 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(May 2012) |
Simulated child pornography is child pornography depicting what appear to be minors but which is produced without their direct involvement.
| | This article needs additional citations for verification .(May 2012) |
Simulated child pornography is child pornography depicting what appear to be minors but which is produced without their direct involvement.
Types of this form of pornography include:
Drawings or animations that depict sexual acts involving minors but are not intended to look like photographs may be considered in some jurisdictions to be simulated.
In the United Kingdom, the Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) created a new offence in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a minor. This act makes cartoon/virtual pornography depicting minors illegal in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Since Scotland has its own legal system, the Coroners and Justice Act does not apply. This act did not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered "pseudo-photographs"—images that appear to be photographs. In 2008 it was further extended to cover tracings and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs. A prohibited cartoon/virtual image is one which involves a minor in situations which are pornographic and "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character". Prior to this, although not explicitly in the statutes, the law was interpreted to apply to cartoon/virtual images, though only where the images are realistic and indistinguishable from photographs. The new law, however, covered images whether or not they are realistic.
In the United States, the PROTECT Act of 2003 made significant changes to the law regarding virtual child pornography. [3] [4] [5] Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. [6] The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, that are to be found obscene in a court of law. [7] [8] [9] Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. [10] The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or a variant obscenity test to overcome this limitation. [11]
In Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1992 that obscene pornography was not protected expression in R v Butler, stating that while a direct causal link from obscenity to real world harm may be "difficult, if not impossible, to establish" it was reasonable to presume a causal link to "changes in attitudes and beliefs". [12] The following year, the 34th Canadian Parliament led by Prime Minister Kim Campbell made child pornography and its fictional artworks a crime in 1993, both to be charged with the same severity. [13] Following the 2001 Supreme Court trial R v Sharpe, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin continued to maintain that "Parliament was justified in concluding that visual works of the imagination would harm children". [14] The following year, the 37th Canadian Parliament led by Prime Minister Jean Chretien criminalized online access to child pornography, including fictional representations as well. [15]
In the Australian state of Victoria, it is illegal to publish imagery that "describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context". [16] [17]
The allowance of virtual child pornography in the U.S. has had international consequences. For example, French virtual child pornography producers have moved their files to servers in the United States because of its wider free speech protection. [18]
The hentai subgenres known as lolicon and shotacon have been the subject of much controversy regarding impact on child sexual abuse. [19] [20] Pornographic parody images of popular cartoon characters, known as Rule 34, have also been challenged around the world. Images depicting The Simpsons characters have been of particular concern in Australia and in the United States. [21] [22]
In the Czech Republic, a study showed that rates of "offending declined following the legalization of all types of pornography." [23]
In Canada, federal government committee findings of "adults who use the materials to persuade other children to engage in similar conduct" has been used to justify the prohibition of sexual depictions of children, whether their production involves child abuse or not. [24] In response, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) argued that the fictional pornography itself is not to blame when any item could be used as a tool for grooming by child molesters, stating that "pedophiles have been known to resort to candy as well". The CCLA further argued that outlawing all items that could possibly be abused would be undesirable. [25] On October 2005, 26-year-old Gordon Chin was the first Canadian to be convicted for possession and importation of cartoon child pornography and sentenced to prison for eighteen months. [26]
In the United States, child pornography laws do not apply to drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations under 18 U.S.C. § 2256. However, they remain subject to obscenity laws if they do not pass the Miller test and are potentially illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A.
The subgenres have also been made illegal in some countries, like the United Kingdom and South Korea.
In 2007, the virtual world online computer game Second Life banned what its operator describes as "sexual 'ageplay', i.e., depictions of or engagement in sexual conduct with avatars that resemble children". [27] [28] The ban prohibits the use of childlike avatars in any sexual contexts or areas, and prohibits the placement of sexualized graphics or other objects in any "children's areas" such as virtual playgrounds within the game environment. [28] Those Second Life residents who are caught ageplaying are given a warning stating that their actions are considered "broadly offensive" within the Second Life community and that "the depiction of sexual activity involving minors may violate real-world laws in some areas." [27]
Second Life is not the only community facing virtual child pornography allegations. In 2007, World of Warcraft banned the player organization "Abhorrent Taboo", because the organization allowed player characters to engage sexually with role-playing children and real ones. [29]
Pornography has existed since the origins of the United States, and has become more readily accessible in the 21st century. Advanced by technological development, it has gone from a hard-to-find "back alley" item, beginning in 1969 with Blue Movie by Andy Warhol, the Golden Age of Porn (1969–1984) and home video, to being more available in the country and later, starting in the 1990s, readily accessible to nearly anyone with a computer or other device connected to the Internet. The U.S. has no current plans to block explicit content from children and adolescents, as many other countries have planned or proceeded to do.
The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws, part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.
The PROTECT Act of 2003 is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children. "PROTECT" is a backronym which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today".
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), was a landmark decision of the U.S Supreme Court, unanimously ruling that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity, even if the material was not obscene.
Child erotica is non-pornographic material relating to children that is used by any individuals for sexual purposes. It is a broader term than child pornography, incorporating material that may cause sexual arousal such as nonsexual images, books or magazines on children or pedophilia, toys, diaries, or clothes. Law enforcement investigators have found that child erotica is often collected by pedophiles and child sexual abuse offenders. It may be collected as a form of compulsive behavior and as a substitute for illegal underage pornography and is often a form of evidence for criminal behavior.
