FULLTEXT REVIEW : Child pornography

Child pornography

Provided by
DR WIDODO JUDARWANTO

CLINIC FOR CHILDREN
WE SMILE WITH YOU, WORKING TOGETHER SUPPORT ALL OF CHILDREN
Organized by Yudhasmara Foundation
JL TAMAN BENDUNGAN ASAHAN 5 JAKARTA PUSAT, JAKARTA INDONESIA 10210
PHONE : (021) 70081995 – 5703646
email : wido25@hotmail.com, cfc2006@hotmail.com
www.clinicforchildren.blogspot.com/

Child pornography (sometimes abbreviated CP) refers to material depicting children being in a state of undress, engaged in erotic poses or sexual activity.[1][2][3] Child sexual abuse occurs in the production of child pornography when sexual acts are photographed,[2][1][4][5][6][7][8] and the effects of the abuse on the child (and continuing into maturity) are compounded by the wide distribution and lasting availability of the photographs of the abuse.[9][4][7] In both common usage[citation needed] and for research purposes, the word "child" in the phrase "child pornography" refers to prepubescent children, and does not refer to post-puberty teenagers. For practical reasons, legal definitions of child pornography generally refer to a wider age range, including any pornography involving a minor, according to jurisdiction.[9] Most possessors of child pornography who are arrested are found to possess images of prepubescent children; possessors of pornographic images of post-puberty minors are less likely to be prosecuted, even though those images also fall within the statutes.[9]

Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing criminal segments on the Internet, according to the USA The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) and other international sources.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] According to the NCMEC, approximately one fifth of all Internet pornography is child pornography.[10] New technology such as inexpensive digital cameras and Internet distribution has made it easier than ever before to produce and distribute child pornography. The producers of child pornography try to avoid prosecution by distributing their material across national borders, though this issue is increasingly being addressed with regular arrests of suspects from a number of countries occurring over the last few years.[10][9]

Child pornography is viewed and collected by pedophiles for a variety of purposes, ranging from private sexual uses, trading with other pedophiles, preparing children for sexual abuse as part of the process known as "child grooming", or enticement leading to entrapment for sexual exploitation such as production of new child pornography or child prostitution.[17][18][19]

International police enforcement
Interpol and policing institutions of various governments, excluding among others the United States Department of Justice enforce internationally.[9] Since 1999, the Interpol Standing Working Group on Offenses Against Minors has used the following definition:
Child pornography is the consequence of the exploitation or sexual abuse perpetrated against a child. It can be defined as any means of depicting or promoting sexual abuse of a child, including print and/or audio, centered on sex acts or the genital organs of children.[8]
Recent investigations include Operation Cathedral that resulted in multi-national arrests and 7 convictions as well as uncovering 750,000 images with 1,200 unique identifiable faces being distributed over the web; Operation Amethyst which occurred in the Republic of Ireland; Operation Auxin which occurred in Australia; Operation Avalanche; Operation Ore based in the United Kingdom; Operation Pin; Operation Predator; the 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids and the 2008 US child pornography raid.
Even so, the UK based NSPCC said that worldwide an estimated 2% of websites still had not been removed a year after being identified.[20]

Child sexual abuse in production and distribution
Children of all ages, including infants,[21] are abused in the production of pornography internationally.[9][5] Estimates of the number of children worldwide involved in child pornography range from thousands to hundreds of thousands. "While impossible to obtain accurate data, a perusal of the child pornography readily available on the international market indicates that a significant number of children are being sexually exploited through this medium."[22] The United States Department of Justice estimates that pornographers have recorded the abuse of more than one million children in the United States alone.[13] There is an increasing trend towards younger victims and greater brutality; according to Flint Waters, an investigator with the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. "These guys are raping infants and toddlers. You can hear the child crying, pleading for help in the video. It is horrendous." [23]

The United Kingdom Children's charity NCH have stated that demand for child pornography on the internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, due to an increase in the number of children abused in the production process.[24] In a study analyzing men arrested for child pornography possession in the United States over a one year period from 2000 to 2001, most had pornographic images of prepubescent children (83%) and images graphically depicting sexual penetration (80%). Approximately 1 in 5 (21%) had images depicting violence such as bondage, rape, or torture and most of those involved images of children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded, or otherwise enduring sadistic sex. More than 1 in 3 (39%) had child-pornography videos with motion and sound. 79% also had what might be termed softcore images of nude or semi-nude children, but only 1% possessed such images alone. Law enforcement found about half (48%) had more than 100 graphic still images, and 14% had 1,000 or more graphic images. Forty percent (40%) were "dual offenders," who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography. [25]

