[KMC1]

Those that are agreeing with decision are still failing to admit the type of material it makes available to the minds of the creeps that get off on thinking about kids to being with. This decision protects filth while the University of Minnesota now pushes pedophiles - can't you see the environment being created?

[general_re]

Those that are agreeing with decision are still failing to admit the type of material it makes available to the minds of the creeps that get off on thinking about kids to being with.

I'll play along, then. I am fully aware of the material that will be available after the ruling. "Virtual" child pornography, featuring images and videos of children in various sexual poses and situations will be available. The children so depicted will be entirely imaginary, and will not exist in the real world, but in the near-future, the images and depictions of "virtual" child-pornography may be indistinguishable from images and videos of actual child sexual abuse. As a result, it is possible that in some cases, child molesters will indeed use such material to lure children into abuse. Some children may be harmed or killed as a result of this decision.

I fully and freely accept all that as a possible result of this decision. I understand and accept the possible implications of this decision.

I still think they made the right decision.

Lest you think I have no personal stake in this, my children are 7 and 2. I think it was the right decision, but I accept the possibility that it will cause harm to some.

Now it's your turn. Why don't you tell me what the potential negative consequences and implications of banning this material might have been?

[Corin Stormhands]

...can't you see the environment being created?

Yeah, I can. That's why I don't want to agree with it. As perverse as it is, it's one of those "where do you draw the line" questions.

Personally, I'd push the line a lot further back. But can we do that constitutionally?