You are arguing legal precedent, I am stating my principals. Sexually exploiting a child at any point is a crime.
A crime that has been determined to have no First Amendment protections as ruled by the US Supreme Court in Miller v. California and New York v. Ferber, yes.
If it is fictional expression sans a victim they are entitled to that expression.
As distasteful and of questionable morality as it may be, I do not outright disagree with you but do not agree either.
I'm simply following the actual definition of the word speech. I can't help it if your side likes to try to use all sorts of words and simply disregards whatever it is they actually mean and create some fantasy based off of personal wants and desires. Speech is spoken, photographs are not speech. Expressive content is also not speech, even if the law provides protections for it.
"My side" is not the 1973 US Supreme Court. Again. I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping this.