A recent study in Ireland, undertaken by the Garda Síochána, revealed the most serious content in a sample of over 100 cases involving indecent images of children. In 44% of cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing, in 7% they depicted sexual activity between children, in 7% they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, in 37% they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children, and in 5% they depicted sadism or bestiality. [3]

Masha Allen, who was adopted at age 8 from the former Soviet Union by an American man who sexually abused her for five years and posted the pictures on the Internet testified before the United States Congress about the anguish she has suffered at the continuing circulation of the pictures of her abuse, to "put a face" on a "sad, abstract, and faceless statistic," and to help pass a law named for her.[26] "Masha's Law," included in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed in 2006, includes a provision which allows young people 18 and over to sue in civil court those who download pornographic images taken of them when they were children.[27] U.S Attorney Bob Balfe stated that 85 percent of those we prosecuted for child pornography are also child molesters.

Effect on child sexual abuse prevalence in society
A 2008 review of the use of Internet communication to lure children outlines the possible links to actual behaviour regarding the effects of Internet child pornography.[28] One perspective is that exposure to child pornography stimulates and provokes criminal sexual intent that otherwise would not exist. Exposure to child pornography might heighten desire and motivation to act on urges by decreasing internal restraints. Anonymity (or belief that anonymity exists) may further loosen the internal restraints, such that the individual "practices" molestation in the imagination, facilitated by still or moving images, which makes actual criminal sexual behaviour with children more probable if the person was already sexually motivated toward children, or, by creating new sexual interests in children . The review article states that these are plausible hypotheses,[28] but that there is a lack of clarity as to the general applicability of these mechanisms. The authors also note that, "among some groups of predisposed individuals, easy access to a wide variety of engrossing and high-quality child pornography could serve as a substitute for involvement with actual victims".[28]

A longitudinal study of 341 convicted child molesters found that pornography use added significantly to their rate of sexually re-offending. Frequency of pornography use was primarily a further risk factor for higher-risk offenders, when compared with lower-risk offenders, and use of highly deviant pornography increased the recidivism risk for all groups.[29] The majority of men who have been charged with or convicted of child pornography offenses show pedophilic profiles on phallometric testing.[30] A study with a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases examined charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses. One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually.[31]

According to the Mayo Clinic, studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.[32] A study conducted by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons has concluded that "many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters", finding a slightly higher percentage of molesters among child pornography offenders than the Mayo Clinic study, though they also "cautioned that offenders who volunteer for treatment may differ in their behavior from those who do not seek treatment." The study was withdrawn by Bureau officials from a peer-reviewed journal which had accepted it for publication, due to concerns that the results were not applicable to the general population of offenders. Some researchers argued that the findings "do not necessarily apply to the large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography, and whose behavior is far too variable to be captured by a single survey"..[33] Child protection advocates and psychologists like Fred Berlin, who heads the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, expressed disapproval over the failure to publish the report.[33] A 1987 report by the USA National Institute of Justice described "a disturbing correlation" between traders of child pornography and acts of child molestation. [34]

Dennis Howitt (1995) disagrees with such research, explaining the weakness of correlational studies. He argues that "one cannot simply take evidence that offenders use and buy pornography as sufficient to implicate pornography causally in their offending. The most reasonable assessment based on the available research literature is that the relationship between pornography, fantasy and offending is unclear."[35]

According to the New York Times, "At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one child sex offender serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires - exactly the opposite: 'Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it.' he said."[33] According to the National District Attorneys Association, "In light of the documented link between individuals who view child pornography and individuals who actually molest children, each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation."[36] John Carr, founding member of the United Kingdom Home Secretary’s Internet Task Force on Child Protection, in a report published by the NCH stated, "Many pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to child abuse images fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading them to commit hands-on sexual offenses against children." [37]
Czech sex therapist Petr Weiss believes that child pornography use may decrease cases of child sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires.[38]

