Agreed. Though it's unlikely that they made the clean version without some kind of mandate (publisher, etc.) telling them to do so....
That's true, but we can see that clean versions have a valid place in conjuction with non clean works. It is wrong to say an censored version should not exist because it implies the existence of the uncensored version, because such censorship is either:
A. For an alternative audience.
B. Required by rule\law to make the product legal, sometimes for good reason. Otherwise, the work would not exist in any form.
The question then becomes; how and when should censorship be justified when it is not undertaken for the purpose of adressing different sub demographics by the artist?
Which is a tough question, though I personally think content depicting clearly minor non-existing characters in a sexual manner has negative impacts in adressing certain paraphalias as a society. Thus, such content should probably be censored. Though I'm more worried about willful viewers of such content being mandated to seek mental help than crusading to take it down.
Regular porn is a harder debate for censorship, and I'm honestly not sure where I stand, except that personal consumption or dedicated porn distribution should not be obstructed, but should probably be clearly indicated as pornographic, containing porn, and not have the contained content on public display.
Nudity and porn are differentiated by intent and design. Porn is intended to purposefully stimulate a sexual response for the enjoyment of the viewer(s), and is designed to do so. Artwork can feature full on nudity and not be pornographic in nature.