Interesting opinion. In regards to 4, I disagree, as I believe that possession promotes creation indirectly by creating demand & fueling an already unhealthy mind.
Your ideas, by the way, could equally well be applied - and are, by some fanatics - to violent video games, and yet I bet you oppose efforts to even curtail their availability, let alone imprison their fans.
I would really like to emphasise that I think that someone who's interested in collecting 10G of pictures of kids being raped is obviously pretty sick. If I found that someone I knew had such an interest, I'd probably never speak to them again. If I had kids, I'd keep them the hell away from such a pervert. But illegal? For having copied some files, but having had nothing to do with the crime involved in their original creation? Those pictures are depictions and records of a crime, but they do not embody it.
The whole concept is ludicrous and I can't believe I am so alone in pointing that out. If you have a picture of a murder, and I copy it, we haven't somehow created another murder out of the ether. If I possess a picture of someone doing illegal drugs, I don't magically become partially responsible for the drug use. I think a reasonable person would agree up to here with everything I said. So why does all rationality fly straight out the window when it comes to a crime that happens to involve a child? The arguments weren't valid before, but change the subject to an emotionally charged topic and suddenly they make perfect sense?
I just don't buy it. You can't cut and paste pictures of crime, and in doing so create more crime. You can't create more crime by viewing a recording of crime. I am utterly baffled why anyone would argue otherwise.
If someone downloads Child Porn, or knowingly copies it from somewhere, this could be giving someone the idea that they better keep producing it.
As for your second point, yes, it might. Or it might not. Either way, speculation such as this does not belong in a legal setting. And if you take your thoughts to their logical generalised conclusion, watching anyone do anything bad at all makes you partially responsible. I don't agree with that, of course, and I doubt you do either.
Anyway, I've said all I'm going to say on this - I was just trying to make a point, I'll bow out before things turn any nastier.
ErrantX's job is to determine the intent of the viewer by seeing if they actively downloaded and used the produce of an illegal activity. If he does his job well, I see no problem with putting people in jail for this crime.
One study, from the first page of pubmed for CP: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307171?ordinalpos=15...
There are plenty more if you go looking. We know there is a link between viewing rates (obsession) and acting.
Look, I'm not an expert. I'm talking about this topic because I believe in certain general principles of freedom and legal process. I have no special interest in child porn beyond its prohibition's corrosive effects on what I consider to be important aspects of society. I haven't read any studies, nor plan to. I haven't read any studies about violent video games causing violence either, yet I reject any ban on them out of pure principle - same here.
Anyway, I think I'll bow out now before some misguided soul calls the cops on me, or worse. I was just trying to explain why I believe what I do, because you asked. Seems we have irreconcilable differences. C'est la vie.
I understand you are taking a philosophical stance on this. It's cool by me.
I disagree on your ban of violent video games though. Once we get the technology to design games with addictive, psychology-changing content, there is bound to be a game that actually causes real world violence.
When that day happens, I will support the ban, even if it's in a sub-section of the population.