There should be laws against physical and sexual abuse (including unconsented sex) for all individuals, including children. But these laws are not "augmented" by prohibitions against the "Child Pornography." Not only does the "War Against" child pronography not deliver the presumed benefit of reducing child sexual abuse, it does far more harm than good overall, and creates a bias toward tyranny.
Ordinary people are threatened with decades-long imprisonment for snapping pictures of their children in the bath... This is the kind of law that could be used to put anyone in prison because conceivably everyone has violated it in some way. You may have "cached" an illegal picture in your Web browser. Websites archiving internet content have been shut down for containing a single image judged to be "Child Pornography."
What's worse is that in the case of at least one of those websites being shut down, it was the result of a plant by organized crime. That website didn't pay its "protection" money, so a mobster planted the image and called the cops. Then, when they were shut down, the mobsters started a similar service in a different state. This is the way organized crime usually works, and one more example of how organized crime thrives on prohibitions of all kinds.
As a Utilitarian, I do believe that people are morally responsible for both the direct and indirect consequences of their actions. Buying a gallon of gasoline may contribe to greater power for Saddam or Kadahfi, not to mention catastrophic global warming in this century. Buying a pair of sneakers or a small plastic toy may contribute to the exploitation of child workers and prisoners in Asian countries. Yet, normally we don't hold people doing those things to be legally responsible for being a consumer in those situations. In some cases, the corporations involved in such trade may be operating outside the law (in all too many cases, they aren't), but in almost all cases they get away with it anyway, even if it is illegal.
But where is the proportionality in owning child porn? If you download a few pictures from a subscription service, the effective cost of each picture may be 1 cent. That is 1 cent that you MIGHT have contributed to the support of some child abuser somewhere, and it might have gone for food for that very child. And even that is a lot less then you contribute to world terrorism daily by buying food or fuel. In most cases of the War on Child Pornography, there is no abuse. Images were digitally modified, or people took snaps of their children in the bath, or such images may have already been in "the public domain" from being part of a public trial. But the law does not require a direct chain of support to a child abuser. However it was created, digitally or not, it may be illegal.
Worse yet, in probably most cases these crimes are essentially created by law enforcement. They plant pictures on decoy prostitutes and other figures in order to entrap vulnerable people. Entrapment is one of the worst crimes of all, particularly in this case. In effect, law enforcer is the "producer" of the child pornography. They are profiting from it by seizing the assets of convicted people.
We trade in all manner of objects where some kind of exploitation has been involved in its past, but exclusively treat "Child Porn" as some kind of moral issue that demands government prohbition and very tough sentences. There is really the ugly head of Religion involved here; religion wants to control all sensuality and direct it toward the end of endless procreation. Therein is the real obscenity and immorality in our world.
Furthermore, as with all prohbitions, the prohibition on child porn increases the profits for its creators and distributors. Rather than attempting to prohibit "Child Porn," it should be regulated and taxed in a modest (non-prohibitory) way, with the proceeds used to benefit the victims of real unconsented physical and sexual abuse. Regulation and taxation are almost always better than prohibition.
A disproportionate amount of child sexual abuse over the years has involved Catholic priests. And yet, no one that I know is calling for the Church to be shut down because of this. I want people to see beyond religion, and the best way is to keep it on display so people can see for themselves. That is the only way a thirst for obscenity can be quenched.