> People don't want to seriously grapple with these sorts of harm reduction arguments
Because there's no evidence it works and the idea makes no fucking sense. It approaches the problem in a way that all experts agree is wrong.
Because there's no evidence it works and the idea makes no fucking sense. It approaches the problem in a way that all experts agree is wrong.
Experts in what exactly?
There are two ways to defend a law that penalizes virtual child pornography:
- On evidence that there is harm.
- On general moral terms, aka "we just don't like that this is happening".
Worth noting that a ban on generated CSAM images was struck down as unconstitutional in Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...