I don't see why I cannot say it is okay to view CP that already exists but immoral to produce new child pornography. Viewing CP inherently means that the act viewed took place in the past, producing CP inherently means that the act takes place in the present. There is no such thing as CP passing into the past, for CP to exist the act depicted inherently must have taken place in the past, for CP to be produced the act inherently must take place in the present. Lots of serial killers kill at least in part for the thrill of seeing the details of their killings published in news papers. Usually the police encourage them to keep communication with news papers etc so that they can get caught. The same way that police secretly hope child molesters will take pictures so that they can track them down, but of course they will never come out and say this. The same way the police hope that pedophiles will look at child porn so that they can track them down, although of course they will not say this their actions speak louder than their words, the FBI recently ran a compromised CP hidden service forum for several weeks in an attempt to track down its members. If they really thought every time CP is viewed the child is molested again or other nonsense, they would have taken the site down immediately. But LE distribute CP in order to infiltrate pedophile groups and to catch people looking at CP, do you think the police are going to molest children in order to do the same? Even they can see that there is a massive moral difference, and even if they say differently their actions speak much louder than their words. Let me know when you hear a story about LE molesting kids to catch pedophiles, I can link to all kinds of examples of LE distributing CP to catch pedophiles. How does the demand of readers have any effect on the producers? The PIR scheme completely hides the demand. After the poems are uploaded nobody can tell if they are downloaded or not. If you think the PIR idea does not work for you, then it is clear that you don't mean actual demand but rather demand in a conceptual way. You don't mean that somebody taking an identifiable action in an attempt to get CP, you mean the desire of people to take such action. This makes you a total thought police advocate, because you don't so much have a problem with people downloading CP creating real demand but rather have a problem that people desire to see CP at all, which means you want to police the desires of others which is just absolutely sickening to me. Here, let me say it another way. All digital CP consists of 1's and 0's. If you run a random number generator infinitely long, there is a high probability that it will produce a given CP image (including CP images that could never be produced, due to the fact that the people depicted never existed, and including CP images that are equal to what would exist if an actual child was molested on camera, but which will never exist because said child was never molested). It seems to me that you have a problem with pedophiles running random number generators until they output CP of an actual child. Let's say there is a real CP image out there, and Joe CP Viewer runs an RNG and just by chance it happens to produce the series of 1's and 0's that the actual CP image consists of. There is no way to construe this as demand for CP which can lead to production due to the fact that Joe CP Viewer does not even request the CP from anywhere, he derives it from pure random chance. But your issue is not really with his demand in an economic context (which is strange because that is what people who argue your position always seem to imply) but rather with demand in the sense that someone desires something you do not want them to desire. PIR is hardly different from this example, when the CP is uploaded to the system nobody can then tell when it is downloaded so there is no way to say that by downloading CP from this system an economic demand effect leading to supply comes into play, but you have issue with this not because you are worried about supply and demand but rather because you are concerned with the desire of others regardless of if their actions lead to the harm of others or not, and that makes you the fucking thought police. The consequence to society is over all positive, already linked to studies showing that legal access to CP reduces child molestation in every country studied. Increasing freedom rarely leads to a negative effect on society. Also many countries where CP is legal to view, like Russia, are hardly libertarian, they are just not so infected with puritans as countries like USA. But children would still be molested, and now the police have no easy way to track down the people molesting children. So you have swept the problem under the rug but in reality you have made it so people are more likely to molest children and you have made it harder for the people molesting children to be caught. But hey, at least you cannot so easily tell that people have desires that you find offensive right?