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.”
Real children who were abused to make CSAM say that they are re-traumatized when they come across the material or learn that it is being shared. I think most victims would say it does matter.
What I think you’re trying to argue is that a generated facsimile of CSAM is also harmful.
Yes, thank you. I am not always good at words, but you captured my point precisely.