I think it is fundamentally dishonest to point to a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph as any sort of representative example of "child porn". Neither of the photos you specifically call out would meet the "I know it when I see it" standard cited by the US Supreme Court and the photos that do would never be published by reputable news sources regardless of their actual legal status. Therefore, your argument isn't even really about the law, it is about societal standards of decency.

it sounds like you didn't read very much of my comment, because you didn't understand what my argument was about, even as a vague outline

separately, you say, 'I think it is fundamentally dishonest to point to a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph as any sort of representative example of "child porn".' however, the thing you think is dishonest is something you made up, not something i said, suggested, implied, or agree with

It remains me how I created stations of cross recently with a help of Midjourney... I was not allowed to put words ”virgin" and "jews" in prompt. Clearly, my intentions was not to harm anyone.

Without responsibility there is no free speech. Making bunch of regulations, collective guilt etc. wont learn those few abusers why their actions might harm others.