6 ms·

Not sure if I want to get into this discussion... but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? And is it moral? I could

by tomerv 5y ago

Not sure if I want to get into this discussion... but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? And is it moral? I could see it going either way (no child got hurt in the process / but it may push someone with pedophile tendencies towards acting on them / but it could also provide a safe outlet for someone with those tendencies).

zionic 5y ago
I haven’t researched it heavily, but AFAIK the gov can’t really criminalize art/drawings etc. If it doesn’t depict a real person, then what’s the crime exactly? It’s still disgusting, but that’s another topic.
- dymk 5y ago
  Well sure they can, although it depends what government you're talking about. Porn laws in Japan are weird, and the government does require that distributed pornography (including drawings) be censored.
netcan 5y ago
It's complicated, in that this depends on jurisdiction. In some places, the age of the character matters, not just the actor's age. Regardless of legality, I think this is very prominent in self censorship. A lot of filmmakers wouldn't depict a nude 15 year old sexually, regardless of the actor's actual age.
lr4444lr 5y ago
It probably depends on whether they can prove the individual was soliciting for the real stuff. Same legal reason for why you're still committing a crime when you fall for a sting operation with an actual adult.
rg111 5y ago
> but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal? The pixels are just the conduit, just as the the adult actress depicting a minor in a sexual act. So it should be. But whether it is moral- I don't know. I don't know enough psychology, public policy, etc. to express an informed opinion. But my personal choice? Yes. It should be illegal. Hypothetically, if it ever comes to a vote, I would vote against child porn even when there is no real human involved. That's why child porn in animations is banned as well.
- bitwize 5y ago
  > If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal? Due to that pesky First Amendment, this is not illegal in the USA. The USA bans child pornography under the rubric that producing or even viewing it implicates the perpetrator in the abuse of a child. If no actual child abuse is taking place, they can't ban it. Cartoon images and the like may be banned if they depict an actual minor.
GistNoesis 5y ago
It reminds me of the children's right campaign sweetie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetie_(internet_avatar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetie_(internet_avatar) https://vimeo.com/86895084 https://vimeo.com/86895084 where an org lured predators by posing as an animated 10 years old.
ta8902 5y ago
roomey 5y ago
It's illegal in some places, like Ireland for example.
oriki 5y ago
In the US in particular, it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not, but I think you'll find the law much more loosely enforced in cases where the subject of the pictures doesn't exist.
- zionic 5y ago
  > it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not Are you sure this is true? As weird as it is it seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that someone drawing a sketch could be guilty of the same thing as someone abusing a real child.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    They're both illegal under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996: > The Child Pornography Prevention Act added two categories of speech to the definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In Ashcroft case, the Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means." > The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_A... ) "Computer-generated" images was a remarkably prescient thing to include in 1996, since it criminalizes deepfakes and GAN images. I think the standard argument is that even though actual minors aren't harmed by the creation of such images, the images trigger pedophiles to become more depraved or something. There's probably an element of the old obscenity laws to it - real or not, child porn is obscene, and obscenity isn't covered by the first amendment without some artistic merit. I'm not sure of case law around enforcement of this.
    - zionic 5y ago
      Interesting, that seems to strictly criminalize cartoons then. I wonder if that’s ever been enforced or challenged. Not that anyone would ever put their name behind attacking this.
solarmist 5y ago
I think it is illegal in the USA. But explicitly is is not illegal in Japan. Japan has a pretty bad reputation for making their child porn laws pretty narrowly defined in the international community. For these reasons Japan has a very high level of child pornography activity, but I know very little beyond that or of details.
- tombert 5y ago
  It's sort of an open debate on the extent of the legality in the US [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...
ta8902 5y ago

by tomerv 5y ago

zionic 5y ago

I haven’t researched it heavily, but AFAIK the gov can’t really criminalize art/drawings etc. If it doesn’t depict a real person, then what’s the crime exactly? It’s still disgusting, but that’s another topic.

dymk 5y ago
Well sure they can, although it depends what government you're talking about. Porn laws in Japan are weird, and the government does require that distributed pornography (including drawings) be censored.

netcan 5y ago

It's complicated, in that this depends on jurisdiction. In some places, the age of the character matters, not just the actor's age. Regardless of legality, I think this is very prominent in self censorship. A lot of filmmakers wouldn't depict a nude 15 year old sexually, regardless of the actor's actual age.

lr4444lr 5y ago

It probably depends on whether they can prove the individual was soliciting for the real stuff. Same legal reason for why you're still committing a crime when you fall for a sting operation with an actual adult.

rg111 5y ago

> but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal? The pixels are just the conduit, just as the the adult actress depicting a minor in a sexual act. So it should be. But whether it is moral- I don't know. I don't know enough psychology, public policy, etc. to express an informed opinion. But my personal choice? Yes. It should be illegal. Hypothetically, if it ever comes to a vote, I would vote against child porn even when there is no real human involved. That's why child porn in animations is banned as well.

bitwize 5y ago
> If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal? Due to that pesky First Amendment, this is not illegal in the USA. The USA bans child pornography under the rubric that producing or even viewing it implicates the perpetrator in the abuse of a child. If no actual child abuse is taking place, they can't ban it. Cartoon images and the like may be banned if they depict an actual minor.

GistNoesis 5y ago

It reminds me of the children's right campaign sweetie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetie_(internet_avatar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetie_(internet_avatar) https://vimeo.com/86895084 https://vimeo.com/86895084 where an org lured predators by posing as an animated 10 years old.

ta8902 5y ago

roomey 5y ago

It's illegal in some places, like Ireland for example.

oriki 5y ago

In the US in particular, it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not, but I think you'll find the law much more loosely enforced in cases where the subject of the pictures doesn't exist.

zionic 5y ago
> it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not Are you sure this is true? As weird as it is it seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that someone drawing a sketch could be guilty of the same thing as someone abusing a real child.
- sterlind 5y ago
  They're both illegal under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996: > The Child Pornography Prevention Act added two categories of speech to the definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In Ashcroft case, the Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means." > The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_A... ) "Computer-generated" images was a remarkably prescient thing to include in 1996, since it criminalizes deepfakes and GAN images. I think the standard argument is that even though actual minors aren't harmed by the creation of such images, the images trigger pedophiles to become more depraved or something. There's probably an element of the old obscenity laws to it - real or not, child porn is obscene, and obscenity isn't covered by the first amendment without some artistic merit. I'm not sure of case law around enforcement of this.
  - zionic 5y ago
    Interesting, that seems to strictly criminalize cartoons then. I wonder if that’s ever been enforced or challenged. Not that anyone would ever put their name behind attacking this.

solarmist 5y ago

I think it is illegal in the USA. But explicitly is is not illegal in Japan. Japan has a pretty bad reputation for making their child porn laws pretty narrowly defined in the international community. For these reasons Japan has a very high level of child pornography activity, but I know very little beyond that or of details.

tombert 5y ago
It's sort of an open debate on the extent of the legality in the US [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...

ta8902 5y ago