Internet proliferation
Philip Jenkins notes that there is "overwhelming evidence that [child pornography] is all but impossible to obtain through nonelectronic means."[39] The Internet has radically changed how child pornography is reproduced and disseminated, and, according to the United States Department of Justice, resulted in a massive increase in the "availability, accessibility, and volume of child pornography."[40] The production of child pornography has become very profitable and is no longer limited to pedophiles.[41]
Digital cameras and Internet distribution facilitated by the use of credit cards and the ease of transferring images across national borders has made it easier than ever before for users of child pornography to obtain the photographs and videos.[10][9] The NCMEC estimated in 2003 that 20% of all pornography traded over the Internet was child pornography, and that since 1997 the number of child pornography images available on the Internet had increased by 1500%. [10]
In 2007, the British-based Internet Watch Foundation reported that child pornography on the Internet is becoming more brutal and graphic, and the number of images depicting violent abuse has risen fourfold since 2003. The CEO stated "The worrying issue is the severity and the gravity of the images is increasing. We're talking about prepubescent children being raped." About 80 percent of the children in the abusive images are female, and 91 percent appear to be children under the age of 12. Prosecution is difficult because multiple international servers are used, sometimes to transmit the images in fragments to evade the law.[42]
Regarding internet proliferation, the US DOJ states that "At any one time there are estimated to be more than one million pornographic images of children on the Internet, with 200 new images posted daily." They also note that a single offender arrested in the U.K. possessed 450,000 child pornography images, and that a single child pornography site received a million hits in a month. Further, that much of the trade in child pornography takes place at hidden levels of the Internet, and that it has been estimated that there are between 50,000 and 100,000 pedophiles involved in organized pornography rings around the world, and that one third of these operate from the United States.
In 2008 the Google search engine adapted a software program in order to faster track child pornography accessible through their site. The software is based in a pattern recognition engine.[43]

Collection by pedophiles
Viewers of child pornography who are pedophiles are particularly obsessive about collecting, organizing, categorizing, and labeling their child pornography collection according to age, gender, sex act and fantasy.[44][45] According to FBI agent Ken Lanning, "Collecting" pornography does not mean that they merely view pornography, but that they save it, and "it comes to define, fuel, and validate their most cherished sexual fantasies." An extensive collection indicates a strong sexual preference for children, and if a collector of child pornography is also a pedophile, the owned collection is the single best indicator of what he or she wants to do.[45] The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children describes researchers Taylor and Quayle's analysis of pedophile pornography collecting:

"The obsessive nature of the collecting and the narrative or thematic links for collections, led to the building of social communities on the internet dedicated to extending these collections. Through these 'virtual communities' collectors are able to downgrade the content and abusive nature of the collections, see the children involved as objects rather than people, and their own behaviour as normal: It is an expression of 'love' for children rather than abuse." [46]
These offenders are likely to employ elaborate security measures to avoid detection.[44] The US DOJ notes that "There is a core of veteran offenders, some of whom have been active in pedophile newsgroups for more than 20 years, who possess high levels of technological expertise.", also noting that pedophile bulletin boards often contain technical advice from child pornography users' old hands to newcomers."[45]

International perspectives
Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ("UNCRC") stated that all signatories shall take appropriate measures to prevent the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
International obligations to pass specific laws against child pornography "punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature" as well as enable extradition, mutual assistance in investigation, and seizure of property were mandated by the subsequent Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.
Some of the negotiations and reviews of the process took place at the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children held in 1996 and 2001.

Relation to sex tourism
One source of child pornography distributed worldwide is that created by sex tourists. Most of the victims of child sex tourism reside in the developing countries of the world. In 1996, a court in Thailand convicted a German national of child molestation and production of pornography for commercial purposes; he was involved in a child pornography ring which exploited Thai children. A sizable portion of the pornography seized in Sweden and in the Netherlands in the 1990s was produced by sex tourists visiting South-east Asia.[22] INTERPOL works with its 186 member countries to combat the problem, and launched its first-ever successful global appeal for assistance in 2007 to identify a Canadian man, Christopher Paul Neil, featured in a series of around 200 photographs in which he was shown sexually abusing young Vietnamese and Cambodian children.[47]

Organized crime
Organized crime is involved in the production and distribution of child pornography, which is found as a common element of organized crime profiles.[34][48] When criminals organize to produce and distribute child pornography, they are often called "sex rings."[49][50][51][52][53] In 2003, an international police investigation uncovered an immense Germany-based child pornography ring involving 26,500 suspects who swapped illegal images on the Internet in 166 different countries.[54] In a 2006 case, US and international authorities charged 27 people in nine states and three countries in connection with a child pornography ring that US federal authorities described as "one of the worst" they have discovered. The assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement added that the case reflected three larger trends that are becoming more common in child pornography rings. One is the increasing prevalence of "home-grown" pornographic images that are produced by predators themselves, and include live streaming video images of children being abused, not just the circulation of repeated images. Another trend is the growing use of sophisticated security measures and of peer-to-peer networking, in which participants can share files with one another on their computers rather than downloading them off a web site. The group used encryption and data destruction software to protect the files and screening measures to ensure only authorized participants could enter the chat room. A third trend is the increasingly violent and graphic nature of the images involving the abuse of younger children. [55]
According to Jim Gamble, CEO of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, around 50 per cent of sites showing children being abused are operated on a pay-per-view basis. "The people involved in these sites often aren't doing it because they're deviant by nature. They're doing it because they're business people. It's risk versus profits. We need to reduce the profit motivation." The CEOPP was established in 2006, and targets the finances of organised criminal gangs selling images of child abuse. [56]

