Talk:Legality of child pornography/Archive 1

Legality
The lede of this article states that "child pornography is illegal in most but not all nations." However this seems overly vague in that it could mean either possession or distribution. I looked at the cited source and did not see any discussion of overall global statistics, though on page 12 there was a paragraph about Western societies. According to a 2008 study it seems possible this statement is actually wrong as only 58 known countries had laws on possession (see the main article's talk page). —Rehoboam (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

″≈°==Map== The article tells a very different tale from the map, which would lead one to believe that child pornography is legal in most of Africa, Russia and most of the former Soviet Union, as well as a good chunk of South America and Southeast Asia. 75.158.37.149 (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The map, I think it's the same map, is basically just a bunch of randomly colored countries. Very little accuracy, and it contradicts the content of this article in many places. I'm removing it (again). Grayfell (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the map with errors solved --Lorenzo Fiocco (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The map seems to not be completely accurate based on what is said in this article here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors For example, the map states that fictional CP is illegal in Spain, but the article i linked states that fictional, non-realistic depictions are indeed legal. MemeTrooper (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent information
The article says "However, Simulated child pornography remains to be legal everywhere in the US.", yet in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography, it states that "Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations that do not pass the Miller test were made illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A."

Can somebody please get a definitive answer and make all articles show consistent information? I know that the bits of the PROTECT act, including, "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were ruled to be unconstitutional in the Handley case. 71.75.130.191 (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone went to jail for it, so I don't think it's a mystery. Recently an individual who hosts child pornography in the US made the statement it was legal, and many of the site's visitors are probably editing articles to support his views. --OKNoah (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The truth is, there is no definitive answer. This law has been applied in only a handful of cases, usually involving people who also possessed actual child porn. What we do know is that several prominent websites allow users to freely upload and share this cartoon "child pornography" without any legal rammifications. The fact that the FBI has not shut down a site like Gelbooru, for instance, suggests that any law against the content is not actively enforced. However, if you go directly to the cops and confess that you store cartoon porn of the Powerpuff Girls or whatever, maybe they'll give you an obscenity charge. So the simple answer is "yes", but this answer gives no information about the law's enforcement and constitutional validity, so it's very misleading. 195.191.165.5 (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Guyana has "illegal" in green and "legal" in red.23.122.254.175 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved with support (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk ) 01:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Laws regarding child pornography → Legality of child pornography – The title format ought to be consistent with the rest or majority of similar Wikipedia articles. For most other areas of law that differ from nation to nation, the format is "Legality of X". For examples, see: legality of cannabis and legality of euthanasia. "Legal status of X" would also work. Michipedian (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. We also have Laws regarding rape. I don't feel strongly enough about the proposed title to support or oppose. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - 'Laws' is such a vague term, it should say laws by country if it were to be used correctly anyway. Legality is a lot more understandable and fits better with the content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1937 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

israel
in israel regular pornography is legal so can someone change it in table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.88.71 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Term left undefined
What is "fictional" child porn? There is no Wikipedia page on it. I suggest someone who knows what it is define it with written examples in contrast to what real child porn is. 2601:601:8302:7B30:2430:C54F:7171:5262 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "fictional" has been clarified by Finnish internet police officer Marko Forss, albeit in Finnish . He defines the 2011-addition to the law, adding the term fictional, as it not having been produced through photography or through image-manipulation to appear indistinguishably realistic. "Factual" child pornogeraphy is exactly as stated in the article, pornography produced through any means depicting an act of sexual child abuse that actually took place. Forss also reminds that drawings and animations of child pornography that fit neither of these criteria, for example in entirely fictional manga, are indeed legal. --91.150.33.41 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "All formsdone.child pornography are illegal under the accordance of EU law."-edits
Not all countries have implemented these laws and fictional child pornography remains legal in some EU member countries. It's preposterous to assume all EU laws are implemented in every member state. An implementation of the cited EU-law regarding legality of fictional child pornography to not require the material to be realistic or based on real life was proposed in Finland in 2010, but not realised. I will not make it my task to revert erroneous edits and research which countries actually have implemented these law changes, but I propose it is Seqqis who should fix damage done and conduct proper research before such major overhauls in the future. 93.106.103.81 (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 93.106.103.81, There were no links relating to Finland's exempt to EU law, and there was no damage done. Seqqis (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By damage done I mean your edit claiming all EU-countries implemented this, something that I know to be false.93.106.126.25 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, no damage was done. The reference added to all the EU countries in the table states that "Under European Union law, online child pornography is regulated as illegal material that violates human rights."Seqqis (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article claims Finland to be the only member country of the European Union to have exceptions in- or ambiguous laws regarding virtual child pornography; this is false. There have been several cases in Europe, a few of them stated in Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. Furthermore, I have never heard of the European Union sanctioning any of its member countries for this, nor it ever being enforced. --91.150.33.41 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * May I add that in your cited source, the author "presumes" that all forms of child pornography are illegalised. Later, unless I missed something, they state that the European Union's stance "includes realistic images of a non-existent child involved or engaged in sexually explicit conduct" which makes it exclude drawings that are clearly mere drawings. Could you clarify where you got the idea that the European Union has banned all forms of virtual child pornography? There is a statement of this at page 2 but the author later contradtics themself. --91.150.33.41 (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC) Edit. 91.150.33.41 (talk)


