It is dangerous to interpret law with broad application only in the narrow.   Rules against sex and/or violence can backfire.   There is no conclusive evidence that any form of art or literature inevitably leads to harm.   It may be slanderous, libelous, incenting to riot, but each much be proved to some degree of certitude in each case, based on the evidence relevant and competent to that case.  

It is the harm done to the child in child porn that is the harm, not the possession of the image except as can be proved as an accessory after thefact to the act of the child's abuse but in accordance with the law for such accessory action.

If one accepts the notion that mere possession or production of a particular form of expression, without relevant and competant proof in the specific case, the the "community" can ban anything for any reason.   If a suburb of Detroit went fundamentalist Muslim, that community could ban any article or image that offended the Sharia.   

Those who place faith in their Bible should note that it can be banished or censured under current law as overt portrayal of an execution which the Left deems offensive to child development.  Certainly the Holy Eucharist is virtual cannibalism and likewise unfit to be exposed to children.  At least the Bible could be XXX rated. 

Since the US Constitution guarantees a "republican form of government",  under the Patriot Act, those who plot to establish a Kingdom of God are thinking about plotting an overthrow of the Constitution.    Likewise,  those who congregate to conduct unlawful activities such as virtual cannibalism can be arrested, tried and convicted for conspiracy and their properties seized under the RICO anti-crime legislation.

He who preaches from a glass pulpit should avoid throwing rocks.  

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say,  but I will defend your right to say it,"

 

 

 

 

Gordon