The problem with respect to this law governing cartoon child pornography is that it will in most cases be a victimless crime – the images are not of a real child suffering abuse. Strict possession offences are intrusive and often draconian in nature, and should only be used when justified by the prevention of credible harm. But the focus here has always been on the producer and distributor of content rather than those possessing it. In other words, the rationale of the law was to address a possible risk of harm to children.Ĭertainly risk of harm has been regarded as sufficient elsewhere, for example in the age-based restriction of adult pornography, and indeed film classification in general. But as the Home Office’s own Consultation Paper acknowledged, these justifications were not based on any conclusive scientific research. The two main justifications given by the government for criminalising the possession of these “prohibited images” was that they could be used for grooming children and could fuel child abuse by reinforcing potential abusers’ inappropriate feelings towards children. For example, the existence of Japanese websites featuring fantasy child sexual abuse has been a concern in countries where it is illegal. These images are easier to find on the internet than actual child abuse images involving real children, largely due to the fact that virtual pornography is not illegal in all countries. The law covers still and moving images, and can include cartoons, drawings, and manga-style images. It also covers images that depict sexual activity in the presence of or between children and an animal, whether dead, alive, or imaginary. It also requires that the focus is principally on the child’s genitals and sexual regions, or includes one of various sexual acts either with the child or in the presence of the child.
This is defined closely to require that the image is first grossly offensive and obscene, and pornographic for purposes of sexual arousal.
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sections 62-68 made it a criminal offence to be in possession of “prohibited images” of children.
While nobody will disagree that they should be banned entirely, the justification for criminalising the possession of drawn or computer-generated images that involve no real children is not so clear. Children are incapable of giving legal consent to sex or sexual posing for nude photographs, meaning each of such images is criminal and represents a crime scene itself. A cartoon can land you in court, as happened to a man recently convicted of possessing non-photographic images – cartoons, drawings – of a sexual nature featuring children.Ĭlearly child pornography, more accurately called child abuse images, represents horrendous crimes and should have no place in our society.
0 kommentar(er)
