Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.
I simply don't buy the idea that the majority of CP advertised on the dark web is only available for pay or exchange; I'm sure a lot of it is, but this "market effect" thing is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell, even though many would like to believe it's a good argument against something heinous, that doesn't mean we should just accept it.
>Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.
This I can understand and actually I regard it as a bigger motivator to the illegalisation of possession. However often they don't know, and could you reassure them that it's not happening if you put an effort toward eradicating only their images? And if they don't know, doesn't that also eradicate this argument in those cases too? What if they don't have a problem with it, or rather, they are neutral about it? The harm would have to be found, and if there is no harm, the argument collapses in that case. Of course the argument also does not apply to pornography in which the victims are dead or unconscious etc. which would seem to, considering only this argument, make such material permissible.
Also consider the viewer of the child pornography. They have no way of knowing if the victim is aware of the video, or the victim's opinion about the video. So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?
Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I agree that it can exist) is knowledge itself. The knowledge is a side effect; if this side effect can be stopped from manifesting itself, then the harm is no longer done.
i.e rape involves harm not through knowledge but by matter of fact, by its very definition. This is not the case with the crime of possessing child pornography.
With regard to death, I'm not sure what your point is - your argument for harm caused by knowledge does not hold up when the victim of the harm is dead. Of course that dosen't mean that it's OK to kill the victim, but if that were to happen, it would eliminate the crime of harm by knowledge.
>So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?
Not if there was no harm caused.
I'm becoming more skeptical of this argument. If knowledge that something is happening constitutes sufficient harm, then would it follow that somebody laughing at you in another coutry, which you know to be happening somehow (such as being told by a friend), can be considered as harm?