> However, they are also evidence that a child has been abused and this was my point.

"Child porn" is defined very broadly, and is a very politically loaded term. Many things that are defined legally as child porn would not be considered evidence of abuse by many (most?) people.

If you're 16 and snap a photo of your junk in the locker room and send it to your teammates as a prank[0], you are all guilty of possession of child porn. Who abused whom here?

There are also many things that are defined legally as child porn that are unambiguously abuse, in very horrific ways. But the problem is that they're both conflated when you use the term "child porn", which is both overloaded and politically charged.

[0] Yes, this happens. Teenagers are weird.

I never used the words child porn.

I used the words child abuse images.

This may have been a hint that I was talking about images of actual child abuse rather than selfies taken by teenagers.

We are in a discussion about an ideal world. Let's imagine that if we were really in a position that governments were legislating about absolute freedom of speech they could also draw up some non stupid laws to protect victims of child abuse?

There isn't exactly a difference since there has been some efforts to call the former the latter to focus on the issue of the abuse. If you are wanting to get highly specific with your terms, you'll probably need to work with some definitions stated up front because otherwise people will be assuming layman usage.

Also to note, under current law, those selfies are images of abuse. It may seem absurd that the law considers such an action as abusive, but that is just because the sometimes is absurd.