 * The sooner that it is forbidden in all the world, the better. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legality of child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602083205/http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/pdf/SummerNewsletter2006formatted.pdf to http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/pdf/SummerNewsletter2006formatted.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316121435/http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm to http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130124010543/http://www.somaliweyn.com/pages/news/Aug_12/Somalia_Constitution_English_FOR_WEB.pdf to http://www.somaliweyn.com/pages/news/Aug_12/Somalia_Constitution_English_FOR_WEB.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526083325/http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/SCAC.HTM to http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/SCAC.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legality of child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120154810/http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-54-263 to http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-54-263

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Modification in Pakistans
Pornography and pre-marital sex are completely prohibited by Pakistan. No pornographic movies whatsoever are allowed since it goes against Islam so saying "The production of pornography in Pakistan is legal as long as it is involves actors 13 years or older. " is completely wrong. Point out such people to public of Pakistan and you will see non of them but hanged in square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.7.46 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Germany
The data for Germany is wrong; it's also quoting a Danish source upon Danish law, which doesn't makes sence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.182.52.94 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Russia
A reader contacted Wikipedia to note that Russia is green, but that is inconsistent with the text and the table. I'll also question Mongolia, which appears green but seems to be not discussed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like some counties are not discussed, but colored green Not acceptable. R.g. Tunisia, Nepal.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, both Russia and Ukraine should be green: both have laws prohibiting "possession with intent of distribution", but not "simple possession". The RT link in the Russian section is not relevant, since it discusses proposed amendments, not the amendments actually passed in the 3rd reading. 93.181.243.41 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I never heard of any cases. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Disparity
According to this article and the map featured here, child pornography is legal in Guyana, South Sudan, and Uganda. But according to the article Pornography laws by region, all pornography is illegal in those countries. So, which one is right? I think this disparity makes the information inconsistent. - Munmula (talk), second account of  Alumnum 23:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They've reverted the map on that page. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a question
why in some African countries child pornography is real and fictitious is legal e.g. in such equatorial guinea whether their culture allows pedophilia ? 2A02:A319:C044:B000:B4CA:7DF8:7D12:B1E6 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Albania
This article says that the possession of child pornography is not illegal in Albania, while the criminal code of Albania, in the article 117, says "Producing, importing, offering, making available, broadcasting, using or possessing child pornography and accessing it intentionally, with any means or forms, is punishable with three to seven years in prison. 138.246.2.8 (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ECPAT International did a study in 2016 and found that:
 * "Article 117 lacks a definition of child pornography itself and does not specify the criminalization of all the possible forms of child pornography, for example audio, video or written pornography or possession of child pornography; and there is no mention of virtual child pornography. The lack of a clear definition leads to confusion."
 * I understand that this source contradicts this information, but in this case the source used for your information is machine translated and has a date of compilation as June 11, 2015. In a nutshell: I trust ECPAT more than I do for a source that is machine translated by a third party. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind...
Countries can join agreements such as "UNCRC" and Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, or laws put forward by the European Union but they are not bound to implement the rules established. This is why countries that may be under the scope of the "law" or "agreement" are checked upon (through sources) to see if they have implemented the laws. In short.... just because a country may be bound to an agreement does not mean the laws in the given country are in compliance. Don't cite or assume countries that have joined x.... make child pornography illegal by default. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wut? i dont understand......
Is child porn partially legal in Mongolia? --190.192.243.188 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mongolia is an interesting case as according to ECPAT:
 * "There are also no specific provisions focused on child pornography; rather the legal penalty depends on the interpretation of other laws such as Law on Protection of Children’s Rights, Law against Pornography and Prostitution and the Criminal Code."
 * I have amended the table to show that Mongolia is illegal per "The Law against Pornography and Prostitution". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Done?
All done? --190.192.243.188 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet... I have Africa done, these things take time and chose to take a break on it until like Sunday. I'm confident that most of the information is accurate if not then its dated info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Now it is done?
ALL done?? No more?????? --190.192.243.188 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Maps
The maps currently on Commons are not suitable for this article, because they are not consistent with the updated citations in the body. Because of the prevalence of legal conditions like "Illegal; not defined", "Legally unclear", "Illegal, possibly unenforced", etc. I think this info is too complicated for one map. I see potential, however, for two maps to represent the information, likely with a similar design to the maps at Legality of cannabis (one map for the "real" column, and one for the "fictional" column). — Goszei (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Legal = Red Illegal = Green
An IP editor changed the article to reverse the long-standing colors, and then created an empty talk page section with this title. The colors red=illegal and green=legal are used consistently on most articles about legality, such as Legality of incest, Legality of bitcoin by country or territory, Legality of cannabis, Legality of pornography, Legal status of psychoactive cactus by country, Prostitution in the Americas, and Legal status of ayahuasca by country. Some articles use some other color such as blue for legal but retain red=illegal, such as Legality of euthanasia, Legality of polygamy, Legality of Holocaust denial, Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms, LGBT rights by country or territory, and Child corporal punishment laws. I have found no article that uses red to indicate legality. It is inconsistent with other articles, as well as counterintuitive and confusing for red to indicate legality. CodeTalker (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Our primary concern here, and for all articles about legality, is remaining NPOV. I can see how green/red could potentially be signaling a good/bad value judgement, but it can also simply mean unrestricted/restricted, as it does for all of our other articles on legality. I see a mild argument to change the scheme to a non green/red scheme across all of our legality articles, but this should be done consistently, and we certainly should not reverse the scheme, which represents a clear non-NPOV value judgement. — Goszei (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree.... the colors chosen are also colorblind friendly which go with (MOS:COLOR). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. The long-standing, universal pattern of green = legal and red = illegal should not be violated. - Munmula (talk), second account of  Alumnum 03:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Oceana corrections
Pulau and Kiribati list child pornography as being legal, citing "no data." One citation refers to a document by the US gov that dates back to 2011. Child pornography is illegal in both.

