It's because powerful men don't want to lose their rights to watch children and women being degraded, abused and raped. It their 'civil right'.

Second link FUBAR

https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/05/montana-hate-speech-case - https://archive.is/7nYyQ

Kennedy is the least of our problems. "Oh well ian" - Is a sketch mother fucker. that's all i'm saying.

We are on the eve of VR becoming popular. I have always been on the side of drawings and words being protected speech. Of course, it seems, that mediums that allow for maximum creativity outside of reality seem to produce strange results full of tentacle monsters. There are much more people who watch virtual murder or gore porn all day then cartoons depicting violence against children. People are already connected to virtual murder spree machines all day long. Add to this the soundtrack provided by immature people shouting expletive-laden abuse at each other. Society already has a means of studying what immersion in a toxic world does to the brain. But we don't study this. There is an outrage machine of concern fagging when we dare try to understand how our children's brains are murdered by spending day after day in a shoot em up environment.

My strategy has always beem to do media education. Not everything that is on the internet requires being seen. We need to raise children who understand what they are being spoonfed. My daughter ran into my room to explain her absolute shock at the Luciferian content in the new Sabrina spin-off... She has done the same thing about Riverdale. We talked about the "morality destroying" tropes of TV Shows like that over the years. She doesn't trust the Disney machine because we also talked about the duplicity of "Hannah Montana" (public vs private image duality and glamour lie) and how most plots of iCarly feature the main character doing unethical or illegal things.

It helps to have insight on how certain media shortchanges the brain, but, again, people love their porn and will continue to keep it in this unregulated state that promotes one-upmanship and now produces content that kind of looks like science fiction compared to how people usually care to have sex.

Another thing nobody has studied. Do children who start looking into sex online when they are 10 wind up looking for content that features their peers. I have never seen a case where this situation is brought up. If you have ever seen mentions of such cases, or this situation being used as a defense, please share. I can add this to my pile of research.

To close off, before the advent of Pornhub, online sites offering porn made an effort to shield the content. Nobody does that anymore. I believe companies that fill the internet with free to access porn have a responsibility to the community as a whole. They are in the wrong. But I am not sure what is right, and would work to create a speed bump that protects unauthorized viewers and protects them from this content. When I was a kid it was the age of Penthouse letters and softcore blue movies. These things didn't have the mind-altering quality of the kind of porn that is offered today. As a person from the analog age always being pursued by people from the digital age (because porn made MILF hunting a thing...) I am bewildered by how they talk about sex. It's as if they live in an alternate reality where "hate fucking on the first date" sounds like a funny thing to say or do. It is bewildering but mostly sad that young men have been educated in ways that make them unlikely to be attractive to women in the intimate sense. And we are seeing a weird incel backlash against women because women didn't receive the same education and now people have a hard time meeting in the middle.

I think this is by design. I think the stance of "pretend it doesn't exist" will continue in all matters of porn as we move into the VR phase. Not sure I'll be there to observe this, the thing makes me dizzy :(

He’s right, as long as the CP is done tastefully.

If the world were such that you could catch 100% of people producing, consuming, or storing real child pornography, would you then be ok with virtual child pornography being legal?

Child porn is repugnant, and the CREATORS should be prosecuted.
HOWEVER, don't you find it odd that anyone who becomes overly critical of the DeepState suddenly has tens of thousands of child porn images found on their computers?
Then they are found dead in their jail cells weeks after being admitted.
Child porn legislation is the "sprinkle some crack on him" tool of the DeepState.
It uses peoples' aversion to child abuse to silence calls for investigation into whether the person targeted is really guilty of such a crime, or if they were framed by D.S. devils.
It also makes it illegal for Pizzagate investigators to hold onto certain pieces of evidence that wealthy Moloch worshipers are sacrificing children.
Thus, the actual creators of the child porn can use law enforcement resources to silence critics and investigators.

If they banned virtual child porn, could they use that as precedence to ban virtual murders?

Reminder, SCOTUS interprets the law. They do not make the law. So in order to make child porn illegal, the legislative branch must make a law specifically against the making of child porn. You'd think this is a no-brainer but still, child porn is readily available to those who seek it. So we the people need to push specific laws through Congress to make child porn equal to "yelling fire in a crowded theater." Equally, I remember in the '90s, parents who took pictures of their naked children in a tub or on a bearskin rug where being prosecuted for child porn because the pictures were developed at the local kiosk and other film development places. Food for thought.

Kennedy is the asshole we got after the nomination of Bork was torpedoed.