Child erotica is non-pornographic material relating to children that is used by any individuals for sexual purposes.[1][2][3] 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.[3][4] 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.[1]
Some of the images are distributed over the internet and presented in a fashion similar to non-erotic child modeling. Child beauty pageantry, which has attracted millions of viewers to shows such as Little Miss Perfect and Toddlers and Tiaras, is sometimes viewed as a form of child erotica similar to child modeling in that the children appear in provocative poses in bikinis and short skirts; but some participants' parents argue that the pageants help their children build positive qualities such as poise, individuality, and confidence.[7]
Much as there has been a push to relabel underage pornography as "abuse images", the use of the term "child erotica" is controversial due to the artistic and literary connotations of the word "erotica".[8]
The Japanese Law Banning Child Prostitution and Pornography, enacted in 1999, defines child pornography as any image of a child under 18 years old "naked or partially naked, which is sexually stimulating."
DVDs and photo books of scantily clothed Junior Idols are available for sale.
The Publishers Ethics Committee of the Japan Magazine Publishers's Association checks bookstores for inappropriate publications and has issued warnings to publishers of pornographic manga (books). However, committee members have said it is not easy to determine whether an image crosses the line from art to child pornography.[9]
Depictions of even a clothed child violate U.S. federal law 18 U.S.C.§2252(a)(2), 18 U.S.C.§2252(a)(4), and 18 U.S.C.§2256(2)(E) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area.[12] The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."
In February 2018, a New Jersey law against child erotica went into effect.[14] The law defines sexually suggestive portrayals of a child as those which depict a child's less than completely and opaquely covered intimate parts, or which depict any form of contact with a child's intimate parts in a manner that, by means of the posing, composition, format, or animated sensual details, emits sensuality with sufficient impact to concentrate prurient interest on the child, or which more simply depict a child for purposes of sexual stimulation or gratification. Anthony Domenick became the first defendant to be charged for possession of child erotica.[15] However, in State v. Higginbotham, Docket No. A-2548-21, 475 N.J. Super. 205, decided on March 24, 2023, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division held that the state's child erotica law is unconstitutional because "[t]he child erotica amendment to the [child] endangerment statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4, is overbroad because it proscribes possession of protected speech. Because the amendment's definition of child erotica does not require the depiction of a real child engaged in a sex act or the lewd portrayal of a child's genitals, the statute is not subject to the Ferber standard for child pornography, and the State may only regulate the distribution of child erotica if the child erotica amendment complies with the Miller standard for obscenity." 475 N.J. Super. at 235. Furthermore, the Appellate Division held that the definition of child erotica also "exceeds the definition of obscenity and thus proscribes protected speech." 475 N.J. Super. at 237. This case is currently (as of November 29, 2023) on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court (Docket No. A-57-22).
Child erotica was defined in United States v. Paul D. Edwards as materials or items that are sexually arousing to persons having a sexual interest in minors but that are not, in and of themselves, obscene or that do not necessarily depict minors in sexually explicit poses or positions. In that case, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which included Neil Gorsuch, found that an affidavit showing a suspect had a history of publicly posting child erotica and making comments suggesting he was sexually attracted to the children depicted in the erotica did not establish probable cause to support a search warrant for child pornography.[16]
In United States v. Caldwell,[17] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that child erotica is admissible to show knowledge and intent to possess child pornography, as child erotica is evidence of a sexual interest in children, and the total quantity of child erotica makes it less likely that the defendant was unaware of its presence.[18]
Similarly, in United States v. Vosburgh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit admitted as evidence forty-six non-pornographic images of prepubescent girls in swimsuits and thirty pictures of Loli-chan, a 13-year old camgirl, finding that the "probative value of the Loli-chan pictures was not insignificant" in suggesting that Vosburgh harbored a sexual interest in children, knowingly possessed the child pornography found on his computer, and purposefully accessed a link he thought would lead to child pornography.[19] The court cited a case, United States v. Dornhofer, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled admissible a defendant's notebook containing pictures of nude children, novels dealing with incest, and teen erotica magazines.[20]
Paul Reubens, the actor best known for playing Pee-wee Herman, acknowledged possessing a massive collection of "vintage erotica" such as "a young man with his hand on his thigh".[21] His lawyer cited as another piece from the collection, "a black-and-white tintype from 1901 with a young man of indeterminate, 17- to 19-year-old age, laying on the beach after having gone skinny-dipping"[22] and claimed this collection was erotica to which the state's child pornography law did not apply.[23] Reubens ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor obscenity charge.[22]
Webe Web
In July 2001, Wired News published a story[24] about child modeling websites that described Lil' Amber, which was a website operated by the web hosting company Webe Web Corporation located in Florida. Webe Web was, at the time, the oldest child modeling site service on the Internet. In November 2001, the NBC television station serving Miami, FL, ran a story entitled "Selling Innocence." A reporter "went undercover" to contact the site operators, and then tracked down Amber (a pseudonym), the model featured in Lil' Amber, at her family's farm in Palm Beach County. The news report prompted FloridaCongressmanMark Foley (R-Palm Beach County) to propose legislation banning child modeling web sites.[25][note 1]
Jeff Libman, Marc Evan Greenberg and Webe Web Corporation were indicted in November 2006[needs update] in the Northern District of Alabama for conspiracy to produce images of child pornography and transportation of images of child pornography, although the images contained no nudity or sexual activity. Immediately, all Webe Web child model sites went offline after Internet domains and servers were seized by law enforcement. Marc Evan Greenberg and Jeff Libman, pleaded not guilty to all charges.
