to download the document in PDF format - Child Centre: Expert ...

and carefree the child seems to be, we cannot know what later effects she suffered (or,indeed, what she was subjected to after or as a result of that photograph). In fact it’sclear that some degree of harm is almost always done to the subject in the productionand distribution of child pornography of all kinds…” (p. 332). King (2008) goes on tosuggest that child pornography not only harms its immediate victims, the children whoseabuse is at its centre, but also harms other children through the actions and attitudes ofits consumers. Throughout this paper we will move interchangeably between the terms‘child pornography’ and ‘abuse images’, as this reflects the current literature and legislationin this area. However, it is important to note that not all sexualised depictions of childrenare visual, and that the term ‘abusive materials’ might both capture this and lend itself tofurther definition in international law.This section emphasises the importance of attempting to distinguish between sexualabuse and sexual exploitation in this technological context as it has significance notonly for the impact on the child but also for the wider criminal-justice and childprotectionresponses. We also note the use of the terms ‘child pornography’ and ‘childabuse images’ that is reflected in the current literature and legislation, and suggest thatnot all sexualised depictions of children are visual and that the term ‘abusive’ materials,when objectively defined, might both capture this and lend itself to further definitionin international law.2.2 Virtual child pornographyOne further forensic issue of concern relates to pseudo (digitally altered) images andvirtual child pornography. The Council of Europe’s Convention on the Protection of Childrenagainst Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, states that, “Each Party may reserve the rightnot to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 1a. and e. to the production and possessionof pornographic material: consisting exclusively of simulated representations or realisticimages of a non-existent child”. It appears that the issue of ‘virtual child pornography’ isleft largely unaddressed within the international framework, and there is little consensusaround the necessity to make such materials criminal. We will examine this in more detailwhen we consider Internet child pornography and the law.In relation to digitally altered images, Gillespie (2003) has raised important issues abouthow different an image has to be for it to constitute a pseudo-image, possession of whichin England and Wales is likely to attract a lower sentence. In the US, the constitutionalityof virtual child pornography remains a critical issue. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition(2002) a majority of the Supreme Court struck down portions of the Child PornographyChild Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children Online |17