That would also amount to compelled speech.

I disagree. The legal requirement to apply a warning label is a well known, understood and accepted process that is applied to a myriad of hazards to children and adults. As just one example businesses in some states, most notably California are compelled to add warning labels to foods and other products that could cause cancer.

▲

SpaceNoodled 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not the best example, since the levels set for Prop 65 warnings are so low that the warnings are effectively useless; every single commercial building in CA now somehow causes cancer.

	▲	Bender 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Surely we both understand the point I was making in that labels are already compelled by laws today. Fine, cigarettes must be labelled as being a risk of causing cancer. The punishment for failing to do this is both civil and federal penalties including massive fines and federal prison time.

▲

sailfast 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you believe using the Internet should require a license? Isn’t that what covers these product warning labels?

	▲	Bender 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I never implied an internet license. Rather if a server operator a business has content that may be adult in nature they must label their site. Businesses require a license already but that is unrelated to this.