In 2007, Jeff Pierson, a photographer from Alabama, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport child pornography and transportation of child pornography[27] Pierson's images were published by Webe Web. Pierson cooperated with Federal Authorities after having his home raided by law enforcement in early 2005.
Some parents said they were unaware of the imagery being taken of their children, and some had signed over temporary legal custody of their child to Pierson during the modeling session.[27] Pierson maintained that all the parents were aware of the websites.
In a separate case, unrelated to images connected to Webe Web, Jeff Libman was indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida on April 28, 2009, for receiving, possessing and distributing child pornography. Libman was first identified by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) and the FBI during an investigation of Webe Web Corp., a Florida-based company. According to court documents, USPIS and FBI agents seized large volumes of computer media during the execution of a search warrant at Libman's residence in Fort Lauderdale. In his plea agreement, Libman admitted he received images that depict prepubescent children and children engaged in sadistic or masochistic conduct. On November 13, 2009, Libman was sentenced to 7 years and 3 months in prison. He had faced a maximum possible term of 20 years in prison.[28][29] The case was prosecuted by Assistant Deputy Chief Alexandra R. Gelber and Trial Attorney Elizabeth M. Yusi of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) and Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña of the Southern District of Florida. The case was investigated by USPIS, the FBI and CEOS’ High Tech Investigative Unit.[30][31][32]
Company vice-president Jeffrey Robert Libman, 43, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in December 2010 to nine years in prison. In accordance to his plea agreement, he admitted that 16 images received from Pierson were child pornography as defined by the Indictment.
President Marc Evan Greenberg pleaded guilty in April 2010 to one count of money laundering, based on his processing of the money generated by Webe Web. He was sentenced in January 2011 to serve more than two and a half years in prison.
On February 9, 2011, Pierson was sentenced to 67 months in prison and 10 years on supervised release. His sentence was delayed pending the outcome of the case against Libman, Greenberg and Webe Web Corp.[33]
A Little Agency
In early 2006,[needs update] Matthew Duhamel and Charles Granere, the operators of the child modeling agencies "A Little Agency" and "The VMS" were arrested on charges of child pornography. Neither A Little Agency nor the VMS distributed nude photographs, but federal prosecutors argued that they still contained "lascivious exhibitions" of the genitalia based on the six-part Dost test.[34] Federal prosecutors claimed the Web sites dealt in images of girls as young as 9 wearing scant clothing in suggestive poses. One photo reportedly showed a 9-year-old girl in "black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and a black jacket" sitting on a dining room table, according to court records.[34] The operators were indicted on transportation of child pornography, possession of child pornography and receipt of child pornography.[34] Attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them arguing that the pictures of young girls in suggestive poses on the websites they operated did not rise to the level of pornography. However, the judge assigned to the case, Chief Judge Campbell, denied the motion to dismiss, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined fully clothed pictures can be considered pornographic.[34] Eventually, in 2007, both of the operators were convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.[35]
↑ Foley would later resign from office stemming from allegations of inappropriate conduct with a teenaged boy.[26]
Related Research Articles
A shock site is a website that is intended to be offensive or disturbing to its viewers, though it can also contain elements of humor or evoke sexual arousal. Shock-oriented websites generally contain material that is pornographic, scatological, racist, antisemitic, sexist, graphically violent, insulting, vulgar, profane, or otherwise some other provocative nature. Websites that are primarily fixated on real death and graphic violence are particularly referred to as gore sites. Some shock sites display a single picture, animation, video clip or small gallery, and are circulated via email or disguised in posts to discussion sites as a prank. Steven Jones distinguishes these sites from those that collect galleries where users search for shocking content, such as Rotten.com. Gallery sites can contain beheadings, execution, electrocution, suicide, murder, stoning, torching, police brutality, hangings, terrorism, cartel violence, drowning, vehicular accidents, war victims, rape, necrophilia, genital mutilation and other sexual crimes.
