(/sarcasm)
And on the other hand, what if leaving these naked bodies in a comic saves TWO children? Would you trade one for two to satisfy your dislike of pictures on paper?
So, the person crying out for reason feels ashamed, and the person asking for a ridiculous zero-tolerance solution feels righteous. Again.
Obviously these perfectly reasonable rhetorical devices also assume that law is framed in terms of utilitarianism rather than inviolable principles[1], and unlike Gaiman assumes that one can do so because those enforcing the law are capable of using enough discretion to determine whether the sentence does more damages than the alleged crime. Either way, I don't think Gaiman's "they used to ban X and even Y on similar grounds, and look where that got us" is a more sophisticated argument.
[1]I think even people defending "icky" things on the basis of "inviolable" rights or principles have a threshold of "ickiness" where it starts conflicting with other inviolable principles they believe in. Presumably most of those who defend objectionable fantasy on the grounds of freedom of speech and expression don't consider the principle so inviolable it cannot be curtailed it when Creepy Uncle Dave moves into teen chatrooms to freely voice his opinion that teens should freely express themselves on webcam for him
The question, for me, is even if we only save ONE child from rape or attempted rape, or even just lots of uncomfortable hugs from Creepy Uncle Dave, is that not worth leaving a couple naked bodies out of a comic?
This kind of argument comes up all the time in mostly unsupportable "save the children" heart string--tugging arguments (and others), and it is a dangerous and nasty kind of argument that should always be addressed.
"If we only save ONE child, shouldn't we do X?" is equivalent to "let's just assume that even the tiniest positive outcome has more value than any possible negative ones." This isn't really an argument at all; it's a premise concerning the relative values of various outcomes, masquerading as an argument. Moreover, it's stated in a way intended to shame anyone who disagrees with it.
"Even if we only save ONE child", "even if we only stop ONE terrorist", and their ilk smack of dishonesty and intellectual laziness. Sound public policies require careful consideration; arguments such as these are mental roadblocks, nothing more.