I thoroughly disagree with this premise. It is one thing to say that no minor should have their personal picture shown without their consent. I thoroughly agree with that. But to say that artwork, fiction and news accounts cannot contain drawings, characters and factual representations on account that the participants are said, or drawn, to be minors is an entirely different matter. It is no longer protecting the privacy and integrity of an actual minor and now crossing over into the realm of "thought police" and censorship. It is not our job to police against mere impure thoughts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that drawings and cartoons, as reprehensible in subject matter as they may be, do not constitute child pornography in the criminal sense. Only materials reflecting or portraying actual minors are capable of becoming evidence of criminal sexual activity. It has also held that pictures taken in public of voluntary activity, even if reprehensible in content, are not illegal. No one, not even a minor, has any right or expectation of privacy when filmed acting voluntarily in public. Free speech matters almost as much as privacy does, and is at least equal with morality. Writers and artists are entitled to tackle all kinds of subjects that many of us may find objectionable. That means we have no right to silence them simply on account that we disagree with their viewpoint. We are free to read it, or ignore it. We are also free to express our disagreement with the content. But we are not free to police it, suppress it or ban it.
To paraphrase Mr. Justice Robert Jackson, forcing the unanimity of opinion is a slippery slope toward elimination of dissent and the silencing of dissenters. Soon, one finds themselves eliminating dissenters. It achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. Only then is there silence. That is not the kind of world for which I can or would ever advocate.
