Fair enough. I should note that Lolita, the book, has been called to be banned on several occasions though. Because the sexual nature of the book makes people uncomfortable.

In any case, a search engine (like Google or Bing) may decide to ban sexual content like Lolita, for being sexual + about underage minors.

As for an actual case of actually pornographic material, I have another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18877901

I talk about an actual pornographic case in this post. A 14-year old girl sends a sexually explicit image to her boyfriend, and is therefore charged with distribution of child pornography.

If I can give my uninformed and probably lacking opinion the only reasonable definition of CP should revolve around crimes outside of the digital world. (Don't take this too literally) It is for sure CP if it involves actual child abuse or if it promotes child abuse (or normalize sexualization of children)

In Australia young looking porn actresses/actor and loli hentai are illegal because they promote CP as a fetish.

There is an anime I really liked, "Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid", except that there are small children (7-9) that while are never depicted in sexual situation are often given excessive sexual maturity; I found that extremely unsettling (I never finished that otherwise truly beautiful series for this reason) because it is how one would try to normalize the idea that "maybe a kid would like it".

In a sense I think we should treat CP as the correspective of hate speech. Hate crimes : hate speech ~ child abuse : CP.

This highlight the conflict free speech vs censorship.

If you are still reading allow me one last opinion :-) another problem with thinking that a problem is simple is that you might miss an important connection between seemingly unconnected problems.