human
that are
gpt
or
human
and, when the computers are in use by minors, also protects against access to visual depictions that are
gpt
This Court has recognized that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material. ); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 563 (1969) (
human
); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 (1957) (
gpt
We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech of press. ). The First Amendment also permits the state to prohibit the distribution to minors of material that, while not obscene with respect to adults, is obscene with respect to minors. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 637 (1968) (holding that it is constitutionally permissible
human
). Proscribing the distribution of such material to minors is constitutionally justified by the government's well-recognized interest in safeguarding minors' well-being. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 869-70 (1997) (
gpt
) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (1982) (
human
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 640 (
gpt
The State . . . has an independent interest in the well-being of its youth.
human
); Ferber, 458 U.S. at 757, 763 (noting that
gpt
and holding that