Child pornography

The term child pornography (sometimes referred to as kiddie porn) generally refers to pornography featuring a child; however, the precise definition of "pornography" and "child" varies by region and country. It is widely prohibited by law, and faces the disapproval of most members of society.

Other forms

Although usually thought of and legislated in terms of photographs and motion pictures, child pornography can also take other forms, which are often addressed differently, or may not be legally recognized as child pornography in all jurisdictions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Simulated

Images can be created which convincingly appear to involve actual under-age persons, but in fact do not. Originally this was done with adult actors who were disguised or could "pass" as minors. As digital animation technology has progressed, it has become possible to generate convincing simulations of child actors.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents prohibiting such materials argue that they might encourage child molesters and, when shown to a child, may give the child the impression that the depicted acts are normal (the term grooming is used in this connection); prohibition of possession could help prevent it being shown to a child. Also, the legality of simulated child pornography would make the prosecution of true child pornography much harder. Opponents of the prohibition claim that simulated child pornography does not harm children and should therefore fall under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.

Related Topics:
Groom - First Amendment - Freedom of the press

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The United States Supreme Court decided in 2002 that the previous American prohibition of simulated child pornography was unconstitutional (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). UK law has dealt with simulated images quite differently since 1994, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act introduced the legal definition of an "indecent pseudo-photograph of a child", which is prohibited as if it were a true photograph. In October 2002, the Netherlands declared that seemingly real child pornography will be treated as if it were real. In Germany real depictions and realistic simulations were never treated differently by law. Canadian law seems to prohibit simulated images as an "other visual representation", but this has not been tested in the courts.

Related Topics:
United States Supreme Court - 2002 - 1994 - Indecent pseudo-photograph of a child - October - Netherlands

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Written

In some countries textual material describing sexual activities involving children is legally classified as child pornography. In other countries, most significantly the United States, it is legal; written child pornography is legally protected by the US Constitution as long as it is not judged obscene. As a result of its general legality in the United States, written child pornography is easily available on the Internet.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Due to its widespread availability, countries in which it is prohibited have not always actively sought to enforce the legal prohibition against it. In general, people possessing or distributing this material are only charged if they come to the attention of law enforcement, most commonly while being investigated for other crimes (such as possession of visual child pornography, or child sexual abuse.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The prohibition against written child pornography can extend even to materials produced by pedophiles for their own personal consumption and not revealed to anyone, such as diaries or journals in which they record their fantasies. Several individuals have been prosecuted for keeping such diaries. Some have argued that this violates their right to freedom of thought.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~