[throwaway8754]

> What if it was published for free?

If you believe the MPAA/RIAA's claims that piracy harms sales, there would be some moral case for piracy of CP. Although, there is still some direct harm from the distribution of the material (for the privacy for the victim). However it's more likely that (contra the MPAA) piracy actually serves as advertising, just like in the ordinary entertainment industry.

> What if children weren't physically abused but were secretly and anonymously photographed?

Still harmful for privacy reasons mentioned above, even if less harmful than actual physical abuse.

> Shouldn't there be exceptions for victimless child porn?

Probably, but the example I would reach for is art / drawings of obviously fictional characters, rather than any of the above. The fact that many CP laws extend to this is better evidence that lawmakers are being irrationally swayed by puritanism. (Or that puritanism breeds indifference. Maybe they don't care about the "deviants" interested in these sort of drawings enough to specifically target them, but they also don't care enough to carve out an exception.)

[ouid]

Cartoon child pornography is legal in the states provided it is not meant to depict an actual child. At least if I'm remembering correctly.

[averagewall]

Australia is stricter. Somebody was charged for possessing Simpsons porn because it was "sexualised depiction of persons under 16". The defence argued they weren't human because they only had 4 fingers on each hand!