No actual person. The blanket ban on PIM is part of a moral crusade to protect the societal image of the pure and innocent child, rather than protecting actual children. You'd think that, if antis were genuinely concerned, then they would merely stop at criminalising production of PIM that isn't self-produced, rather than go for criminalising possession too.Who does this protect?
To prove how this is less about protecting people rather than is about protecting a specific image of children, you don't need to look farther than the antis' rationale for banning possession that essentially boils down to a metaphysical argument on how someone having or watching PIM will cause the "victim" to be "re-victimised" repeatedly which, if applied in any other context (pictures of murder, or people being humiliated, etc...), would be laughed out. But since it's about childhood innocence, all logic must be abandoned for the sake of preserving the mythical image of the innocent child.