Hmm. I wonder how this opinion will be received:
Keep it legal. Some of that stuff is just sick...but at what point do you draw a line? Don't misunderstand me, I won't justify much of it as "art", but I do believe there is a mental release (and a perverted one of course) that is involved with such depictions. Do people enjoy a gory movie for plot content? No, they watch it because they want to see people graphically butchered. I believe this is the same way with sexual fetishes.
I don't approve of real life exploitation of children but there is nothing (as far as I know) that ties fictional depictions of such acts to the real thing. Outside of the actual child molester having such material what about the same material in the hands of many people who do not commit such acts? I can't swallow the argument that availability of such material encourages people to commit such acts in real life. That's just placing the blame on the material and not the person who couldn't control his (or her) urges.
It's gotten to a point where the laws governing what is considered child porn and what isn't are becoming arbitrary - that is, the laws are so general that they allow officials to press charges on whatever they consider to be exploitation by an adult. Here's one example:
http://news.cnet.com/Federal-case-ma...3-6139524.html
Like I said, I don't approve of child porn or pedophilia in real life, but I think fiction falls squarely under free speech.