The article challenges the government's reasons for restricting controversial speech to protect children. It argues that courts have accepted these reasons without questioning them. The author suggests that the government's interests in reinforcing parental authority and shielding children from unsuitable material are flawed. They show that different families have different values, making it impossible for regulations to satisfy everyone. The government has also failed to prove any specific harm to children from controversial speech. The article concludes that government regulation may not be necessary, as the private market already offers ways to address parental concerns.