
This reminds me of a story my supervisor told me a while back. He has neighbors who are a same-sex couple. That couple had pool parties in their yard that my supervisor saw as inappropriate for his children to see. So what did he do? Did he expect the neighbors to stop their parties because he had children? Did he want a law passed to block his neighbors from pool parties? No. He built a fence. He recognized that what he wanted his children to see or not to see was his responsibilty.
I commend your supervisor for not being litigious. However, if the goings on in his neighbor's yard were obscene or indecent, then the liability was on his neighbors to build the fence...not him.