Just read ACLU v. Gonzales (March 2007), the latest Child Online Protection Act struck down in PA by Judge Reed.
I don't have kids, so I admit my position isn't entirely informed, but this freaks the hell out of me:
"AOL, for example, offers a feature called AOL Guardian, which provides a parent with a report indicating which Web sites a child visited, which sites were blocked, the number of emails and instant messages a child sent, and to whom a child sent email or instant messages. Some of the products, such as Contentwatch's filter, have features that permit parents to monitor their child's Internet activities remotely, for example, while they are at work, and some products even send email alerts to parents when inappropriate material is accessed by a child so that, if a parent so desires, it can supervise their child's Internet activities even when they are not physically with the child."
I agree with Kennedy: "Indeed, perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection." (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397).
They referenced a bunch of the plaintiff websites in the case who have sexually explicit sites. Reading the case online, I had a moment of annoyance: Why didn't Westlaw hyperlink these sites? LOL.