Legislators are a proxy for society. Do you believe that if you polled the US that any sizable portion of the country would be in support of legalizing CP?

If you polled the population, chances are they'd support torture, rape and execution as punishment for abusers.

The real crime is child abuse. Material related to that is also illegal because it presumably creates demand for the abuse. Whether that's actually true I don't know.

In liberal democracies legislators also protect fundamental rights from the whims of the majority.

> if you polled the US that any sizable portion

No, but they also would agree to that they should have an option to keep their data privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff?

For example the case of virtual CP has an interesting legal history https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...

>No, but they also wouldn't consent to having no option left to record their thoughts privately. Maybe the public should be polled about this tradeoff?

It is fine if this is your argument, but you don't have to wrap this argument in with the very legality of CP. You can acknowledge something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated dragnets to find people guilty of said crime.

> something is and should be a crime while also being against these type of automated

But there is a clear tradeoff between the two so saying that would be a useless platitude. If we really see the internet as an extension of our vocal chords, then we should have individual rights to it, especially considering the fact that the internet infrastructure is not provided by the governments themselves, only the spying is.

I don't know what to say to you if you consider someone voicing opposition to this move by Apple as a "useless platitude" if they don't also believe that we have a constitutional right to post CP on the internet.