[justshowpost]

Thanks for reductio ad absurdum baiting. And yes, these "laws" are clearly an abuse. Most of them ends up banning virtually any drawings because its impossible to assert if particular manga really depicts non-minor. Funny thing to see where burden of proof is in this particular case. Even more funny what its been almost 1.5ky after Justinian's statute.

But anyway... Why should I give up my freedoms just because of someone's parenting failures? Irresponsible parents are putting their children in danger, not the ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. Which isn't a subject of quid pro quo, really. And even not because my libertarian views on this matter, but because it simply doesn't work otherwise.

[_-david-_]

Some child porn laws may be an abuse, but that doesn't mean all child porn laws are.

The exact example I mention doesn't matter. I am just saying free speech absolutism doesn't make sense unless you are anarchist. Free speech doesn't include hiring a hit man, treason, libel, slander, etc.

If you are actually in support of no regulation on speech then do you actually support removing the laws I mentioned above? You don't think somebody hiring a hitman to kill you or a loved one should be punishable?