[yellowapple]

"The law" is kind of irrelevant unless it's enforced, so it really boils down to morality.

There are two separate questions to be answered here:

1. Is it immoral?

2. Is it sufficiently immoral to warrant imposing my own moral standard upon others, by force if necessary? i.e. is responding to or preventing it with violence itself moral?

Morality is subjective and relative, which is why it's interesting to ask both questions: given the subjectivity and relativity of morality, at what point does your own moral code take precedence over those of others?

[candiodari]

If there is no technical means to enforce the law, there is no law. At least when it comes to the war on drugs ... at least there's some physical thing being traded along. These models would generate such imagery and then immediately destroy it.

This will be a bigger disaster than the war on drugs, because it's almost impossible to provide proof. So what's left is convicting people based on oral testimony alone ...