Re: The USA:
"But is looking at sexually explicit photographs of children child abuse?"
it is, not because of the content of the photograph (which coincides with your other arguments, actually), but because a child had to have been ABUSED to take the photograph.
I have known kids (friends of mine, when I was a kid) who were subjected to that kind of photographic abuse.
When I was a kid, I lived in a 'trailor trash' neighborhood for a while. One guy, a single guy who had lots of bicycle repair parts and a really cool boat, was a friend to all of the kids. He would ask the PARENTS if he could take them on weekend outings to a lake, etc.. My mother was rightfully suspicious, and the guy WAS a little creepy. One day she saw him at the local bar where she was moonlighting as a cocktail waitress. She saw him with naked photos of some of my friends, as I understand it (he was letting people look at them, trying to sell them apparently), and so she got the cops involved. The guy soon disappeared, and we never saw him again. His boat was towed away some time after that, and his mobile home also. I think he was arrested and caught with the photos in his possession. The bank probably repo'd the rest.
So yeah, the exploiting neighbor down the street, taking kids on weekend outings so he can photograph them, allegedly in compromising nude positions (because I never saw them so I can't say for sure), and then sell them to people in a local bar.
And that's why it's illegal just to HAVE these kinds of things, because an actual child was exploited to make that photo.
It would be a lot different if you're photographing disasters, wars, assassinations, etc..
Biting the hand that feeds IT
