re: coomers acting like children have a right to PORN

SCOTUS already ruled that the govt has a compelling interest in protecting kids from porn. Its reasoning is quite simple: Porn is deeply damaging to the psychological health of children, and it is in the interests of the American people to ensure that they are protected from such harms from a young age.

Coomers raise 3 points:
1. Porn is art, so children have a right to access art.
2. Parents should be responsible enough to protect their children from porn.
3. Govt shouldn't require ID to access anything.

I raise 3 counterpoints which are all definitive and completely defeat their arguments:
1. Pornography is not art, and even if it were art, I would still prohibit it as degenerate art which is harmful to American people.
2. American people should be protected against the harms of pornography, which causes serious mental health issues which will affect all of us in the long term, regardless of their parents. Even if this point were valid, inaction represents another coercion: The idea that the govt should be getting involved to favor the idea that parents should completely bar their children from accessing the internet or otherwise allow their children access to porn.
3. Govt requires ID to access video games. Get over yourself. You don't need to give the porno business your bank info either. That's just because you pay for porn retard. The ID is what the govt requires; plenty of free porn websites still require ID alone and are funded by ads.