For Kiribati 

For Pulau 

2601:5CC:C700:70D0:0:0:0:B07C (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Random dude who doesn't know how to properly edit wikipedia. Doesn't care to either, because clearly you need fewer barriers to correction.


 * Thank you for mentioning that, I have changed Kiribati's status to "legally unclear" as the 2020 reliable source by a government entity contradicts dated 2016 information. There needs to be some kind of explanation on how A got to B here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing
This is just a helpful reminder on proper and good sourcing to use for the article in order from most to least effective:


 * 1. Government sources (penal codes, government reports, or reports by governments on others)
 * 2. Organizational sources (ex: ECPAT International, ICMEC
 * 3. Legal scholarly sources (These are helpful, but are prone to date more quickly)
 * 4. News sources (Ex: CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Fox News, ect...) (Almost never should be used)
 * 5. Forums/Reddit/Facebook (Don't use) These are NOT reliable. Rumors go around on these involving this sensitive topic.

Also please be aware that the most recent available reliable sources will be given priority over older ones. Laws do get updated every year or so somewhere around the world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "News sources" Why would news sources be relevant here? This is not their area of expertise, and they don't typically analyze the implications of specific laws. Concerning the subject of child pornography, many of these sources have a tendency towards demonization of perceived threats and using alarmist language. Dimadick (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most to least effective is what I placed at the top, you are right though about news sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022
switzerland info is wrong. unfortunately a new precedent contradicts the previous precedent, and is in line with the Swiss Crime Prevention agency stating that mangas and comics are NOT exempt.

replace switzerland section with

🇨🇭 Switzerland || Illegal || Illegal; not always enforced || Illegal || Child pornography, including possession, is illegal in Switzerland per article 197 of the Swiss Criminal Code. This law includes purely fictional forms such as drawings or virtual depictions, but enforcement has so far only occurred in cases with real images.

