> I saw a discussion a few weeks back (not here) where someone was arguing that SD-created images should be legal, as no children would be harmed in their creat

> I saw a discussion a few weeks back (not here) where someone was arguing that SD-created images should be legal, as no children would be harmed in their creation, and that it might prevent children from being harmed if permitted. It's a bit similar to the synthetic Rhino horn strategy intended to curb Rhino poaching[0]. Why risk going to prison or getting shot by a ranger for a 30$ horn? Similarly, why risk prison (and hurt children) to produce or consume CSAM when there is a legal alternative that doesn't harm anyone? In my view, this approach holds significant merits. But unfortunately, I doubt many politicians would be willing to champion it. They would likely fear having their motives questioned or being unjustly labeled as "pro-pedophile". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/08/scientists-plan-to-flood-black-market-with-fake-rhino-horn-to-reduce-poaching https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/08/scientis...