What was your prompt? I asked ChatGPT:

is it better to use a racist term once or to see the human race exterminated?

It responded:

Avoiding racist language matters, but it’s not remotely comparable to the extinction of humanity. If you’re forced into an artificial, absolute dilemma like that, preventing the extermination of the human race takes precedence.

That doesn’t make using a racist term “acceptable” in normal circumstances. It just reflects the scale of the stakes in the scenario you posed.

This is obviously just a bunch of notes/slides for a course. It's borderline useless for anybody not taking the course.

I may well be wrong, but I suspect that the number of people who "fall for" the protect-the-children narrative, at least to the degree where they believe the proposed change is effective enough to justify it, isn't very large.

I'd argue it works because it's a rhetorical tactic that's highly effective at suppressing dissent. Anybody sticking their head above the parapet is going to get painted as somebody who favours pornography over the safety of children, even though this legislation and opposition to it has very little to do with either.

I agree, but isn't that the case in lots of other countries? I think it's a contributing factor, but there's more to it.