Involving the word 'intent' makes the definition of exactly what 'porn' is a problem of incalculable proportions because it means that the highlight comes off the porn-material itself and onto the one who is looking at it. To discover 'intent' then involves the use of psychological and extremely intrusive testing of the most dubious (not to say inhumane) kind and can then involve an extension of the term 'possible porn' to almost anything under the sun.
What concerns me most about the use of the word 'intent' is the innate legalism of it and the way it first stems from the idea that sexual interest is evil because of where the interest might lead and, from there, can then flow unchecked into the ultra-puritanical conclusion that 'sexual interest' is probably best deemed evil in and of itself.
So puritanical can this notion become (especially once the word 'child' becomes involved) that it is hard to tell whether it does not actually verge on Manichaeism.
If unchecked, (and who can check it without implying complicity?) this then leads inexorably to the idea that the porn material itself really isnt relevant: all that matters is for the authorities to know what the sexual interest of the individual actually is and to take action accordingly in order to "uphold the moral standards of society and in the interests of public safety".