I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous. I think it’s clear to viewers that movies and tv shows, from their titles, structure, camerawork, etc. are fictional works. There is a significant amount of online pornography that is filmed deliberately to make it seem like real crimes are taking place (and in many cases I’m certain they are).

Apologies for putting words in your mouth on the gay marriage front. Your argument stills seems to rest on the slippery slope though. Either you’re saying we shouldn’t have allowed gay marriage because of where it led, or gay marriage was fine and the problem was letting things get out of control. From your statement it’s unclear:“An easy law everyone agrees on opening the door for more unhinged groups to demand protection and action using the same precedent.” Either you are suggesting we block reasonable laws that everyone agrees with (out of fear), or that we need to simply control the unhinged groups more strongly (which is my position).

Numerous laws are utterly subjective in both their creation of guidelines (e.g. the age of majority) and their applicability (e.g. whether self-defence is accepted based upon judgements of ‘danger’). Your statement on objective law: “You always write the law in the way that the worst possible usage and interpretation is still acceptable.” is simply not the way the law works, and with good reason. A perfectly safe law would be so narrow as to have almost no impact. All laws require some level of subjective interpretation which is why we have judges and supreme courts. The legal system is based entirely upon standards of doubt and subjective interpretation of the facts, for better and for worse. A perfectly objective and rigid legal system would be an utterly dystopian nightmare. Occasionally, we realise prior interpretations were unwise or simply shifting with changing social values, the judgements loosening or tightening the hold of law are still subjective ones based upon ethical and moral considerations rather than explicitly quantifiable measurements.

The crux of this issue is whether (a) the distribution of sexually explicit imagery of children creates higher danger for children, from those who sexualise and fetishise children, by reinforcing rather than suppressing the sexual drives of these groups (and the many, many gay men who lived their entire lives in the closest is evidence that suppressing desires is possible), and (b) whether laws restricting such distribution can be enacted that will not be used to thereafter promote censorship of items with no relation to the safety of children. Your view that people will try to use them to introduce broader censorship is a valid concern but remains an utterly separate problem and there is no clear evidence of any sort that sexual imagery of children cannot be banned with further censorship occurring. The robust state of the porn industry is ample evidence the child related imagery can be strictly prohibited without evangelical puritans using the same laws to expand the scope of ‘obscenity’.

I have enjoyed the discussion as it did make me reassess my position but ultimately there is nothing here that makes me feel my initial positions was unwarranted, rather it has clarified, for me, their solid footing. In the end I believe it is a subjective call based upon the ethical question of balancing the rights of one group against another. If you see it differently, or hold different priorities, it's unlikely we would move past this point without far longer dialogue that breaks issues down into far finer points of law, rights, and ethics. Interesting (and important) though the topic is for me, I don't have the time for it, at least in this medium, so I think I'll leave it there.