The offence lies in the possession, whatever its origin. The logic of making it illegal is that such pictures are usually the result of the models being coerced /manipulated into behaviour that they don't want to do (the usual debate about informed consent coming to the usual conclusion). However once the law is in place, the fact that your source has nothing to with the cause is irrelevant, it will still be illegal to possess that material.

I think I agree with you ... at least for 99.99% of the cases. But I still think it's a different situation to have an underage (sexual) picture of oneself. Maybe the law doesn't make an exception for this case -- I don't know -- but from a moral perspective, there IS a distinction, and I would think there would at least be a strong case to argue that nothing illegal was done. [What right does the law have to prosecute someone for having a picture, when the one being prosecuted is the subject of the picture -- and the supposed "victim" the law is seeking to protect?]

I wonder if such a case has ever come up before in the legal system. Can't say I've heard of one. Anyway, it's a bit of a pointless argument, and I doubt we're going to solve it here. Still, it's fun to have a bit of a debate every now and then.

Rainboy