It might be that all and only sexually explicit material is bad in a certain way (e.g., obscene): in which case, "pornography" will refer to all and only the class of sexually explicit materials.
But it might be that only some sexually explicit material is objectionable (e.g., degrading to women), in which case only the bad subset of sexually explicit material will count as pornography.
Put simply, the crux of the matter is whether the legal concept of obscenity, which has traditionally applied only to sexually explicit material, will be extended to cover depictions of violence.
The prevalence of the internet on tablets and phones means many children are only a click away from seeing inappropriate or explicit material online.
Under these circumstances, the only way to avoid the risk of sending sexually explicit material to children is to avoid posting any sexually explicit material at all.
Women are more likely to object to sexually explicit material and say that it should only be available on subscription services.
We know, for instance, that sharing cigarettes, or alcohol, or other drugs, or sexually explicit material with a 5-year-old is not only irresponsible, but immoral, illegal, and repulsive.
Pornography might be defined, not as sexually explicit material that is obscene, but as that sexually explicit material that harms women.
Google did not specify which of those policies were violated, but the most likely reason, if only by process of elimination — violence and bullying, no; gambling, no; sexually explicit material, probably not — was copyright infringement.
Of course, women may not be the only people harmed by the production or consumption of certain sorts of sexually explicit material.
