> Even the idea of prosecuting parents for allowing their child to access 'information,' no matter what that information is, just sounds like asking for 1984-style insanity.

This assumes an absolutist approach to enforcement, which I did not advocate and is not a fundamental part of my proposed solution. In any case, the law already has to make a subjective decision in non-technology areas. It would be no different here. Courts would be able to consider the surrounding context, and over time set precedents for what does and does not cross the bar in a way that society considers acceptable.

But what if we didn't collectively spend $billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours battling with money, lobbyists, lawyers, judges and political campaigns over what is largely a moral panic?

What could humanity do instead with all that time and resources?

I know the US is a nation built by lawyers, for lawyers, but this is both its best strength and worst weakness. Sometimes it's in everyones best interest to accept the additional risks individually as opposed to bubble wrapping everything in legislation and expanding the scope of the corrupt lawyer-industrial complex.

Maybe the lawyers could use the extra time fixing something actually important like healthcare or education instead.

And surprisingly when the law makes such decisions, it seems to affect little Jerome more than little Johnny.

You have way too much faith in the fairness of the court system.