Earlier quoted context omitted.
I considered many of the same points you mentioned. Though, one area I am still struggling to grasp is the harm that governments are trying to mitigate. If a child were to see inappropriate material, then what harm can truly arise? Also, why do governments need to enact such laws when the onus of protecting children should be on their parents? I am not trying to start any kind of flame war, but I really cannot see an…
It seems like you might be a big believer in cultural relativism and that nothing can be right or wrong, so this may be unsuccessful, but many of us do believe that it’s harmful to the normal development of children to be exposed to certain types of content. It is mostly about maturity. A five-year-old who sees explicit sexual acts performed on a screen is going to be curious about it and be interested in trying it.…
As to whether I believe in cultural relativism depends on the level of abstraction we are discussing. I believe there is no way to logically prove that something is morally right or wrong in a similar manner to how a mathematical concept can be proven from pure logic alone. But this fact does not often influence my beliefs in terms of morality in the context of social contracts, diplomacy, legal frameworks, etc.. To draw a parallel, I do not believe in complete free will, but I live my life as though it does exist (I believe in more of a 'sandbox' like an RPG video game with clear constraints and limitations).
> many of us believe that it’s harmful to the normal development of children to be exposed to certain types of content.
Are these beliefs supported by evidence or are they merely conjecture? Do not get me wrong, I am not saying I completely disagree. A child exposed to various types of abuse and neglect can have detrimental effects to his or her development, and there is plenty of evidence to support a statistical relationship.
> A five-year-old who sees explicit sexual acts performed on a screen is going to be curious about it and be interested in trying it.
I believe that is quite presumptuous. By that logic, if a child is exposed to comedic content, will that child become funnier? Such conclusions remind me of the debate as to whether violent video games and other media increase aggression and acts of violence in children. The data clearly does not support this conclusion. Now, I would not say there never has been/will be a case of a child trying to replicate a sexual act due to exposure -- much like violent content -- but outliers do not define the norm.
> He or she will likely have no sense of what would be problematic (e.g. trying to initiate such an act with a peer or an adult. Consider how they probably don’t understand ideas of consent).
Understanding consent is irrelevant. Children legally and morally (as determined by my culture) cannot consent to any sexual activity under any circumstances. Consent is de facto impossible. This is a social contract that I also strongly agree with.
> It’s why it’s generally considered grooming for people to exhibit that type of thing to children.
I was under the impression the intention behind the action was more important than the action itself. There is a difference in intentions between a child stumbling upon an adult getting undressed compared to an adult undressing and exposing themselves in front of a child. One action is happenstance and the other is predatory and abusive. It's why family pictures that might have a naked baby in a bathtub is not often considered CSAM.
> Children who have been groomed frequently abuse other children (including by force), and can be taken advantage of by pedophile adults.
I believe this myth is perpetuated too often. The vast majority adults that of sexually abuse children have no history of childhood sexual abuse. Certainly, some do perpetuate the abuse, but it's not as common as some might think. It is just another attempt for abusers to garner sympathy and decrease their punishment. It's very similar to the myth that public urination can result in a registered sex offender. To my knowledge, there are no instances of this type of case in the United States. However, it is a clever little lie to tell comfort folks into living next to a registered sex offender convict of a more heinous crime.
As for children-on-children abuse, I am not certain your claim holds up, but I admit I am less knowledgeable in this area.
Fundamentally, the laws around requiring ID to view adult content do not really prevent any of the harm we are discussing. Sure, I child might not accidentally stumble upon explicit content on Pornhub. However, the laws do not stop Chester Child Molester from sending their dick pics to a kid on Discord or Roblox or whatever.
Why is it the if a child stumbles upon a parent's firearm and hurts themselves or another, the parent can be held liable in both civil and criminal court. However, if a child stumbles upon sexually explicit content via a parent's computer, the onus is placed upon everyone but the parent(s)? If the harm of exposure of sexual material to youth is so damaging, then should parents not also be held to such civil and criminal punishments?