Many people like to (correctly) point out the hypocrisy of religious extremists claiming to "protect the children" by restricting their access to information. As has been proven time and again, knowledge protects children from harm, helps them to identify abuse, and teaches them ways to protect themselves proactively. An "innocent, pure" child is a euphemism for a child that is ignorant, kept in the dark about things that could harm them. No amount of distress brought on by learning disturbing information could endanger a child the way that information control can.
The issue with this criticism is that it misunderstands what conservatives mean by "protecting" children. They don't think of children as independent beings who deserve dignity and respect. They think of them as future investments, cultural tokens, and blank slates to pour their dogma into. A church wants to "protect" children from information that might make them leave the faith, even if that information could improve the child's life. A conservative parent wants to "protect" children from information about abuse, religious coercion, bodily autonomy... anything that could loosen the parent's power and control over the child. What these groups are really "protecting" is their investment. They see children as property that they are entitled to groom and manipulate to whatever purposes they see fit, and they attack anyone and anything that suggests otherwise.
