[PebblesRox]

"But when it comes to child pornography, I think maybe Colour should make a difference - if we're going to ban it at all, it should matter where it came from. Whether any children were actually involved, who did or didn't give consent, in short: what Colour the bits are. The other side takes the opposite tack: child pornography is dangerous by its very existence, and it doesn't matter where it came from. They're claiming that whether some bits are child pornography or not, and if so, whether they're illegal or not, should be entirely determined by (strictly a function of) the bits themselves."

I see what you mean about the "who did or didn't give consent" line. I don't see how "consent" could be a mitigating factor in determining whether or not something qualifies as CSAM.

[bitwize]

Photographs or movies involving, for example, nude children, which do not meet the bright-line child pornography standard, are nonetheless in a legal gray area and may be considered to be exploitation of those children if the parents did not give consent. Think Thora Birch at the end of American Beauty.

[Symbiote]

Two 17 year olds could consent to sex and taking photographs of each other, but the resulting photographs are child pornography.