It's a serious question in the law -- there are not many images that are actually illegal to possess, just like there are not many words that are actually illegal to say, so we should ask why this is one of the rare exceptions. It's illegal for three reasons, I think.

1. Because it eliminates the market for creating the material. If the material could be freely distributed - even sold - there might be more reason to create it (even though it would be illegal).

2. Because it aids in law enforcement. Given that possession is a crime, there may be a greater chance of tracing the material back to its creator. (Of course, maybe not -- but there's a chance.)

3. Most fundamentally, because dissemination furthers the crime against the victim. The underlying crime is that the child was forced to be seen in a sexual way without consent. Each person that then sees the material furthers that harm. True, you can't unring the bell -- and what is out there will likely always be out there. But by criminalizing it, you hopefully reduce the harm.

(A fourth reason -- that this crime is just so bad that anything related to it should be criminal -- is attractive, but I don't think it works because there are other really, really awful crimes out there that don't have similar restrictions.)

It's not thought control -- because the thoughts are permitted (if despicable). Even drawings, stories, etc. are (I think) legal. If I recall correctly, it's only images of actual children that are definitely illegal. (I think there was a Supreme Court case on that -- but I can't think of a "safe for work" search for it, so I could be totally wrong.)

very interesting thought-- thanks for this.

sometimes i'm curious to know what the laws and history are with this, but am way too scared to google it.

Here's a fellow in prison (or soon to be there) for possession of drawings of child pron:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

Apparently there's a "Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”"

How far down the slippery slope is it from drawing pictures of something, to just thinking about something?

Oh, yeah -- this is all flooding back, now (which also enables a Wikipedia search...good deal). The Supreme Court rejected this type of law in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, and there's a strong argument that the PROTECT Act is just a retread of the same law that the Court struck down there (the CPPA, as Wikipedia puts it, but for some odd reason I remember it as COPA...that may be something else).

But the new law hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court, yet, so it's not entirely clear how they'll see it.

One more thing: criminalizing possession of these images allows the perps to be placed on sex-offender registries so that they can be tracked and hindered from taking their sex fantasies into real criminal acts.

(That was supposed to be a long-winded reply to the ironically named Baby Hitler.)

I understand what he did was despicable and perverted but I don't understand these laws. He didn't commit the act nor did he take the photos nor did he distribute them. He basically got off on the fantasy of photos. So what if people had pics of death and destruction? and got off on them? This is entering into thought control territory. Shouldn't these people be going after the people who commit the acts?

y'know, i stand corrected. you're right.

Why spend the money to keep him in jail here and then deport him? Just deport and let his child-porn-viewin' ass be Spain's problem.

and the most disgusting human being of the year goes to...

oh god how are there even these incidents to take photos OF?!!?

"In what the Post considered to be a show of "leniency," the judge agreed to seal a sex-offender evaluation report that Ortega-Osona's attorneys said would be "like a sign (saying) 'beat me up'" when he was in prison."

..but nobody has a problem printing his name, right?