> five people (so far) have considered that child abuse images are not evidence of a crime strongly enough to downvote

I actually didn't downvote you, but the problem is that you're making a lot of assumptions when you say "child porn", and you're ignoring a key way that that child porn is already treated specially by the law[0].

If you're 17 and your 17-year-old boyfriend/girlfriend texts you a nude selfie, that's child porn. If your phone is confiscated before you even open the text, you're guilty of possession of child porn.

If you're 5, and your parent or relative sexually abuses you and records the events on film, that's child porn even if they don't distribute it. If they do, everyone who receives it is in possession of evidence of your abuse.

Child porn is evidence of a crime, but the question is, crime by whom? In the first case case, it's not clear morally that the person who unknowingly received a nude selfie from an underage person committed a crime, even though legally the law treats both cases as identical.

[0] For contrast, if you are found in possession of drugs, you can theoretically make the defense that you didn't know you had them. It's a weak defense, but it is legally possible - with child porn, even if you succeed in convincing the judge/jury of that fact, it doesn't affect your case one bit.

This must depend on jurisdiction, but in most western legal systems it's called "Possession of Child Exploitation/Abuse etc Material". Some material that might strictly fit into the age category is not CEM due to some other merit, especially when borderline- ie is art. We have case law for that where I live. 2ndly "possession" is formed by 2 elements- knowledge and control. Can't have it without them. Now you may live somewhere with different law, but this is pretty standard.

Btw thanks for writing this and clarifying that I was being miss-understood. I was genuinely worrying for a few moments that people voting on my comment were members of some type of child love association.