2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:F57E:2404:13CF:98D5 (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ casualdejekyll  01:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022
Please revert to the previously requested edit to Switzerland from the 3rd of February, as the changes made to Switzerland since then are baseless. -As much as is legible, the source mentions that the conviction was in connection with real images ("at least seven"). So the only widely known conviction with fictional images included real images. -The 2018 source where no case was filed is also NOT obsolete as the law did NOT change since then, the law has been the same since 2012, only more precedents emerged. This regrettably means that the enforcement has not been uniform - as was stated in the edit request.

As an aside the original implementer of the edit request criticized an "opinion". They probably meant the phrase "unfortunately" in the edit request, which was less an opinion stated on the new case, and more referring to the fact that precedents were now conflicting, meaning that the enforcement of the law was not uniform, because apparently even swiss people didn't really know what exactly to enforce, which is rather unfortunate. It also referred to the fact that as a result wikipedia had inaccurate info on such an important topic for years, which is incredibly unfortunate. Finally it also referred to switzerland now being in a conflict of free speech norms with the other german speaking countries surrounding it which could also be seen as unfortunate. Apologies for the misunderstanding!

2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The source here makes it pretty clear:
 * "Yes, Article 197 of the Criminal Code clearly states that depictions of "non-actual sexual acts with minors" are also punishable. The idea behind this is that the consumption of child pornography can possibly result in copycat acts and it is therefore irrelevant (except for the sentence) whether the minors are "real" or "only" virtual."
 * You would have to provide some evidence that the law is unenforced through something like ECPAT or a watch group. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The text quoted above is under other jurisdictions (Brazil, or California for example) interpreted as NOT referring to fictional people, only fictional events. That above is the interpretation of the SKP, who while being an authority, are not the courts or the prosecutors office. So it's not that the law is unenforced, it's that it's apparently selectively interpreted depending on context and the interpreting agency, similarly to the US. There's no reason for any watch group to deal with this as it is down to the interpretation of the legal text and no international conventions are violated neither by one nor the other interpretation.
 * The 2018 article by the comic book legal defense fund that you removed, specifically referred to an incident WITH the current law in effect, where the interpretation of the Swiss Crime Prevention was NOT enforced for pure fiction. I do not know why. It confuses me to no end. This is precisely why it was included in the previous edit request. It would be better if the law WAS uniformly interpreted and applied, but IMO we shouldn't just pretend that it is uniformly applied when there is an internationally well known example of it NOT being applied uniformly.
 * At the end of the day this probably does not matter too much though, as at least now the article errs on the side of caution. =) So i removed the edit request, leaving this here. Edit as you will, just saying, that technically the 2018 incident IS an example of a non uniform application of the law.
 * 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:3134:7345:F009:B990 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lifelike generated child porn is illegal in Hungary
My English is not perfect, sorry. I read the new law in my native language, in Hungarian. Lifelike painted/animated/generated child porn is illegal in Hungary, but I can not modify the article. By definition of porn in the law, porn represents sexuality of other people. So, not a porn if represents only sexuality of itself: for example, if represent only 1 child, for the showed child, it is fully legal to create, store, haveing, selling, etc. the video or photo.

I logged in, and I modified the article. So, resolved.

X00000 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you provide an official source? I undid your good faith edit for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * http://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/MKPDF/hiteles/MK21118.pdf
 * site 4949 (site 9 in the pdf file): 20. §: changes 204. §: next site:
 * (8) E § alkalmazásában pornográf felvétel: a  másnak vagy másoknak a  nemiséget súlyosan szeméremsértő nyíltsággal, célzatosan a nemi vágy felkeltésére irányuló módon történő ábrázolása, ideértve a nem létező személy vagy személyek valósághű ábrázolását is.
 * Changes 204/A. §: (7) E § alkalmazásában pornográf műsor: a  más vagy mások nemiségét súlyosan szeméremsértő nyíltsággal megjelenítő, célzatosan a nemi vágy felkeltésére irányuló cselekvés vagy előadás.
 * más = other, mások = others, nem = not, létező = existing, személy = person, személyek = persons, valósághű = realistic.
 * So, a child can create, have, sell videos about she/he is masturbating, this is fully legal for her/him, even if the video is old, and at the time of the business, she/he is already an adult. But not legal to the purchaser. And not legal if 2 children have sex at the video: shows sexuality of an other person. X00000 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Google Translate:
 * (8) For the purposes of this section, pornographic recording shall mean the depiction of another person or others in a manner that is seriously defamatory of sex, in a manner intended to arouse sexual desire, including a realistic depiction of a non-existent person or persons.
 * (7) For the purposes of this section, a pornographic program is an act or performance intended to arouse sexual desire by portraying the sex of another or others with serious oppression.
 * X00000 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will restore your edits now. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Corrected the title of the talk topic. The legal reasoning given clarifies that paintings and such are excluded and only depictions which "can not be, and can not be expected to be, distinguished from reality" are banned. Everything written is correct, just edited the talk topic for clarity. 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:3134:7345:F009:B990 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022
Change fictional for Malta to illegal. Add to description that fictional minors, even cartoons or drawings are included. https://justice.gov.mt/en/pcac/Documents/Criminal%20code.pdf 208 A 7 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for your find and source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

