> it should be illegal to push people to commit crimes.

Ahhh, so Snoop Dogg's music should be illegal, then? Since it's supporting the consumption of Marijuana, a drug banned at the federal level in the US.

Or on a more serious note, should encouraging civil disobedience during the civil rights era have been illegal?

That is a stupidly broad statement, and it has consequences that I don't think you'd like.

> We could design strongly addictive porn that would significantly increase the market for production of actual child abuse.

We could also do it with some future form of ML-assisted CGI - which is also currently illegal in the states. I'd say that's a pretty close substitute good for the kind of CP that requires hurting kids.

But really, I don't think the number of people willing to commit a major felony on camera and distribute the video would go up significantly if the end product wasn't illegal to possess. I may have too high an estimation of how intelligent people are...

> While ideologically coherent this position is inconsistent with another fact: it should be illegal to push people to commit crimes.

“Should” indicates a statement of subjective preference, not a fact.

> More precisely if you abolish the concept of "obscenity exception" you still have that a lot of the same is illegal by "crime promulgation" (not a nice word, could not think of anything better)

The Supreme Court has found that the ability of the Government to restrict “crime promulgation” is narrow, due to the First Amendment:

“the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).