I think that content that cannot be verified other than by accessing illegal materials is unverifiable. As well, our policy on sourcing requires reliable third-party sources. Thus a Reuters report for example on the raids would be deemed to be a reliable source. A cached copy of the material is not a reliable third party source quite apart from its illegality.
Of course, there are materials that are illegal to view in one country that are perfectly legal in another. It is probably illegal to view neutral accounts of the Tianenmen Square protests in 1989. It is not in most other countries and would obviously considered as verifiable material.
However, I understand that there is an Optional Protocol to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child see ( http://www.law-ref.org/CHILDPROTOCOL2/index.html ).
Perhaps it should be considered a banning offence to provide links to materials that contravene this protocol or to upload images that contravene it. As it is an international agreement, it might be considered as more of an international standard. Such materials should certainly not be considered to be verifiable and editors should be encouraged to remove it on sight.
Regards
Keith Old
Excellent idea! I have just looked at the protocol, and can see no reason why Wikipedia can't adopt it for this specific (and very serious and potentially damaging) issue of child porn.