The lines around child porn are often tested, with those who do use very young looking 18+ girls, who’s looks they play with to seem even more innocent and child like, to avoid any legal ramifications while still benefiting from the massive industry that is fueled by pedophiles around the globe. The FBI’s cybercrime unit’s Innocent Images National Initiative are assigned the erroneous task of investigating any alleged child pornography in-world. Their extreme job is compounded by what is sexually-oriented “ageplay”, were the lines of reality are often as blurry as the images that cross your screen. For “age play” as it is called in virtual worlds, is when no actual minor is involved, but the images appear to be that of a child. Therefore virtual child porn is pornographic material which appears to depict children, however does not actually use real children. The use of the term “virtual,” with its connotations of “virtual reality”, makes some think that virtual child porn must involve the use of the Internet, however it doesn’t have to, as seen by the two types of virtual images.
The types of virtual child porn:
1. Composites: The “models” in these virtual images appear underage, and are presented as such in the surrounding text, advertisements, etc. However, these “models” don’t really exist: they were “assembled” from perfectly legal photographs using an editing program such as Photoshop, and perhaps using the face of a child on the body of a underdeveloped adult. Therefore, the creation of this kind of pornography didn’t actually involve children. However it can be argued that it promotes child abuse, or does involve a child if a ‘real’ child’s face is used or if one believes that it is that ‘real’ child’s body.
2. Pictures of people who look underage with surrounding text claiming them as underage, but who are actually legal. Thus the pornographer has used an 18-year-old who looks 15 or 13 for example.
In January 2008 I wrote on Virtual Child Porn, for which I discussed the morality of the issue, as well as debated if virtual child porn, is just a starter log to a much bigger fire. Virtual child porn or exploitation is protected under the first amendment, which is outlined clearly here, and no cases had ever been successful. In 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a ban on the possession on any virtual child pornography which “appeared to” but did actually depict real children engaging in sex acts. The ban was defeated in a 6-3 ruling, which stated that the law violated the First Amendment‘s guarantee of free speech. Following the ban’s surprise defeat the House attempted to re-define the ban with the approved “Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002″ (COPPA), which essentially just removes the “art house” element, out of the definition of virtual child porn. All of the legislative actions against pornography lead to a series of legal acronyms, from the aforementioned COPA to CIPA, CPPA, CDA — and two different COPPAs., where are explained well here. Handley pleaded guilty under “Title 18, United States Code, Section 1466A(b)(1), which prohibits the possession of any type of visual depiction, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene.”
However things changed this May when Handley plead guilty “to possessing drawings of children being sexually abused.” obtained from Japan , the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) press release, stated that, Handley’s original package from Japan contained; “obscene material, including books containing visual representations of the sexual abuse of children, specifically Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused by adult males and animals.” With a search warrant, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service seized “additional obscene drawings of the sexual abuse of children” from Handley’s home.
Handley also plead guilty to one count of mailing obscene material, and he agreed to forfeit all seized property. Nonetheless, the recent perceived successes on the issue, one is still left with questions as the grey cloud only thickens around reality and cyber reality. As when going after prosecutions of those who engage in acts of child pornography on sites such as Second Life, where is the line of free speech? For example you can have your own virtual meth lab in second life, so do we prosecute those users for drug possession as well? What about murder, you can also commit that online in your second life?
Regardless of they type of exploitation or its roots the issue remains, and will continue to do so, a sensitive one which is open to much heated debate and few two many resources to combat it. The victims of child sexual exploitation through any use of images, including pornography, are never allowed to escape their abusers, as their abuse continues indefinitely, once circulated. While the persecution of pedophiles and the efforts of law enforcement have increased, so has the difficulty to catch these offenders and find their innocent victims. It is a catch 22 as the Internet fuels the access and distribution of pornography and all forms of exploitation, it also better aids law enforcement to catch such predator’s. As well it gives a medium for awareness, as seen by clear example in this post.