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was a United States federal law to restrict child pornography on the internet, including virtual child pornography.
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade.
Legal frameworks around fictional pornography depicting minors vary depending on country and nature of the material involved. Laws against production, distribution and consumption of child pornography generally separate images into three categories: real, pseudo, and virtual. Pseudo-photographic child pornography is produced by digitally manipulating non-sexual images of real minors to make pornographic material. Virtual child pornography depicts purely fictional characters. "Fictional pornography depicting minors", as covered in this article, includes these latter two categories, whose legalities vary by jurisdiction, and often differ with each other and with the legality of real child pornography.
Internet pornography is any pornography that is accessible over the Internet; primarily via websites, FTP connections, peer-to-peer file sharing, or Usenet newsgroups. The greater accessibility of the World Wide Web from the late 1990s led to an incremental growth of Internet pornography, the use of which among adolescents and adults has since become increasingly popular.
An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality and social politics of the time. It is derived from the Latin obscēnus, obscaenus, "boding ill; disgusting; indecent", of uncertain etymology. Such loaded language can be used to indicate strong moral repugnance and outrage, vile, vigilance in conservation, or revenge. In expressions such as "obscene profits" and "the obscenity of war," ; misdirection. As a legal term, it usually refers to graphic depictions of people engaged in sexual and excretory activity, and related utterances of profanity, or the exploited child, human being or situation on display.
In the United States, child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to life imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000. U.S. laws regarding child pornography are virtually always enforced and amongst the harshest in the world. The Supreme Court of the United States has found child pornography to be outside the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 18. U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.
Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada forbids the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography, which are punishable by a maximum of ten or fourteen years of imprisonment depending on the offense. Portions of the law concerning one-year mandatory minimums for possession and making of child pornography have since been struck down as unconstitutional.
Child pornography laws in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are covered by the Protection of Children Act 1978, which made it illegal to take, make, distribute, show, or possess for the intent of showing or distributing an indecent photograph of someone under the age of 18. The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison. In the context of digital media, saving an indecent image to a computer's hard drive is considered to be "making" the image, as it causes a copy to exist which did not exist before. Indecency is to be interpreted by a jury, who should apply the recognised standards of propriety.
The production, sale, distribution, and commercialization of child pornography in Japan is illegal under the Act on Punishment of Activities Relating to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and the Protection of Children (1999), and is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison and/or a fine of ¥5,000,000. Simple possession of child pornography was made illegal by an amendment to the act in 2014. Virtual child pornography, which depicts wholly-fictional characters, is legal to produce and possess.
Child pornography is illegal in most countries, but there is substantial variation in definitions, categories, penalties, and interpretations of laws. Differences include the definition of "child" under the laws, which can vary with the age of sexual consent; the definition of "child pornography" itself, for example on the basis of medium or degree of reality; and which actions are criminal. Laws surrounding fictional child pornography are a major source of variation between jurisdictions; some maintain distinctions in legality between real and fictive pornography depicting minors, while others regulate fictive material under general laws against child pornography.
Child pornography is erotic material that depicts persons under the age of 18. The precise characteristics of what constitutes child pornography varies by criminal jurisdiction.
The Dost test is a six-factor guideline established in 1986 in the United States district court case United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828. The case involved 22 nude or semi-nude photographs of females aged 10–14 years old. The undeveloped film containing the images was mailed to a photo processing company in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech". The case was brought against the U.S. government by the Free Speech Coalition, a "California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry", along with Bold Type, Inc., a "publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle"; Jim Gingerich, who paints nudes; and Ron Raffaelli, a photographer who specialized in erotic images. By striking down these two provisions, the Court rejected an invitation to increase the amount of speech that would be categorically outside the protection of the First Amendment.
United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene, as well as to issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are differences among such laws. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.
The Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 , Title III of the Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law 101–647, 104 Stat. 4789, enacted November 29, 1990, S. 3266, is part of a United States Act of Congress which amended 18 U.S.C. § 2257 in respect to record-keeping requirements as set by the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, also establishing prohibitions. The Act also amended 18 U.S.C. § 2243 and 18 U.S.C. § 2252 establishing and increasing penalties for sexual abuse of a minor. Also see Child Protective Services, for global practices and the approach of US.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)Most obvious and most significant of our findings is that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse immediately dropped markedly after SEM was legalized and became available.
Third, materials which depict children engaged in sexual conduct are often solicited by adults who use the materials to persuade other children to engage in similar conduct or who are themselves child molesters. The Committee's findings in this regard bear out this fact.
Similarly, it has been contended that pedophiles use pictorial depictions of children's sexual activity to lower the resistance of their intended prey. Presumably, such pictures help to create the impression that what the pedophile wants is normal for children. But pedophiles have been known to resort to candy as well. It is not possible or desirable to outlaw whatever might be used or abused in such a situation.
{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)| Pornography |
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opposition to pornography |
| ||||||||
| Views | |||||||||
| Media | |||||||||
| Possible effects | |||||||||
| People | |||||||||
| Events | |||||||||
| Miscellaneous | |||||||||
| See also |
| ||||||||