International coordination of law enforcement
One of the primary mandates of the international policing organization Interpol is the prevention of crimes against children involving the crossing of international borders, including child pornography and all other forms of exploitation and trafficking of children.[57][58]
The USA Department of Justice coordinates programs to track and prosecute child pornography offenders across all jurisdictions, from local police departments to federal investigations, and international cooperation with other governments.[9] Efforts by the Department to combat child pornography includes the National Child Victim Identification Program, the world's largest database of child pornography, maintained by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the United States Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for the purpose of identifying victims of child abuse.[59][60] Police agencies have deployed trained staff to track child pornography files and the computers used to share them as they are distributed on the Internet, and they freely share identifying information for the computers and users internationally.[61]
When child pornography is distributed across international borders, customs agencies also participate in investigations and enforcement, such as in the 2001-2002 cooperative effort between the United States Customs Service and local operational law enforcement agencies in Russia. A search warrant issued in the USA by the Customs Service resulted in seizing of computers and email records by the Russian authorities, and arrests of the pornographers.[62]
In spite of international cooperation, less than 1 percent of children who appear in child pornography are located by law enforcement each year, according to Interpol statistics.[63]

Legal status
Canadian law forbids the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. Prohibition covers the visual representations of sexual activity by persons (real or imaginary) under the age of 18 years (although prosecutions in cases where all involved are over the age of 16 are rare)[citation needed] and the depiction of their sexual organ/anal region for a sexual purpose, unless an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical justification can be provided. It also includes the written depictions of persons or characters (fictional or non-fictional) under the age of 18 engaging in sexual activity.[64] Courts in Canada can also issue orders for the deletion of material from the internet from any computer system within the court's jurisdiction[65]
One early application of this law was the Eli Langer case. In 1993, this Toronto artist had an exhibition at the Mercer Gallery. His drawings included images of children in sexual positions. Police raided the gallery and confiscated the works. Langer was eventually acquitted after a trial because his work was considered "artistic" enough to be protected speech.
Law that addresses dynamic aspects of the Internet by regulating the nature of live-time chatting and email communications that may relate to enticing children for pornographic (e.g., web cam) or other sexual purposes has passed in 2002.[66] It also criminalizes the intentional access of child pornography.[67]

The first documented cases of child pornography in the Philippines were in the 1970s. These were produced by American soldiers stationed in Vietnam who went to different Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines, for rest and recreation. Some of these soldiers were alleged to have produced pornographic images of Filipino children.[citation needed]
According to a book by Arnie Trinidad entitled Child Pornography in the Philippines published by UNICEF Manila, a prominent case happened in Pagsanjan, Laguna, a rural community South of Manila. The case, according to Trinidad, involved the victimization of 590 children and adolescents aged 7 to 17 years old, by 22 American and European pedophiles who were involved in the production of pornography, drug abuse, and the sexual abuse of children. [68] The study, published in 2005, documents other cases perpetrated by both foreign and local pedophiles and includes in depth analysis of the ongoing problem, in the context of the social, economic and legal environment.[68]
The UNICEF Manila study states that social factors increase the propensity of children to be victimized in pornography. Among these are the commercial sexual exploitation of children, sex tourism, poverty, peer influence, availability of technology, cultural factors, among others. [69]
In 2003, the Philippines ratified their signing of the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography; the protocol requires its signatories to recognize child pornography as a crime against children and to treat any act that contributes to production or distribution of child pornography as a criminal offense, within two years of ratification. [70] Although fully compliant comprehensive legislation has not yet been enacted, Philippine law criminalizes the use of children in any aspect of the production or distribution of pornography, defining a "child" as younger than 18 years; and with maximum penalties required if the child involved is younger than 12 years old. [71]
On September 15, 2007, the Children and Youth Secretariat of the Anti-Child Pornography Alliance (ACPA-Pilipinas) in the Philippines launched Batingaw Network "to protect and save children from all forms of abuses and exploitations." It is the largest anti-child pornography movement in the Philippines to date. It declared September 28 as the "National Day of Awareness and Unity against Child Pornography.[72][dead link]