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 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 protect the sale or manufacture of child sexual abuse material and that states could outlaw it.
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.
Paul F. Little was an American pornographic actor, producer, and director better known by his stage name Max Hardcore. He rose to prominence in 1992 with the film series The Anal Adventures of Max Hardcore, which in 1994 was awarded the X-Rated Critics Organization's award for Best Amateur or Pro-Am series. Former AVN writer, Gerrie Lim, has classified Hardcore's works as gonzo pornography and "testing the limits of acceptability". He was a member of the X-Rated Critics Organization's Hall of Fame. He spent two and a half years in prison (2009–2011), convicted in a trial for obscenity.
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is a law in the United Kingdom criminalising possession of what it refers to as "extreme pornographic images". The law came into force on 26 January 2009. The legislation was brought in following the murder of Jane Longhurst by a man who was said at the time of his trial to have had "extreme pornography" in his possession at the time of the death. The law has been more widely used than originally predicted, raising concerns as to whether the legislation is being used for prosecutions beyond the scope originally envisaged by parliament.
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.
An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time. It is derived from the Latin obscēnus, obscaenus, "boding ill; disgusting; indecent", of uncertain etymology. Generally, the term can be used to indicate strong moral repugnance and outrage in expressions such as "obscene profits" and "the obscenity of war". As a legal term, it usually refers to descriptions and depictions of people engaged in sexual and excretory activity.
Much of the regulation in the adult film industry has been limited to preventing child pornography. To enforce the age of entry restriction, most adult industry production companies are required to have a Custodian of Records that documents and holds records of the ages of all performers.
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.
Simulated child pornography is child pornography depicting what appear to be minors but which is produced without their direct involvement.
An anti-pornography movement in the United States has existed since before the 1969 Supreme Court decision of Stanley v. Georgia, which held that people could view whatever they wished in the privacy of their own homes, by establishing an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law. This led President Lyndon B. Johnson, with the backing of Congress, to appoint a commission to study pornography. The anti-pornography movement seeks to maintain or restore restrictions and to increase or create restrictions on the production, sale or distribution of 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.
Operation Delego was a major international child pornography investigation, launched in 2009, which dismantled an international pedophile ring that operated an invitation-only Internet site named Dreamboard which featured incentives for images of the violent sexual abuse of young children under twelve, including infants. Only 72 charges were filed against the approximately 600 members of Dreamboard due to the extensive encryption involved. Members were required to upload new material at least every 50 days to maintain their access and remain in good standing.
United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech or expression 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.
Playpen was a notorious darknet child pornography website that operated from August 2014 to March 2015. The website operated through the Tor network which allowed users to use the website anonymously. After running the website for 6 months, the website owner Steven W. Chase was captured by the FBI. After his capture, the FBI continued to run the website for another 13 days as part of Operation Pacifier.
1 2 Zillmann, Dolf; Jennings Bryant (1989). Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations. Routledge. pp.239–241. ISBN0-8058-0615-6.
↑ Strachan Peterson, Marilyn; Michael Durfee; Kevin Coulter (2003). Child Abuse and Neglect: Guidelines for Identification, Assessment, and Case Management. Volcano Press. p.123. ISBN1-884244-21-1.
↑ Tate, T. (1990) Child Pornography: An Investigation. London: Methuen.
↑ Tamer, Christine (Fall 2011). "Toddlers, tiaras, and pedophilia? The "borderline child pornography" embraced by the American public". Texas Review of Entertainment and Sports Law. 13 (1): 85–101.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
