What's lazy about it? Censoring degeneracy is good, censoring truth is bad. So don't give me that slippery slope / false equivocation argument. Them shutting down the truth has nothing to do with shutting down porn because those are different categories of censorship - one has to do with decency and fighting degeneracy, and the other with fighting truth.
My point is that censorship is not bad on principle. It's like saying any application of force is bad. It's good when used to fight against deception and degeneracy and it's bad when it is used to suppress truth. In the first case you're using force to defend what's right and true and the good and in the second you're using force to fight against all that.
As for you question for OP, that really goes to the heart of it: what is porn? Where is the line? Because I have pictures of my 6mo in the bath, or my 5yo in a swimsuit at the beach, am I going to jail for that? I guarantee you there are coombrains out there who will blast rope to almost anything, certainly to that.
That's easy: porn is depiction of sexually explicit images created for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution. You can clearly see that your private pictures of your kid doesn't fit the description. Even without the legal definition we all know what constitutes porn and what does not in the majority of cases.
Back to the question, you aren't asking anything. It's like asking "Are you a Nazi?" I can only respond with, "WTF do you think a Nazi is?" Anyone committing a sexual act on or near a child should be lit on fire, starting with their genitals, and photographic evidence helps to out them. I don't think there's a problem with nudity in general, even if it's a kid, other than we've been oversexualized by Jewish media to assume "nudity=sex", and I don't have a problem with baby bath pictures.
Again, your argument hinges on semantics and the supposed vagueness of what porn is, which is a very (((lawyerish))) way to argue. Now applying my definition of porn, what I asked OP was "should depicting children in sexually explicit or suggestive images for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution be censored"?
What's lazy about it? Censoring degeneracy is good, censoring truth is bad. So don't give me that slippery slope / false equivocation argument. Them shutting down the truth has nothing to do with shutting down porn because those are different categories of censorship - one has to do with decency and fighting degeneracy, and the other with fighting truth.
My point is that censorship is not bad on principle. It's like saying any application of force is bad. It's good when used to fight against deception and degeneracy and it's bad when it is used to suppress truth. In the first case you're using force to defend what's right and true and the good and in the second you're using force to fight against all that.
That's easy: porn is depiction of sexually explicit images created for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution. You can clearly see that your private pictures of your kid doesn't fit the description. Even without the legal definition we all know what constitutes porn and what does not in the majority of cases.
Again, your argument hinges on semantics and the supposed vagueness of what porn is, which is a very (((lawyerish))) way to argue. Now applying my definition of porn, what I asked OP was "should depicting children in sexually explicit or suggestive images for the purpose of arousing sexual desire and made for distribution be censored"?