> a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children Again, no one is sayi

> a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification. Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for? > But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn? Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman: > an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument