This might stir up some controversy. But that's okay, it needs to be said anyways.
NuclearShadow said:
This sort of material should be outlawed as it is depreciating children in sexual acts. It isn't for artistic value but instead for sexual gratification from the idea of children in sexual encounters.
Outlawed?
"I don't think that word means what you think it means"[footnote]Just to establish what the word Outlaw typically meant historically, it means that you are going to strip someone of their legal privileges and forcibly cast them out of society and into the wild; sort of like deporting someone without actually sending them anywhere. I understand you probably didn't mean that literally; what you really probably meant was to make said material a "crime" to create and possess, sort of like actual child pornography.[/footnote] is, I think, an appropriate phrase to quote here.
Let me walk you through the procedure of what happens when someone is suspected and then convicted of a "crime", so that you can appreciate the gravity of the statement you just made.
Depending on the nature of the crime in question, you might receive something known as a "Summons To Appear at Court", which is a euphemistic way to say "We will have armed men kick down your door and kidnap you if you don't come quietly"... or they may just bypass the request altogether and go straight to the door-kicking and kidnapping.
Either way, if you resist said kidnapping, you will be beaten, tazed, gassed, and so on until you have been incapacitated. If you foresee this possibility and attempt to protect yourself in any meaningful way with any sort of weapon, you will probably be shot. Large pets who rush to your defense will most likely be executed, and your children may be kidnapped as well and sent to an agency created to house children of adults much like yourself.
Once you have been kidnapped you will be hauled off to an internment camp to be processed by your kidnappers. You will probably be forced to inhabit a smelly, overcrowded, temporary cell (assuming you live in the U.S.) for some time until pretrial arrangements have been taken care of or proper space has been made for you, both of which aren't likely to happen for a long time. In order to pressure you into pleading guilty, you will be forced to pay a deposit before being allowed to leave (to entice you to come back at their request) that is set to an amount you probably can't afford, usually in cash only.
Your trial will be held by a robed adjudicator employed by the same people who kidnapped you, a prosecutor employed by the same people who kidnapped you, and a lawyer appointed to you by the same people who kidnapped you (if you are among the many less privileged who are unable to afford their own lawyers).
If you are unlucky, your crime will be one quite similar to one that these people, their colleagues, and their predecessors have taken to trial before in the past, and whose verdict at the time would condemn you today as well. If that is the case, all three of these people will advise you to plead guilty and refrain from requesting a jury trial, in order to save them time[footnote]This is not really an attempt to bash the voluntary participants of the legal system, though: given that they market themselves as promising to give you a speedy trial, and those that don't get a quick one tend to get shorter actual jail sentences due to credit given for time already served, and they get a lot of flak in the press for that, and the fact that there are so many crimes in the books by now that the courts and jails overflowing as it is, they tend to want low profile cases to go as fast as possible[/footnote], usually with threats of contempt of court or stiffer jail sentences for the more routine cases. Your own representative, if you can afford one, will similarly request that you refrain from a lengthy trial in order to save you in legal fees.
If you are deemed innocent, you will not be compensated or awarded anything for the mistake without going through yet another trial, this time civil rather than criminal. The people who put you through this ordeal will of course not pay anything out of their own purse; instead, your award, if you get one, will be bankrolled by the taxpayers.
If you are labeled guilty, you will be told the terms and duration of your kidnapping by the adjudicator. Your accommodations may be nice or harsh, depending on what "crime" you have been convicted for; you may reside in a small but well-maintained cell with a simple T.V. and nice meals, or you may reside in a violent, drug-infested hell-hole where you are summarily raped by large, burly men. Either way, the guards of your prison will generally treat you with contempt and society writ large will not shred a single tear for the heinous acts that have been committed on you.
That is what happens to people accused and then convicted of "crimes", stripped of all euphemisms. There are very few people I'd wish such a fate on. Murderers? Yes. Kidnappers? Yes. Molesters and sexual abusers? Definitely. Assault and Battery? Depends. Theft? Not really. Viewing or creating objectionable art without actually harming anyone in any way? Uh, no.
In reality, you're the one who has taken the "hugely objectionable" position. It is a very, very serious proposition to claim something ought to be "outlawed". Do not take it lightly. You are quite literally claiming that people ought to be kidnapped and imprisoned for a lengthy period of time, and quite possibly beaten, raped, blackmailed, extorted, and/or murdered, depending on the circumstances.
Depending on what you are requesting should be outlawed, you should expect someone to raise an eyebrow at you and openly object.
I'm afraid I can't actually work out where I am with you in conversation or which part we're talking about 
