There exist many more options and law is notorious for having grey zones where the complexity of context, and intent and outcomes. In the specific example of c

There exist many more options and law is notorious for having grey zones where the complexity of context, and intent and outcomes. In the specific example of child porn, would removing it be protected speech and a copyrightable work? To my knowledge, no, it is not. However telling someone "this seems fishy, you might want to read up on it.", attached to someone else copyrighted work, is to me speech. It is also a copyrightable work if its original enough. It could also be a defined as a derivative work if it includes major copyrightable elements of the original, which in this context is likely. The difference between removing child porn and creating derivative work is one that I don't think courts will have a problem to distinguish between. Both may end up being described as moderation, but the outcome, intent and context is very different.