17

If a company made a child pornography anime (so not using real children, just drawings), would it be illegal?

unor
  • 1,146
  • 8
  • 22
  • Background, as I'm familiar with manga/anime fan-art: There is lots, I mean LOTS of (very stylised to semi-realistic) porn of fictional anime characters of most ages, including less than the age of consent of countries in which the images are accessible. Crossing certain international borders with such material can cause trouble. It's hard to draw the line: Artists often take artistic license with the characters' physical characteristics, and some popular tropes of the style (e.g. large eyes) can make characters appear subjectively younger, especially to people unfamiliar with the medium. – Anko Jul 22 '15 at 21:26
  • 3
    [OT] Pragmatically, albeit disgusting, it might be a very good idea to make it legal: this would automatically reduce the need to kidnap real children and abuse them. It wouldn't stop, of course, but just reducing it would still be a great goal. – o0'. Jul 23 '15 at 08:38
  • 3
    Talking about manga and anime specifically, pay attention next time you watch some more "left field" ecchi. Even when it doesnt include sexual content, just suggestion, before or after there is a big disclaimer "The characters depicted are fictional and all above the age of consent" (Wording varies with translation) Although its ridiculous that a Middle Schooler is over 18, apparently its good enough for law. – Seraphim Jul 23 '15 at 09:20
  • 2
    @Lohoris: I don't know if that's true. What you see is that most sexual delinquents go through an evolution: each time the current level is no longer satisfactory. Most pedophiles don't start with raping children, it's more a stage in the evolution. By legalizing this, the amount of potential pedophiles (so to speak) would thus increase. Evidently not everybody is a pedophile, but by making this legal, one can trigger potential ones. – willeM_ Van Onsem Jul 23 '15 at 12:12
  • 1
    @Seraphim I don't think it's good enough for law. It's more like a lucky charm that clueless people put thinking it protects them, while on any serious trial, judges and lawyers would just laugh at them and go on as if they didn't. – o0'. Jul 23 '15 at 12:20
  • @CommuSoft comment makes sense. Also by legalizing it, it may send a message that pedophilia no longer holdes the strong criminal status as it does today. – samayo Jul 23 '15 at 12:42
  • 2
    @CommuSoft What are the parallels with Violent Video Games? People have been crying for years that CoD and other more and more "realistic" video games will push people to the "next level"... once shooting someone on a screen is no longer fun, the "next level" evil music in the background... all of those skills/habits learned online will translate to marauding bands of teenagers with guns. Yet, year after year, gun violence has decreased... Is "Manga" a "gateway drug" to "the real thing? or is it an outlet keeping those from doing "the real thing"? – WernerCD Jul 23 '15 at 12:47
  • There are two aspects that are different for the case of gun violence: (a) most people don't generate a satisfactory feeling by blowing off peoples head (whether virtual or in real life), for most it's a way to deal with frustration; (b) some statistics show that crime heavily correlates to for instance the amount of lead found in gasoline, etc. Although such statistics are always problematic to prove, it is probably reasonable to assume that a healthy environment will reduce peoples frustration. But as always correlation does not imply causation. – willeM_ Van Onsem Jul 23 '15 at 13:07
  • 3
    @Lohoris - I this were a purely sexual crime you would be correct. However like most rapes it is more about the power, control, and domination than the sex. http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/1993/11/22/rape-not-sexually-motivated-crime#.VbDxf7NVhBc – Chad Jul 23 '15 at 13:52
  • 1
    @WernerCD - Gun violence my have decreased but the number of mass casualty firearm events have grown from 0 in the last 15 years. While I am not saying the video games are to blame they are at least a factor in almost all of the not religious/ideological events. – Chad Jul 23 '15 at 13:55
  • 1
    Honestly, saying that games have no effect upon real life aggressive acts is just as ridiculous as claiming that virtual child porn has no effect on real life child porn. The hard question is figuring out exactly what that effect is. On one hand for some people it will gives an 'innocent' outlet, yet for others it gives certain behaviour a place in their mind it shouldn't take. Somehow across an entire population those two effects have a certain net result and the hard part is figuring out that net result. And once you know that you still need to figure out how personal rights come into play. – David Mulder Jul 23 '15 at 16:28

3 Answers3

19

The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) created a new offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in the UK. This Act did not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered "pseudo-photographs"—images that appear to be photographs. In 2008 it was further extended to cover tracings, and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs. A prohibited cartoon image is one which involves a minor in situations which are pornographic and "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."

Prior to this, although not explicitly in the statutes, the law was interpreted to apply to cartoon images, though only where the images are realistic and indistinguishable from photographs. The new law however covered images whether or not they are realistic.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors

The Wikipedia article includes a further list of footnotes and sources for this topic. The only reason I wrote this answer because I remembered reading about this in the newspaper around 4 years ago when the Netherlands outlawed such images and they referred to the UK having 'recently' banned such things as well rather than just the older acts mentioned by Flup.

Community
  • 1
David Mulder
  • 1,210
  • 1
  • 8
  • 18
9

Virtual child pornography "pandered" as real is illegal in the U.S., and the law forbidding it was upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Williams (2008). The Court explains the distinction:

An offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children.

Here's a Law Review article on the general question.

feetwet
  • 21,795
  • 12
  • 80
  • 175
  • 5
    Thanks for that. what about the united kingdom? –  Jul 22 '15 at 18:23
  • That's not correct. Williams upheld a statute that prohibited the promotion or distribution of material that is intended to make one believe that it is actual child porn. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition held that virtual child porn is free speech and cannot be outlawed. Thus, it is lawful to have and distribute virtual kiddie porn UNLESS one gives the impression that it is actual kiddie porn. – user3344003 Apr 09 '16 at 00:40
  • @user3344003 - Good catch! I just amended the answer. – feetwet Apr 09 '16 at 19:04
8

In England and Wales, indecent 'pseudo-photographs' of children were made illegal by s84 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This amended s1 Protection of Children Act 1978 to criminalise the making, distribution, possession or publication of such images.

'Pseudo-photograph' is defined by s7(7) PCA 1978 as—

... an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph.

Flup
  • 3,044
  • 1
  • 21
  • 38