In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if he accessed an image without saving it.[73] Indecency is to be interpreted by a jury, who should apply the recognised standards of propriety. A child is a person who has not reached the age of 18.
Under UK law, an image that appears to be a photograph of a child, but is not a photograph, is referred to as a "pseudo-photograph". It is also illegal to make, distribute, show or possess with a view to showing or distributing an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child, under the Protection of Children Act. As of the commencement of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, this prohibition will be extended to encompass "tracings" of photographs. [74] In 2008, the Government announced further plans to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images depicting under-18s. The Government claimed it was needed to close a loophole for images derived from actual images of abuse - despite the fact that this loophole is closed in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and the new proposals criminalise images not derived from actual abuse.[75][76][77] The children's charity NCH, stated that "this is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph". Others stated that the intended law would limit artistic expression, patrol peoples' imaginations, and that it is safer for pedophiles' fantasies "to be enacted in their computers or imaginations [rather] than in reality". [78]
The prohibition of content on the Internet that is potentially illegal under this law by British internet service providers is however self-regulatory, coordinated by the non-profit charity Internet Watch Foundation (who has partnerships with many major ISP's in the country). The IWF runs on a hotline model, where users can report potentially illegal content on the internet.[79] The foundation then generates blacklists of potentially illegal websites, which are used for ISP-level filtering systems such as BT Group's Cleenfeed[80], which has also been adopted by 80% of internet service providers in the country.[81]
The IWF's practices however have come under scrutiny in response to a controversial blacklisting of a Wikipedia article (which was later retracted) on the Scorpions 1976 studio album Virgin Killer, whose album art contained a young girl posing nude with a glass shatter blocking her genitalia, which the IWF blacklisted as being "potentially illegal". JR Raphael of PC World stated that the incident has raised serious free-speech issues, and that it is alarming that one non-governmental organisation is ultimately acting as the "morality police" for about 95% of UK's Internet users.[82] Frank Fisher of The Guardian criticized the IWF for secretiveness and lack of legal authority, among other things, and noted that the blacklist could contain anything and that the visitor of a blocked address may not know his/her browsing is being censored.[83]


In the United States, child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states. Although child pornography may also be obscene, a legal term that refers to offensive or violent forms of pornography that have been declared by decisions by the US Supreme Court to be outside the protection of the First Amendment regarding free speech,[34] it is defined differently from obscenity. Federal sentencing guidelines regarding child pornography differentiate between production, distribution and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 12.[84] In May 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 federal law Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18, United States Code that criminalizes the pandering and solicitation of child pornography, in a 7-to-2 ruling penned by Justice Antonin Scalia. The court ruling dismissed the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's finding the law unconstitutionally vague.[85][86] Attorney James R. Marsh, founder of the Children's Law Center in Washington, DC, wrote that although the Supreme Court’s decision has been criticized by some, he believes it correctly enables legal personnel to fight crime networks where child pornography is made and sold.[87] Child pornography is illegal and it does not have to be looked at in terms of the typical guidelines of the First Amendment, because it is illegal due to the harm it creates to children when child pornography is made, sold and owned.[87].
The PROTECT Act of 2003, a bill addressing various aspects of child abuse, prohibits some illustrations and computer-generated images depicting children in a pornographic manner.[88][89][90] Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 on the grounds that the restrictions on speech were not jusified by a compelling government interest (such as protecting real children). The provisions of the PROTECT Act instead prohibit such material if it qualifies as obscene as defined by the Miller Test; the Supreme Court has ruled that such material is not protected by the First Amendment.

People have been successfully prosecuted after describing acts of abuse via SMS. [91] Operation Auxin in September 2004 led to the arrest of almost 200 people on charges of child pornography.

A review in 2005 of child pornography laws in 184 countries by the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) and other organizations including software giant Microsoft shows that more than half have no laws that address child pornography.[92] This review, however, only looked for specific laws related to child-pornography offenses. It did not take into account legislation that bans the "worst forms of child labor", nor did it consider countries in which there is a "general ban on pornography" to have legislation against child pornography because of the absence of legislation specific to child pornography. [93]

Artificially generated or simulated imagery
A small fraction of pornography involving minors is produced without the direct involvement of children in the production process itself. Forms of such pornography include: modified photographs of real children, non-minor teenagers made to look younger (Age Regression), and fully computer-generated imagery [94] or adults made to look like children.[95]. Drawings or animations that depict sexual acts involving children but are not intended to look like photographs may also be considered by some to be child pornography. An example of this is the hentai sub genre known as lolicon, which has been the subject of much controversy regarding impact on child sexual abuse [96][97] The reported link between the use of child pornography and child abuse has been used to justify the prohibition of sexual depictions of children, whether their production involves child abuse or not.[98]
Realistic virtual child pornography is legal in the United States unless it also judged to be "obscene".[88][89][90] It is illegal in the European Union; in Germany it is punishable by up to five years in prison.[99][100] In the Australian state of Victoria, it is illegal to publish imagery that "describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context", however the application of this law to virtual child pornography has not yet been tested in the courts.[100][99]
In 2007, the virtual world online computer game Second Life banned what they describe as "sexual 'ageplay', ie, depictions of or engagement in sexualized conduct with avatars that resemble children".[101][102] The ban prohibits the use of child-like avatars in any sexual contexts or areas, and prohibits the placement of sexualized graphics or other objects in any "children's areas" such as virtual children's playgrounds within the game environment.[102]
Google announced in 2008 that it is working with NCMEC to help automate and streamline how child protection workers sift through millions of pornographic images to identify victims of abuse. Google has developed video fingerprinting technology and software to automate the review of some 13 million pornographic images and videos that analysts at the center previously had to review manually.[103]


