The expansion of free speech to also cover obscenity, porn and sex is a relatively new idea, first defended by hustler magazine.

To use the oxford definition, see below.

It was conceived and is intended to cover opinions and political ideas/speech and to protect the airing of such.

When you think about it a little, there is very little reason to put sexual content on the level with opinions.

Now I don't particularly mind what people do in their bedrooms or what pictures people draw, but I do think there is a negative link on the health of a society in general and the degenerate things it permits. Allowing little boys on billboards that also strip for money and acting like effeminate drag queens has a negative effect on society beyond the abuse against that kid, it has a demoralizing effect that is comparable to the broken window theory.

And contrary to the people that generally defend the vilest of porn as supposedly being free speech, they are generally not open to hearing the opinions about this, particularly not when you start with one of the holy cows, homosexuality and its link to both disease and pedophilia. I don't know if people are born gay, that seems to be true. I do know that abused kids are more likely to be gay and that there is an active recruitment of that type (the vagina monologues famously had the glorification of such a moment of an underage girl and an adult woman; the fact that it wasn't shouted off stage shows how far people are misled on this. The scene was removed a decade later or so.

Perhaps the line "it was a good rape" was a little too on the nose coming from a 13 year old character. But this was a prizewinning and much applauded play.

There is also the infamous article "can we just admit that we do want to convert kids?" article. And you can discover that that's how it works today. Just go to antifa meetings, to marxist feminist meetings, go to gay bars and genderqueer parties. I saw it in real life before I started studying the statistics.

To get back on track, obscenity despite what US courts decided in their case against hustler, shouldn't cover obscene content. I think everybody in their heart knows that tits being removed off facebook is not the same thing as conservative pages being removed off facebook. One is a speech issue, the other is a obscenity issue.

Now how does that tie in to CP vs a terror attack?

Well I'd have to prove that CP is obscenity, but it is by definition, it's in the P (even if definitions of porn are hard to make, just try to put the right line between boobtwitchers and female twitch streamers) of pornography. I don't have to exactly identify the line to be able to broadly state that some barrier should exist that separates camwhores and female game streamers.

Then I'd have to prove that sharing the terror attack is speech. I have the presumption that people should be able to see it so that they can both learn from it politically and practically. You'd want the protections of freedom of speech to be broad, because the temptation to silence others lies in almost everyone's hearts. That's about the best I can make the argument, if someone else can make it better, let me know.

Finally, besides the freedom of speech, there is the issue that sexual release gives a huge dopamine rush that if it came from a drug, it would be a controlled substance. A dopamine rush means that all the thoughts and actions you did prior become more firmly rooted in your brain. There is no "one time" exception in the bedroom. If you discover something you like, you're going to want to do it again. And, I find that you can even condition partners to associate that dopamine rush with specific sexual activities and make them like that and ask for that.

Do you really want some percentage of people to habituate themselves to having sexual release in regards to the abuse of children? I think this is the strongest argument against CP.

Definition of freedom of speech in English:
freedom of speech

NOUN
mass noun
The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.
‘the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region