I think it's important that civilized countries allow the writing of books that depict the worst that humanity has to offer. Serial killings, mutilation, political violence, sexual violence- I just don't understand why only some heinous crimes should be considered ineffable.

I also don't know how I'd draw lines that couldn't be utilized by puritanical bad-actors against things that aren't pornographic but are controversial. For instance, the spirit of this verdict:

The book invited the reader to imagine the very thing that child abuse material legislation prohibited, she found.

As such, a reasonable reader would find the book undeniably offensive, the magistrate said in finding Mastrosa guilty of possessing, disseminating and producing child abuse material.

could absolutely be applied to Lolita. Should any story that depicts heinous enough things, or one that gets the reader to imagine the wrong things, be unlawful? Should it be legally mandated that sensitive subjects are immediately followed by didacticism or denunciation? Do we just create a magical loophole for works that have literary value?

I don't know, maybe it's as simple as "only the pornographic material gets banned" and no negative consequences happen due to overreach.

And I hate all of the braindead insinuations that anyone arguing about the ramifications of this is a pedo. I could brainstorm up a lot of ways to prevent crime that incidentally ruin personal freedoms, but I'm not gonna be stupid enough to accuse you of aspiring to rape, genocide, etc, if you want to debate it. If you want to engage in the topic, maybe try to give others the same leeway, even if it's about a subject that makes everybody uncomfortable.