[My apoligies in advance for my broken English]
Currently, in the vast majority of the world, all forms of child pornography are absolutlely illegal to posses or share. It feels right for it to be the case, but I'm not sure how could you justify it philosophically. Please bare with me, I know it is a very sensitive topic.
The creation of child porn is, quite obviously, immoral. The exact age of consent is up to debate, but we can all tell that 10 year olds can not give informed consent to sex.
In contrast, the moral justification for banning the possession of child porn isn't as obvious, and include the right of the victim to privacy, and an attempt to discourage pedophiles of creating such material.
The latter of these justifications is pure utilitarianism, and is equivalent to forbidding newspapers to publish mass-shooting stories, in order to avoid playing into the shooter's hands by making them famous.
The former is more to the point, but you can seemingly walk around it by blurring all identifiable details, or even getting the victim's consent when they become old enough.
To me, it seems like a "moral paradox". Our intuition says one thing, but it seems like reason argues the opposite. Could you "solve" it, by finding a good reason to ban child porn, or rather with an intuitive way of looking at it, that leads you to the ight answer?
Thanks in advance