References

1. Finkelhor, David. "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse.". Future of Children v4 n2 (Sum-Fall 1994): p31-53. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ497143&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ497143.
2. Hobbs, Christopher James; Helga G. I. Hanks, Jane M. Wynne (1999). Child Abuse and Neglect: A Clinician's Handbook. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 328. ISBN 0443058962. ""Child pornography is part of the violent continuum of child sexual abuse"".
3. Claire Milner, Ian O'Donnel. (2007). Child Pornography: Crime, computers and society. Willan Publishing. pp. p123.
4. Sheldon, Kerry; Dennis Howitt (2007). Sex Offenders and the Internet. John Wiley and Sons. pp. p9. ISBN 0470028009. "...supplying the material to meet this demand results in the further abuse of children. Pictures, films and videos function as a permanent record of the original sexual abuse. Consequently, memories of the trauma and abuse are maintained as long as the record exists. Victims filmed and photographed many years ago will nevertheless be aware throughout their lifetimes that their childhood victimization continues to be exploited perversely.".
5. Sheldon, Kerry; Dennis Howitt (2007). Sex Offenders and the Internet. John Wiley and Sons. pp. p20. ISBN 0470028009. "'Child pornography is not pornography in any real sense; simply the evidence recorded on film or video tape - of serious sexual assaults on young children' (Tate, 1992, p.203) ... 'Every piece of child pornography, therefore, is a record of the sexual use/abuse of the children involved.' Kelly and Scott (1993, p. 116) ... '...the record of the systematic rape, abuse, and torture of children on film and photograph, and other electronic means.' Edwards(2000, p.1)".
6. Klain, Eva J.; Heather J. Davies, Molly A. Hicks, ABA Center on Children and the Law (2001). Child Pornography: The Criminal-justice-system Response. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "Because the children depicted in child pornography are often shown while engaged in sexual activity with adults or other children,they are first and foremost victims of child sexual abuse.".
7. Wortley, Richard; Stephen Smallbone. "Child Pornography on the Internet". Problem-Oriented Guides for Police No. 41: p17. "The children portrayed in child pornography are first victimized when their abuse is perpetrated and recorded. They are further victimized each time that record is accessed.".
8. Agnes Fournier de Saint Maur (January 1999). "Sexual Abuse of Children on the Internet: A New Challenge for INTERPOL" (PDF). Expert Meeting on Sexual Abuse of Children, Child Pornography and Paedophilia on the lnternet: an international challenge. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
9. Wells, M.; Finkelhor, D.; Wolak, J.; Mitchell, K. (2007). "Defining Child Pornography: Law Enforcement Dilemmas in Investigations of Internet Child Pornography Possession" (PDF). Police Practice and Research 8 (3): 269-282. doi:10.1080/15614260701450765. http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV96.pdf. Retrieved on 1 July 2008.
10. "CHILD PORN AMONG FASTEST GROWING INTERNET BUSINESSES". National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, USA (2005-08-05). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
11. J. Nicholas Hoover (2006-03-17). "As Child Porn Industry Grows, Coalition Launches Counterattack", Information Week.
12. C R JAYACHANDRAN (2003-09-26). "World wide porn: 260 mn, growing", Times of India, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd.
13. Levesque, Roger J. R. (1999). Sexual Abuse of Children: A Human Rights Perspective. Indiana University. pp. p65. ISBN 0253334713.
14. Ferraro, Monique Mattei; Monique Ferraro, Eoghan Casey, Michael McGrath (2004). Investigating Child Exploitation and Pornography: The Internet, the Law and Forensic Science. Academic Press. pp. p3. ISBN 0121631052.
15. Scherer, Jacqueline; Gary Shepherd (1982). Victimization of the Weak: Contemporary Social Reactions. Charles C Thomas Pub Ltd. pp. p108. ISBN 0398040435.
16. DeLisi, Matt; Peter John Conis (2007). Violent Offenders: Theory, Research, Public Policy, and Practice. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. pp. p264. ISBN 076375479X.
17. Crosson-Tower, Cynthia (2005). UNDERSTANDING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT. Allyn & Bacon. pp. 208. ISBN 020540183X.
18. Richard Wortley, Stephen Smallbone. "Child Pornography on the Internet". Problem-Oriented Guides for Police No. 41: p14-16.
19. Levesque, Roger J. R. (1999). Sexual Abuse of Children: A Human Rights Perspective. Indiana University. pp. p64. ISBN 0253334713.
20. Time taken to shut child abuse sites criticised
21. "Dutch Say A Sex Ring Used Infants On Internet". New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
22. Child pornography: an international perspective, Margaret A. Healty, 1996
23. "The Child Porn Pipeline Part Three: A child victim's story of betrayal and despair". Buffalo News (2008).
