Simulated child pornography

Simulated child pornography is child pornography depicting what appear to be minors but which is produced without the direct involvement of children.

Types

Types of simulated child pornography include: modified photographs of real children, non-minor teenagers made to look younger (age regression), fully computer-generated imagery,[1] and adults made to look like children.[2] Drawings or animations that depict sexual acts involving children but are not intended to look like photographs may also be considered by some to be simulated child pornography.

Virtual child pornography

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. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations that do not pass the Miller test were made illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A. However, this provision of the statute was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).[6]

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".[7][8] 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" (Eko).

Cartoon images
Main article: Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors

The hentai subgenres known as lolicon and shotacon have been the subject of much controversy regarding impact on child sexual abuse.[9][10] The reported link between the use of child pornography and child abuse has been used to justify the prohibition of sexual depictions of children, whether their production involves child abuse or not.[11]

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.[12][13]

Second Life controversy

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 sexualized conduct with avatars that resemble children".[14][15] 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 children's playgrounds within the game environment.[15] 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." (Duranske 2008).

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 children. (Duranske 2007).

See also

References
  1. Virtueel filmpje geldt ook als porno, AD, March 11, 2008
  2. Paul, B. and Linz, D. (2008). "The effects of exposure to virtual child pornography on viewer cognitions and attitudes toward deviant sexual behavior Archived 2008-05-13 at the Wayback Machine," Communication Research, 35(1), 3-38
  3. "Fact Sheet PROTECT Act". Department of Justice. April 30, 2003.
  4. Full text of PROTECT Act
  5. "Track.us. S. 151--108th Congress (2003): Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003". GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  6. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-795 RET. July 01, 2018.
  7. Chris Johnston (2007-05-10). "Brave new world or virtual pedophile paradise? Second Life falls foul of law". The Age. Melbourne.
  8. Eko, L. S. (2006, Jun) Regulation of Online Child Pornography Under European Union and American Law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany Online Retrieved 2008-04-22
  9. Tony McNicol (2004-04-27). "Does comic relief hurt kids?". The Japan Times. Retrieved 2008-01-18.
  10. "'Rorikon' trade nurturing a fetish for young females". Japan Today. 2004-03-22. Archived from the original on 2008-04-08. Retrieved 2008-01-13.
  11. Government of Canada (1984). Report of the Committee on Sexual Offenses against Children and Youth, Vols. 1-11, and summary. Government of Canada, Department of Supply and Service as "Badgely Report; Cat. No. J2-50/1984/E, Vols. 1-11, H74-13/1984-1E, Summary".
  12. Anderson, Nate (December 8, 2008). "Cowabunga! Simpsons porn on the PC equals child pornography". ars technica. CondéNet Inc. Retrieved 4 January 2009.
  13. "Former teacher pleads guilty to downloading 'Simpsons' porn". KATU. October 14, 2010. Archived from the original on October 17, 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
  14. Benjamin Duranske (May 23, 2008). "New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab's 2007 Ban Clarified".
  15. Ken D Linden (November 13, 2007). "Clarification of Policy Disallowing "Ageplay"". Archived from the original on 13 December 2007.

Bibliography
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.