Since thw british government isn't forcibly preventing anyone from getting porn your point fails.
But, trying to answer your question: if coca cola marketed their product as having health benefits they'd be stopped by one branch of government. If they advertised it as being totally safe in inlimited quantities they'd be stopped by another regulator. The food industry haa been warned to make labelling clear and to reduce sugar, salt, and fat content or face strict regulation. So, yes, i'm happy for government to regulate the food supply.
>Should the British government forcibly prevent you from drinking Coca-Cola because it's bad for you?
Your example is bad. These two things are clearly not the same. Porn (even in a small dose) for young children is almost universally accepted to cause long term psychological damage. Cola in a small dose is universally accepted to cause zero long tern harm. I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law).
Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible)
If a 4 year old kid drinks a bottle of soda, how will that affect them for the rest of their life? If a 4 year old kid watches a (simulated) hardcore porn rape scene, is that more likely to affect them negatively for the rest of his or her life?
How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.
> I think that if you gave your kid enough Cola to where it was universally accepted to cause major long term harm to them - CPS would come take that kid from you and you would likely be arrested for child endangerment (thus it is against the law).
Oh? Well, what if you spank your child? -That certainly causes psychological harm. Does CPS take people's children away for clearly causing long term harm to them in that way?
> Secondly the govt is not forcibly preventing you from uncensored internet. It is the ISPs, and not forcibly, all you have to do is acknowledge that you want it (this could hardly be considered forcible)
This has been covered elsewhere. But you do realize that it's the government that runs those block lists, and that they can put whatever they want in there, don't you? For example, I don't think China approves of Chinese people reading naughty anti-government material. You see, people need to be protected from something so disconcerting and potentially harmful (to the government itself).
> How does that kid get at the soda? usually their parents or caretaker gives it to them right? Is that how they usually run across porn randomly on the web too? Maybe parents should watch kids every second they are online, but that is hardly possible with the ubiquity of internet devices today. At least if a kid sneaks a Cola at 2am whilst his parents are asleep - it is clearly missing the next day. Not so obvious if they were sneaking out and surfing the web incognito.
They're going to be exposed to porn and even actively seek it out eventually anyway. I'm not saying little kids should be watching porn, but I'm not sure it would harm them either. Recently, my sister's 3-year-old daughter happened to witness a sex scene in some soap opera that was running in the background while we had dinner. She just completely disregarded it.
>Oh? Well, what if you spank your child? -That certainly causes psychological harm. Does CPS take people's children away for clearly causing long term harm to them in that way?
There is no conclusive proof that spanking children causes psy harm. Nor is there a consensus of people who think is is. Every large study about psy effects by spanking is split one way or the other. A study of these study organizers found that the study results were always slanted in the favor of their original opinion. Your statement is (thus far) non deterministic and thus factually and even consensually incorrect.
>This has been covered elsewhere. But you do realize that it's the government that runs those block lists, and that they can put whatever they want in there, don't you? For example, I don't think China approves of Chinese people reading naughty anti-government material. You see, people need to be protected from something so disconcerting and potentially harmful (to the government itself).
China? I thought we were talking about England here... No, the govt there does not maintain the lists there. That is one of the issues that some here are taking. There is no centralized list.
>They're going to be exposed to porn and even actively seek it out eventually anyway. I'm not saying little kids should be watching porn, but I'm not sure it would harm them either. Recently, my sister's 3-year-old daughter happened to witness a sex scene in some soap opera that was running in the background while we had dinner. She just completely disregarded it.
A soap opera is a far stretch from rape pornography. And how do you really know how your niece was affected deep down? Perhaps she is even desensitized to seeing things like this since apparently her parents just let her see it.
Since you are not sure it would harm kids to watch porn I guess it is all right then huh? How is this even an argument? I'm not sure it would harm them Are you kidding me? I certainly hope you don't have kids anytime soon. BTW, the consensus of physiologists, studies and general public conclude that it IS rather harmful to kids.
Should the British government forcibly prevent you from drinking Coca-Cola because it's bad for you?