I won't deny the existence of people like she speaks of, who apparently abhor the very existence of porn. While she's at it, she says this:
One big trouble I have with so many conservatives is the implicit arrogance that underneath it all, people basically see the world the way they do and feel as they do.
There's nothing arrogant about assuming that if people start from the same beliefs and then apply some logic, they'll wind up reaching the same conclusions. What's arrogant is thinking that other people don't see the world the way they do. In fact, it borders on insanity.
In my case, I think it's important for children to be shielded from some things which for one reason or another they're not prepared to deal with. Is that controversial so far?
In reality most well adjusted people do not get porn and real life confused, keeping them in different boxes in their heads.
That's the precise problem with porn, both for the non-well adjusted adults and for kids. It seems that NR agrees that porn is not to be confused with real life, and that such confusion can be a problem. Growing up is largely about learning to deal with life as it is, and kids don't need any more obstacles.
I just wish those conservatives and their statist allies on the left would stop trying to use the force of law to impose peculiar world views on everyone else.
I'm with you about abuse of the force of law, but not with the peculiar world view. Protecting kids isn't exactly a new or unpopular idea (at least not before Bill Clinton started abusing it).
We don't sell booze and cigarettes to kids. We don't let them sign contracts or take part in other things where adults might take advantage of them. These prohibitions are not controversial. I hereby challenge Natalija and the libertarians of Samizdata to show me how the benefits of such prohibitions could be realized in a libertarian context, or alternatively to show that these benefits are not worth having.