Does this mean that we should do everything that is technically possible, though?
"Should" is a strong word. I'm of the opinion that if we've reached consensus for something to be possible and valid, we shouldn't intervene and introduce sorts of censorship, because there is no other manner to intervene. You either dictate what users can do with their money or you don't. But "should"? No, in my opinion. We shouldn't spend money on trash, individually, sure, but we shouldn't introduce censorship to accomplish that collectively.
Plus spamming as a network attack to cause for fees to surge would discourage the use for Bitcoin's actual utility that could cause the weakening/breaking-down of political strongholds, and that's a permissionless, censorship-resistant network for hard money.
Unfortunately, from a technical perspective, every transaction moving money is a currency transaction. If you decide to call one type of transaction non-currency, you introduce censorship.
It can at least lead to every single node operator being vulnerable to being framed for supporting illegal data, because these things are not as complex as financial crime.
Maybe it is. Maybe downloading blocks of illegal content makes you a criminal. But maybe treating an entire peer-to-peer network as illegal because some decide to use it for illegal purposes is a flawed argument to begin with. No user running a full node should be considered involved into this, just as no Tor user should be considered partner with someone, just because he routed illegal information without him knowing. Just as a miner approving a transaction without being aware it's an illegal one. Full nodes don't advertise themselves as porn sites, so they shouldn't be treated as illicit.
And besides that, what would the introduction of censorship do to avoid this? As far as I can tell, nothing. Saying that "you can't do this kind of transactions", because a few use it for illicit purpose, doesn't mean those few won't find another way to accomplish it indirectly, again on-chain.
I'm blaming the miners. Seems that they will benefit the most from this whether it hurts bitcoin or doesn't. They'd be fully aware of the potential pitfalls too.
Blaming the miners for what? Following profit?
When you mint an original NFT with an original creation, it does not matter who mints the same/duplicate NFT after you. The blockchain has written that you were the first to create this content (at least on the blockchain) and from that point forward, the rights to the creation are transfer-able on-chain and all NFTs that try to copy your original will be verifiably useless/fakes.
And I'm just saying that the "rights" don't belong to you by the law. You can create an image, have the copyright, but no laws describe transfer of ownership via blockchain. So it's essentially unofficial rights, AKA community rights.