Images of child sexual abuse, also called "child porn", although the child porn phrase is problematic.

https://www.iwf.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-assess-and-remove-c...

> We use the term child sexual abuse to reflect the gravity of the images and videos we deal with. Child pornography, child porn and kiddie porn are not acceptable descriptions. A child cannot consent to their own abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/open-d...

You can make a distinction if you want:

A child taking their own sexual photos of themselves, with no other person involved, would still be child porn, but not child sexual abuse.

That’s preposterous because it presumes there is even a real child depicted. Only a subset of CP even contains real children.

Pornography is "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal", it doesn't say anywhere that the actors have consented.

Which would make it a superset, and thus problematic if the narrower definition is what is legally intended.

Furthermore there may be no actors at all. CGI CP is still considered CP by our despicable government.

"Child porn", which in the US can be anything ranging from raping newborns to sexually suggestive drawings of imaginary teenager characters.

Now this is a topic that might raise heated discussion so don't get baited into it, but a lot of anime and hentai content does cross the line. Drawing a 13 year old girl and saying she's 18 doesn't really change it.

Which line: in Japan the line seems to be "real vs imaginary", in the US it seems to be "<18 vs 18+", which to me sounds more like a thought police. Much like the infamous "I'll know it when I see it".

I don't think you get to make that call. If an artist draws an 18 year old girl who looks much younger, are we supposed to ignore their wishes and arrest them because we think it crosses the line? We simply will not respect the artist's will when they are the literal creator of the drawing? Doesn't this mindset drift into literal thought crime?