The difference is, adult porn stars have a legal right to consent, children do not. I have no problem with limiting the freedoms of rapists and child abusers where it is necessary to protect the rights of the victims. When the "victim" is an adult who sighed their consent for everything being done to them, I see little need to protect them, and quite a bit of problems with allowing the government to "protect" people who don't want their "protection".
Now, as far as private platforms go, they are under no obligation (except for what is required by contracts and agreements) to host content they don't want to host. I haven't use Gab in a while, and I don't much care what they do. If they allow the sharing of porn on their sight but criticize it as degenerate and harmful, good for them. But if they allow the sharing of some distasteful media on their free speech platform, but not other distasteful media, merely due to their personal preference, that would make them hypocrites.
I didn't say adults having sex with children wasn't a crime, however pornography of any type is free speech and shouldn't be a crime. Murder images, real and simulated, are not criminal and yet some sexual images are.
While it might be free speech, I do think it should be a crime to publicly display a person being raped (adult or child). If we're talking about simulated images, I agree, if you don't like them, just don't look at them.
If a family member didn't want the murder of their deceased to be publicly displayed, I wouldn't mind that being outlawed as well. I certainly think it should be illegal to profit from selling video or audio recordings of crimes.
(post is archived)