24. "Internet porn 'increasing child abuse'", Guardian Unlimited, Guardian News and Media Limited (2004-01-12). Retrieved on 1 June 2007.
25. "What is Child Pornography". NCMEC. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.
26. "Child-Porn Victim Brings Her Story to Washington". Abc News. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.
27. "Protecting Children and Families". press release. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.
28. a b c Wolak, James; David Finkehor, Kimberly Mitchell, Michele Ybarra (February 2008). "Online "Predators" and Their Victims" (PDF) 111-128. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.111. Retrieved on 2008-03-07.
29. Kingston DA et al (2008). "Pornography use and sexual aggression: the impact of frequency and type of pornography use on recidivism among sexual offenders.". Aggress Behav 34 (34): 1–11. doi:10.1002/ab.20250. PMID 18307171.
30. Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 610–615.
31. Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 201–210.
32. RYAN C. W. HALL; RICHARD C. W. HALL (2007-04). "[http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues]" (PDF). Mayo Clin Proc 82 (4): 457–471. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf. Retrieved on 9 May 2008.
33. Julian Sher and Benedict Carey (2007-07-19). "Debate on Child Pornography's Link To Molesting". New York Times.
34. "Remarks of Arnold I Burns Before the Florida Law Enforcement Committee on Obscenity, Organized Crime and Child Pornography". NCJ 109133. National Institute of Justice (1987-12-03).
35. Howitt, Dennis (1995). "Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children," chapter 6. Loughborough University, UK; John Wiley & Sons.
36. "From Fantasy to Reality: The Link Between Viewing Child Pornography and Molesting Children". Child Sexual Exploitation Update - Volume 1, Number 3, 2004. Retrieved on 2008-05-03.
37. Carr, John (2004). Child abuse, child pornography and the internet: Executive summary. NCH.
38. Child porn consumers safe from prosecution in the Czech Republic
39. Jenkins, Philip (2005). "Law Enforcement Efforts Against Child Pornography Are Ineffective," in At Issue: Child Sexual Abuse. Ed. Angela Lewis. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.
40. Child Pornography, Child Exploitation and Obscenity, Department of Justice
41. Child pornography has expanded into a business so profitable it is no longer limited to pedophiles. Let’s Fight This Terrible Crime Against Our Children, Parade, Andrew Vach, February 19, 2006
42. "IWF". AP. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.
43. Google tackles child pornography
44. Crosson-Tower, Cynthia (2005). UNDERSTANDING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT. Allyn & Bacon. pp. 198-200. ISBN 020540183X.
45. Lanning, Kenneth V. (2001). Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis 4th ed.. 86. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
46. Child pornography: images of the abuse of children". National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2003).
47. Interpol". press release. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.
    ^ "RCMP Fact Sheets: Organized Crime". Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2008-04-28).
    ^ "U.S. SAYS IT BROKE RING THAT PEDDLED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY". New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
48. World Briefing Europe: Child Pornography Raid In 8 Countries". New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
    ^ "45 Arrested in a Nationwide Child Pornography Ring, U.S. Says". New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
49. French Police Arrest 250 Men Linked to Child Pornography Ring". New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
50. Porn ring 'was real child abuse'". BBC. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
51. Germany Says It Uncovered Huge Child Pornography Ring". New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
52. 27 Charged in International Online Child Pornography Ring". New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-05-01.
53. Task force to seize child porn profits". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved on 2008-05-03.
54. Crimes against children". Interpol.
55. Bantekas, Ilias; Susan Nash (2003). International Criminal Law 2/E. Routledge Cavendish. pp. p265. ISBN 1859417760.
56. Houston Chronicle, "Government developing huge child porn database". 4 April 2003
57. CBS News, "Combating Kiddie Porn", 6 April 2003
58. Uncle Goose-head (2008-06-05). "Police methods for illegal pornography investigation". Retrieved on 2008-12-14.[unreliable source?]
59. Shelley, Louise (Winter 2002). "Transnational crime: The case of Russian organized crime and the role of international cooperation in law enforcement", Heldref Publications. ISSN 1074-6846. Retrieved on 14 December 2008.
60. Friedman, Emily (2007-09-28). "Clues Caught on Tape Key to Child Porn Cases". Abcnews.com. New York: American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved on 2008-12-14.
