There is an ongoing debate whether the possession of virtual child pornography should be criminalised, which raises some interesting ethical and legal issues. The term ‘virtual child pornography’ refers to computer-generated images where no real child is involved, whereas the term ‘child pornography’ refers to the records of real child sexual abuse or exploitation.
Recently, there has been concern in the media that those with a sexual interest in children are ‘acting out’ their fantasies in virtual worlds such as Second Life. For example, in an area within Second Life, called ‘Wonderland’, young “children” were offering sex in a playground. The young children were in this context not real children, but graphical representations so-called avatars and the playground was a virtual playground created with computer software in this technological world. This demonstrates one form of virtual child pornography, that is to say pornography that is created only by using computer software and where no real children is involved or physically abused, but nevertheless it raises some important ethical issues.
Separate to the Second Life incidents, law enforcement agencies are currently concerned with the increasing availability of virtual child pornography, which has given rise to the question whether the possession of this kind of material should be criminalised. Whilst many Western countries have criminalised the possession of child pornography, the possession of virtual child pornography is not covered under current legislation in many countries. Ireland is one of the few countries to have introduced legislation covering the production and possession of virtual child pornography and it has been rarely used in practice. The UK government recently launched a consultation process suggesting that the law in England and Wales could be altered to criminalise possession of such material.
While most people agree that activities such as production, distribution and possession of child pornography should be criminal offences there are stronger critical voices raised about the criminalisation of virtual child pornography since could be argued that there is no direct link of harm to real children. One of the main arguments in the debate regarding this issue is whether it is appropriate for the law to regulate peoples fantasies and imaginations through the creation of a ‘thought crime’ or whether this is a threat to the individual’s privacy and right of freedom of expression. Privacy and freedom of expression, although important civil liberties, have been in the focus of the civil liberties and technology debate for more than a century. One can however argue that they should not be considered as absolute rights and that they should be balanced with other rights, and not take the precedence over other rights, such as the right of the child not to be exploited or abused. One of the characteristics of virtual child pornography is that there is no real child being abused. The question is therefore whether the possession of virtual child pornography should be a criminal offence, or if it should be seen as a criminalisation of peoples’ fantasies. This seems to be the perception in the US, where in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, the U.S. Supreme Court (2002) held that the production and possession of virtual child pornography is protected by the right of freedom of speech since there is no actual child being involved, and therefore no real victim. Furthermore the Court rejected the government’s argument that virtual child pornography images may lead to paedophiles sexually abusing real children. Notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, one could argue that virtual child pornography is harmful, for example when being used in the grooming process. It can also be argued that the material reinforces indecent perceptions of children, and when not being legally regulated, allowing a sense of social acceptance towards indecent images of children. Another important aspect is that virtual child pornography could give rise to secondary victimisation, since victims of child abuse may re-live their physical abuse if being exposed to such images.
The purpose with this text is not to take side for or against whether the possession of virtual child pornography should be criminalised, but to highlight the legal and ethical issues involved.
I (Marie Eneman) have, together with two research colleagues (Gillespie and Stahl) submitted a research article about the legal and ethical issues involved with virtual child pornography. This article will be available later this spring. If you are interested in reading that, you can send me an email and I will send it to you when it is published.
Related posts:
- (English) The Scorpions album is not child pornography, anymore… Once again it put the problem in focus. What is...
- (English) What is a child abuse image? Most people have never seen a child abusive image or...
- John Carr; Preventing the spread of child abuse images Wednesday, 28 April 2010 Computing.co published John Carr’s “Preventing the...
- (English) Light a million candles I got this link “Light a million candles” from a...
- Why do people bring child abuse images to the office? The initial question is actually: “Do people really bring child...
“Virtual child pornography” is an oxymoron for most intelligent people, because “virtual” means no child is depicted. All of your arguments of why virtual cp should should be banned are silly – for example, in the grooming process anything can be used, and if you think about it, adult porn would be much more likely to be used successfully. (Children like to do grownup things, esp. if it seems forbidden.) A lot of your thinking on the subject is based on pure mythology. As for victims of child abuse experiencing secondary victimisation, well, they can easily get that in any of the thousands of books of fiction that recount in explicit detail such acts, and they can get it in many other ways too – who knows what images will trigger a bad memory? In other words, you can’t be serious.
Although the Yanks already went insane in terms of jail penalties (cartoons of minors engaged in sex are punished under the law as if they actually were actual images of child porn), it is worth bearing in mind the Supreme Court’s statement to which you refer above. This is not a liberal body of bleeding heart pedos, but intelligent jurists who care about issues regarding fundamental rights of human expression.
“The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government “cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”
Of course cartoons and art are part of this, even though the United States hasn’t realised it. I would hope that England follows the good, not the bad, examples set by other countries on this matter. Leave “virtual” alone.
I haven’t researched the issue but I’ve always thought that “virtual” child pornography was, at least in theory, criminalised in Sweden. The law says “skildrar barn” (depicts children), which would seem to cover pretty much anything?
Hi K,
Yes, you are right about that… in theory. The current Swedish legislation does include animated material as well. I should change the article above and make clear that the existing Swedish legislation covers such material as well. The Swedish law solution is very uncommon, i.e. that the design of the law is so broad and covers a wide range of different material depicting child pornography. At Ireland, they have introduced a new legislation which criminalises the production and possession of virtual child pornography.