Justice Thomas too forecasted that “technology may evolve to the point where it becomes impossible to enforce actual child pornography laws because the Government cannot prove that certain pornographic images are of real children.” In his view, “if technological advances thwart prosecution of ‘unlawful speech,’ the Government may well have a compelling interest in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of ‘lawful speech’ in order to enforce effectively laws against pornography made through the abuse of real children.”



This is the number one compelling argument for me. Largely, I feel passionately about having uncensored models for a variety of reasons not salient to the thread, but I draw a line when it protects abusers. That boundary trumps other considerations for me.