If I hadn’t encountered the term before (and I hadn’t, until it came up here on the SDMB), I sure wouldn’t know what it referred to. My first guess might have been either scholarly material (research articles, etc.) on the sexual abuse of children, or physical materials used in the sexual abuse of children (handcuffs? sex toys? lube?). The word “material” could mean just about anything.
My impression from this thread (which may not be accurate—I haven’t really tried to check) is that many of the posters who are on “your side” are non-US Dopers. If so, it may not (just) be an issue of “slow to catch up” or of who’s more sensitive to the victims, but of the differing connotations and nuances of how different terminology is used in different versions of English.
We can debate “child pornography” versus “child sexual assault materials”. But it’s absolutely 100% clear that “CSAM” is a much worse term than “child pornography”, for all the reasons that proponents of that word insist that it’s better: Reducing it to an acronym sanitizes it, and hides how horrible it is.
If you’re going to refer to it as “child sexual abuse material”, then you need to spell it out in full.
Oh, sure - but it’s also trending down, just like “child porn”, which was my point. It’s got those hits partly because it’s still the current legal term, anyway.
If it was introduced absent any context, I can maybe see that. But in the context of an arrested paedophile, I would think of media before paraphernalia, myself.
As far as I know, only a couple are, the rest are other USian or at least USian expats. But Kozak and RAINN (and the FBI and the DOJ) are very much USian.
Not if you live your life through text.
Once you know, you know what it stands for. That very argument has been used here about “child porn” not being associated with professionally-produced porn, in fact.
And hell, just calling it “porn” is already just the kind of reduction you’re decrying, yet people do it without thinking. Start with them.