Context matters

"Theres no such thing as the right to watch porn" The Supreme Court says otherwise. They ruled that onerous age verification procedures are a significant barrier to accessing controversial speech. Of course if it were up to me, I'd simply say that the state has no business imposing such rules on content providers or their visitors ab initio. Is it possible that something is harmful even if done voluntarily? Smoking or drinking to excess would be good examples, but porn isn't an ingested substance. Just going by Eilish's statement alone, the implied context is that she was accessing BDSM surreptitiously with similarly aged and naïve peers which suggests there was no one more experienced and grounded who had the opportunity to contextualize BDSM porn (or any other porn) as fantasy. Is it the media's fault if a kid puts on a cape and jumps off the roof expecting to fly? Or is it the responsibility of more knowledgeable people in the child's life to be accessible about such subjects to clarify the difference between fantasy and reality? Keeping a kid in the dark and hoping for the best is certainly risky, if not outright harmful. But it's hard to say that viewing BDSM porn is in of itself any more harmful than viewing any other sort of violence in the media. If anything, the purported effects of fantasy violence in general have garnered plenty of skepticism. Eilish should be excoriating the adults in her childhood for being unable to talk to her about porn instead of bitching about the porn itself and the people who enjoy viewing it.