child pornography and sexual exploitation of children online

As we have seen, in countries outside of Japan there has been a bid to criminalise the
possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse. In the UK a formal
period of consultation began in relation to this in April 2007 and concluded in June of
that year. Prior to this, the Criminal Law Sub Group of the Home Secretary’s Task Force
on Child Protection on the Internet had been considering the issues raised by computer
generated images (CGIs), drawings and cartoons which show graphic depictions of sexual
abuse of children or child-like characters. The Consultation document recognised that these
images do not involve harm to real children in their creation, but that the possession of such
material was a cause for concern, particularly as technological advances have increased the
availability of such material. In the summary of the responses to the Consultation, it was
noted that many people viewed the definition of what would constitute ‘pornographic’ as
both troublesome and opaque. There was also concern that, “stylisations of animations freely
mix aspects typifying different ages”, which would make the allocation of age subjective
and therefore an impossible assessment of legality. The UK government plans to bring
forward legislation to introduce this new offence. Opponents of criminalising pseudochild
pornography and virtual child pornography have argued that this material, because
no child is harmed in its production, should not be drawn within the framework of child
pornography. They argue that because the historic purpose of criminalising production of
child pornography is to prevent children from being sexually abused, and because pseudoimages
do not involve actual abuse, they should not be criminalised. Indeed, opponents
of these measures, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have argued that people’s
thoughts are their private thoughts, and that prohibition of pseudo-child pornography
is a violation of free speech rights (Taylor and Quayle, 2003). However, Oswell (2006)
has presented an important argument against this stating that, “Although the evidential
value of the virtual image is different from an actual image (and hence the forms of police
investigation and legal prosecution are different), until an image can be said to correspond
to an actual case of child sexual abuse, all Internet child pornography can be viewed as real.
In this sense, the primary concern is not one of the effects of the image on others or one
of the relations of power encoded in the image, but one of the virtual evidentiality of the
image (ie, on the image’s capacity to refer to an objective reality that is both internal and
external to the image). The ethical intensity of the virtual image lies precisely in its capacity
to refer to a scene beyond itself ” (p. 258). Oswell (2006) goes on to state that the crime of
possession, making or distribution of child pornography (whether virtual or not) is a crime
not only against a particular child, but against all children. “It is a crime against childhood
as a universal” (p. 252).
We argue that the crime of possession, and making or distribution of child pornography,
whether virtual or not, are crimes not only against a particular child, but against all
children.
20|Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children Online