61. Criminal Code of Canada, section 163ff, accessed 2008-01-10
62. Government of Canada. "BILL C-15A: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE AND TO AMEND OTHER ACTS". Retrieved on 2008-05-09.
63. STRONGER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LAWS RECEIVE ROYAL ASSENT". Government of Canada (2002-06-10). Retrieved on 2008-02-04.
64. BILL C-15A: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE AND TO AMEND OTHER ACTS". The Parliament of Canada (2002-09-30). Retrieved on 2008-02-04.
65. Trinidad, Arnie C. (2005). Child Pornography in the Philippines. Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights Program UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies and UNICEF Manila. pp. p53.
66. Trinidad, Arnie C. (2005). Child Pornography in the Philippines. Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights Program UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies and UNICEF Manila. pp. p51.
67. Trinidad, Arnie C.. Child Pornography in the Philippines. Psychosocial Trauma and Human Rights Program UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies and UNICEF Manila, year=2005. pp. p100.
68. Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against children - Philippines" (PDF). Interpol.
69. Abs-Cbn Interactive, Batingaw vs child porn launched
70. Internet Watch Foundation - R v Bowden http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm
71. Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (c. 4)
72. http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease280508a.htm
73. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6518103.stm
74. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/government_outlaws_pictures/
75. This loophole is real. But the remedy is really perverse
76. Deibert, Ronald; John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, Jonathan Zittrain (2008). Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. MIT Press. pp. p. 188. ISBN 0262042452.
77. Arnfield, Robin (20 July 2004). "BT Technology Blocks Online Pornography". NewsFactor Network.
78. Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office) Commons, 13 February 2006 col. 1130 Internet (child pornography)
79. Wikipedia censorship sparks free speech debate". PC World. Retrieved on 9 December 2008.
80. A nasty sting in the censors' tail". The Guardian. Retrieved on 9 December 2008.
81. Sex Offenses Against Children: Findings and Recommendations Regarding Federal Penalties (as directed in the Sex Crimes Against Children Prevention Act of 1995, Section 6, Public Law 104-71). United States Sentencing Commission. June 1996. pp. p9. http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/SCAC.HTM.
82. nytimes.com, Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Law
83. http://www.supremecourtus.gov,united/
84. Marsh, J. R. (2008-07-11). "Virtual Child Porn and Child Exploitation", childlaw.us. Retrieved on 13 July 2008.
85. Fact Sheet PROTECT Act". Department of Justice (April 30, 2003).
86. Full Text of S.151 - PROTECT Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)". Library of Congress.
87. Track.us. S. 151--108th Congress (2003): Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003". GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved on 2008-09-01.
88. AFP (2007-07-17). "Queensland man charged over SMS child pornography".
89. Study: Child Porn Isn't Illegal In Most Countries - Information Week, April 6, 2006, Canadian Children's Rights Council
90. Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global Review, 2006 (page 7, footnote 15)
91. Virtueel filmpje geldt ook als porno, AD, March 11, 2008
92. Paul, B. and Linz, D. (2008). "The effects of exposure to virtual child pornography on viewer cognitions and attitudes toward deviant sexual behavior," Communication Research, 35(1), 3-38
93. Tony McNicol (2004-04-27). "Does comic relief hurt kids?", The Japan Times. Retrieved on 18 January 2008.
94. 'Rorikon' trade nurturing a fetish for young females". Japan Today (2004-03-22). Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
95. Government of Canada (1984). Report of the Committee on Sexual Offenses against Children and Youth, Vols. 1-11, and summary. Government of Canada, Department of Supply and Service as "Badgely Report; Cat. No. J2-50/1984/E, Vols. 1-11, H74-13/1984-1E, Summary".
96. Chris Johnston (2007-05-10). "Brave new world or virtual pedophile paradise? Second Life falls foul of law".
97. Eko, L. S. (2006, Jun) Regulation of Online Child Pornography Under European Union and American Law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany Online Retrieved 2008-04-22
98. Benjamin Duranske (May 23, 2008). "New Supreme Court Opinion Discusses Virtual Child Pornography Law; Linden Lab’s 2007 Ban Clarified".
    ^ a b Ken D Linden (November 13, 2007). "Clarification of Policy Disallowing “Ageplay”".
    ^ "Google enlists video ID tools to fight child porn". Msnbc. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.