All the people I've seen here who defend the criminalization of simple possession of CP downloaded for free from the internet, but not of gore, have basically two flaws in their argument:
1) they think the intentions of the people who produced the media, or those of the ones who downloaded it, must be taken into consideration for whether or not criminalization of simple possession of media downloaded for free from the internet should take place. So, according to their logic, if the criminal didn't want attention, you can watch the media for free; if he wanted, you can't. If you're watching to fap to it, you can't; if not, you can. THESE SHOULD NOT BE RELEVANT REASONS WHETHER OR NOT TO BAN SIMPLE POSSESSION OF MEDIA DOWNLOADED FROM THE INTERNET AT ALL.
If I download a picture of you from Facebook and use it to print it, glue it to a punching bag and hit your face printed on it, should I be jailed for the simple possession of the picture of you I downloaded for free from Facebook? THIS SHIT MAKES NO SENSE, GOD, THINK STRAIGHT.
If I film myself punching someone in the face, say "I'M DOING THIS FOR THE PLEASURE OF SADISTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, ENJOY!", upload it to the internet and someone downloads it for free and watches it, should this person who just downloaded it for free be jailed? IT. SIMPLY. MAKES. NO. SENSE.
2) on top of it, they ASSUME the intentions of people who downloaded that types of media. "Everyone who downloaded CP did it to fap to it and is a pedo and a potential risk to society" / "Everyone who downloaded gore did it just because they're curious and mean no threat". HOW CAN YOU FUCKING KNOW? Seriously, how can you? What if the person who downloaded CP did it out of curiosity, what if the person who downloaded gore is plotting to commit a violent crime and downloaded it to learn torture and murder techniques?