It would bother me to the point where I would avoid them. I wouldn't scream for them to be thrown in jail, though, until they actually did something.
The illegality of child pornography made much, much more sense when it first happened in the 70's. Back then a customer would have to purchase the material, which meant they were directly financing the production of said material. "Production of said material" here meaning abuse of children, since you have to abuse a child to make kiddy porn.
Nowadays, given that one can take a picture with a digital camera and instantly post it to the web for free, it seems that most people who get caught with one or two such photos or videos got them off Limewire or something, and I strongly suspect that the numbers often cited about child pornography being a "billion-dollar industry" are pretty much nothing but hot air. However, being busted with one or two photos actually rarely happens, and when it does it's usually in tandem with some other offense, like groping or actually trying to pick up a kid or something like that. No, by and large when you read the news about kiddy porn busts, it usually involves either someone who was actually making the stuff himself (or herself*), or a couple dozen people from various countries busted at the same time and belonging to some kind of internet "club"; and in the latter case the police don't just find one or two videos, they find entire hard drives full of the stuff - gigabytes. In such cases, I don't think it's an issue of punishing "consumers". I don't think it's likely a mere "consumer" could end up with a collection like that unless he was directly linked somehow with a producer, in which case in my opinion he becomes an accessory, analogous to "knowing receipt of stolen property". By way of example, one of those international busts I heard about involved a club that required new members to submit so-many articles of "new" child pornography. As I understand it, they never specified how you were supposed to get ahold of the new material, but the implication is pretty obvious.
*Perhaps the most recent kiddy porn case of note involves some Colin Blanchard in England. Police found a number of photos, among them some that seemed to have been taken by camera phone. The camera phone images were of "bare torsos" of children - not technically illegal in and of themselves; however, the images seemed to indicate they were taken at a nursery school. Police managed to locate the nursery school and found the original images on the camera phone of one of the workers, Vanessa George. When police arrested her, they seized her home computer and found a CD full of child porn of a "very serious nature". More people have been arrested since.
As you see, on some occasions, being able to seize computers, etc when "mere images" are found allows police to actively track down producers, or rescue actual children who are being abused, or who are at immediate risk. None of the "serious nature" images found so far were made using the nursery school attendees - but that worker already had pictures of many of them at least half-naked. Considering she had a whole lot of "real" child porn on her computer already (that she was trading with "consumers"), the implications of what the very near future held aren't pleasant to think about, right? The illegality of possessing child pornography made this investigation possible.
