Prove me wrong. Here's some arguments against it courtesy of New York v. Ferber.

>The government has a very compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children.
By "protecting children", I honestly don't think that it would make any difference if it were legal or not, because while the law may have been broke in the act of producing it, but law enforcement agencies can still identify the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) regardless, so as far as that's concerned, it really doesn't matter.

>Distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. The images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and it is necessary for government to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography.
That's not mentioning the slippery slope taking place since these very laws were set in place. Now they're considering photoshopping a child's head onto an adult body or shooping a regular photo of a kid, and even drawn lolicon in some cases to be in the same category, even though technically speaking no children were harmed in the process of those photos being made. To me that's just the government putting it's foot down people's throats. Many people say that the slippery slope is "just a fallacy" but just take a look at what's happened since - they've furthered the definition even as to materials that aren't inherently pornographic or obscene in themselves. CP laws in the US are vague nowadays to say the least. Because even clothes pictures can be considered the same thing (see: Dost factors).

>Advertising and selling child pornography provides an economic motive for producing child pornography.
NO. IT. FUCKING. DOESN'T. There have been countless studies in countries where that shit is legal (or was) and the youth sex rates did not skyrocket in any of them. In fact, the evidence seems to go AGAINST that claim.