> judge's reduction it to a book equivalence is misleading and weakens the judgement

Good thing that isn't what happened. It is called an "analogy" and is not a factual statement of equivalence.

There is no law that mandates age verification for movies, any type of rating, or preventing anyone from watching any movie.

The MPAA rating system and adhering to it is completely voluntary.

Porn has always been treated differently than other speech that is why most age verification laws want for it first. As for your other examples those are all technically voluntary, as it’s unlikely a government mandate that nobody under 17 can watch an R rated movie would pass constitutional muster. Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

> Parents can restrict what speech their kids say or hear but the government generally cannot in the US.

Good in theory, but practically impossible. Peer pressure is too high for parents to be a significant barrier. If you were successful, please share how you did that.

The question isn't whether your or my proposed regime is practical. The first amendment precedent is clear that the government is not allowed to restrict children's speech any more than it is adults' speech aside from some narrow and tailored exceptions.

Right. So SB2420 and the federal court judgment are the steps in the process to narrowly tailor another exception. Likely driven by the practical reasons mentioned earlier.

"Cannot" in the US means no route to enforcement in that context. Distribution of NC-17 content to minors was never directly illegal, but doing so anyway would open the door for potential legal issues under the more broad umbrella of laws that cover "distribution of lewd or obscene content to a minor" which is more of a "do so and find out" concept of enforcement versus specifically identifying NC-17/X content by law.