I don't understand how I am stretching at all. The argument "Pictures that depict the victimization of those who do not consent to the illegal actions taken against them in the photographs should be illegal because of the lack of consent" clearly means that both child pornography and video footage of bank robberies should be illegal. Where is the stretching? There is no stretching, the issue is that the people who argue this don't really believe it, they are just making up excuses as to why they want to lock people up. When they are pressed to explain how the analogy does not work they usually just get upset and end up saying something such as "whatever, you are obviously wrong, this isn't even worth my time you fucking pedophile!".