TPB never supported absolute free speech. I can't find it now, but they used to have a section of their site where they posted responses to media company lawyers, and they basically said they wouldn't take down anything except child porn. I'm not sure if the rules have changed in the years since.
CP is one of the very few things where mere possession is illegal. It makes sense that TPB, which is mainly against copyright and IP, would not allow it.
With CP it's also that making distribution harder might disincentivise the creation of the material, so removing it everywhere could have the very real effect of saving actual children.
This might be a bit of a naive view on things, considering how some forms of content will always find ways of spreading, but it's still a very strong point to argue that it's different from content like 3D-printable pistol schematics.
It's not a strong point because you can make exactly the same argument for anything else you'd like to ban, including printable pistol schematics, anarchist cookbooks, terrorist propaganda, and so on. It's a cheap truism to say that if something is easily available this will make it more likely for people to become interested in it, will make certain people more inclined towards it, may create a market for it, and so on, than if the same thing was hard to find or not available at all. Yes, probably it will.
Who gets hurt in the process of making pistol schematics? Or in the making of terrorist propaganda?
The hard difference is: With CP, harm is done in the process of creating the material. With most other things, harm could potentially be done as a result of the content.
That wasn't your argument, though. There is no doubt that the production of CP is and should be illegal, as it involves child abuse. However, your original argument was about the possession of CP. There is a standard argument against the claim that this is a victimless crime, and that is that the children abused are harmed by the distribution of pictures that show them. I find that argument to some extent convincing, but not yours.
No, you suggested that the harm caused in the production is a reason for criminalizing possession, which is what I disagree with. I accept other reasons in this case, but not this one. Which of these positions you endorse has far-reaching consequences for the moral and legal evaluation.
It's similar with the "war on drugs" or when you want to evaluate the morality of your sneakers and clothes. Should possession of the drugs be illegal because people were harmed in their production (by e.g. drug cartels), should possession of the clothes be illegal because they were produced with child labour? I don't think so.
Edit: To make this clear, I merely replied again to clarify the difference not because I think there is a huge disagreement. This is obviously an unpleasant and contentious topic and I very much hope I don't come across as a CP apologist - I'm not, for the other reason I've mentioned.
Where did I ever imply anything should be criminalized or not?
My point is: There's a clear distinction between material that inherently causes harm in its creation and content that may lead to harm in some way.
Your extension to drugs or clothing only partially makes sense, as those can be produced without causing harm to or exploiting anybody. I view it as more similar to (knowingly) buying stolen goods.
AFAIK this is not an absolute, global truth. IANAL, but I do know the stance on CP (e.g. anime, ages of wedding, written-Lolita- etc differ per region. Legal and cultural).
In many countries, possession of certain books is illegal. Possession of blueprints of weapons is illegal and so on.
Point being: banning CP is still a moral choice, made by the operators of the site, not some absolute, global common baseline.
