-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Look at the system. Imagine you were trying to sue/prosecute a sysop who utilized such a system. One what basis could you attack? All decisions to allow access were determined by the parent. The sysop genuinely attempts to verify that adults are adults.
"Reasonable mistake" as to the age of a minor is already an affirmative defense in Oregon with respect to a prosecution for furnishing/distributing obscene material to a minor. ORS 167.085(4). If you're really excited about this, you might look at _Ginsberg v. New York_, 398 U.S. 629. A little poking around makes it look like that's the lead case re prosecutions for furnishing obscenity to minors. It includes as an appendix a list of 35 states' "furnishing obscenity to minors" statutes, circa 1968 (cites only). In Oregon, it looks like a sysadmin would need to know or have good reason to know (a) that the material furnished was obscene, and (b) that the person the material was furnished to was a minor. The standard of "obscenity" for what minors can see/can't see may be stricter than the traditional Miller test (Ginsberg) but can't be so strict as "no nudity regardless of context", at least here in Oregon. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.5 iQCVAgUBLjixbX3YhjZY3fMNAQGqEAP+Nlvec4RwuwRFYjOfHWm3GU6PFWHwVvtq zWIuTm+RzcOOKQPF4VOgZNgMW6Cviwg4DQ1VeTHh58mrqx12G25ZvQzBtSDnS3fb 7wWD+hIWpNQtWIGW5USSb+7hx3f9MPBW9an2yl0jyAo9PNawwHtD6lPMS1Abk9qv eOWvsQ5VV9s= =eOS+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----