How about making a case against kiddie porn without making "CHILDREN the pawns"? ...or the issue of leaving children locked in a closed-up car in the heat of summer.
The fact is, there really are some issues in which CHILDREN really are of central, unique importance.
Is the use of this rallying cry suspect? Of course it is. But that still doesn't mean it's a red herring in every case.
I think there are very good, objective reasons behind the objection to children viewing hardcore pornography. This is entirely aside from the moral side of the issue.
Children simply cannot react with the same level of judgment as an adult. It's the emotional equivalent of expecting an 8-year-old to lift a 200 lb. weight. They just aren't prepared to handle it yet.
I think keeping children away from pornography, and vice-versa, is just like keeping them away from driving a car. Until they're more prepared for the experience, it's irresponsible to expect them to just handle it.
And on the other side of the issue, I fail to see any significant erosion of liberty from blocking porn on computers at the public library. It's not like the PC at the library represents the sole source of information for anyone. Adults can get their porn from plenty of other sources. In the rare cases of non-pornographic content being inadvertently blocked, it can be obtained in other ways.
Yes, there are are legitimate uses of "CHILDREN" when and only when the "CHILDREN" are clearly the legitmate object of the issue. Kiddy porn directly harms children because children are directly hurt in the manufactor of that filth. Being left in a car directly kills kids. etc
The issue of porn in librarys is different. They are using CHILDREN to advance a different cause. Look at the cartoon posted here that is supposed to be relevant to librarys, porn and children. The carton does not show kids. It shows a dirty old man.
The legal definition of porn is "I know it when I see it." The same is true for using CHILDREN as pawns. I know it when I see it.