Laws are a balance of interests. There are legitimate reasons to show violent crimes in a documentary, work of art, or political commentary, which balance again

Laws are a balance of interests. There are legitimate reasons to show violent crimes in a documentary, work of art, or political commentary, which balance against the harm. There are no reasons to show child pornography. Sexual abuse emphasizes dynamics of objectification, humiliation, powerlessness. I'd argue that victims respond more strongly to pictures of sexual abuse than to pictures of physical violence. Wikipedia says that a million children have been abused to produce child pornography, whereas there are few instances of violence to produce pictures of violence. In this sense, child pornography is inseparable from the crime, whereas with violence, there is a distinction between the crime and the documentation. That said, I do sympathize with the view that sentences for the possession of child pornography are too harsh, especially when viewing pedophilia as a mental disorder. I strongly support efforts to make therapy more accessible, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_Project_Dunkelfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_Project_Dunkelfeld.