> 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

> 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_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...