All forms of pornography are illegal in Sri Lanka and are punishable under the law
Article 285. (Sale, &c. of obscene books .&c.)

Whoever sells or distributes, imports, or prints for sale or hire, or wilfully exhibits to public view, any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, photograph, representation, or figure, or attempts or offers so to do, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

Article 286. (Having in possession obscene books, &c for sale or public exhibition. )

Whoever has in his possession any such obscene book or other thing as is mentioned in the last preceding section for the purpose of sale, distribution, or public exhibition, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months. Or with fine, or with both. 112.134.219.211 (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I adjusted the wording, but the issue still remains that "child pornography" is not clearly defined in the country according to International standards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022
Change: Croatia fictional to legal. Add to description: Only such materials which are produced with the involvement of minors are criminalized by article 196. Previous source unavailable, new source from croatian supreme court: http://www.vsrh.hr/custompages/static/hrv/files/legislation__criminal-code.pdf 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:120:88D7:5396:FC95 (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ - I was able to retrieve the dead linked source which dates to 2011 via archive. First I want to thank you for providing a source as not every person would take time to look these things up. Unfortunately the one you found is not official, dates to 2003, and looks to have been updated at least twice since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source! However, that source also specifically excludes non-realistic depictions. So it should be "legal, non-realistic or artwork" and the description should reflect this, because that is one important exception that several other european states also have.

2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:854C:B44F:9310:6300 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that we are trying to interpret a law that is trying to define fictional child pornography. I see the mention of the "non realistic" description, but also see "for the purposes of this article..." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue. I was wrong previously, because i referenced an outdated source, but the current source is still not matching the article. Even in the "for the purposes of this article" section of the current source it is still clear that it concerns only realistic depictions, which is the exact same as in multiple european legislations. That's why it needs to be mentioned, to show how it matches the other laws.2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:E9C0:DA18:4F6E:1BD6 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want a third opinion on the matter then, please be patient sorry. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Setting edit request as answered awaiting user input (due to ongoing discussion) per template. — Sirdog (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

France law put illegal any image
Posted on legifrance.gouv.fr on 23 april 2021

"Les dispositions du présent article sont également applicables aux images pornographiques d'une personne dont l'aspect physique est celui d'un mineur, sauf s'il est établi que cette personne était âgée de dix-huit ans au jour de la fixation ou de l'enregistrement de son image."

Tranlaste

" all disposition in this present article are also applicable on any pornographic images of a person with a physical aspect of a minor, excapt if is state that person is older then 18 years old at the recording of create of is image"

They clearly use image and not picture or photo which clearly include any image: draw, photo , video , animation etc that mean artwork is illegal since a years


 * I would be very surprised if artwork deemed artistic in value were banned in France. For one, art institutions would have to remove all historical paintings of children deemed to be "child pornography" from public view. The source in the article needs archiving to view which I will do later today. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022 CHANGE THE COLUMNS
The third column should have its title changed to "possession of real forms", "except fictional" should be deleted from the possession column of all countries. The fictional column should have "including possession" added.

Exceptions to possession (Illegal, unless fictional) are basically half the column, and coincide almost perfectly with the legality of fictional forms in general, so it would make sense to include possession of fictional forms in the "fictional" column instead of the "possession" column, and would make the table more readable. 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:48E3:4E72:DD13:B889 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, as it would have no benefit. If child pornography is illegal in a country, then there is good chances that this applies to possession for both real and fictional forms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect, just look at the table. Where fictional is legal, possession of fictional forms is obviously legal, so all places where fictional is legal the possession column has that pointless annotation, which could be simply resolved by having another column. Having a different column makes it easier to read than having to look at the notes in each column. That's why there is the table format in the first place. 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:241E:76DF:18EE:7879 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022 CLEAR UP COLOR CODING
The color coding in the table of any "Legal, unless ...." should be replaced with light green, and of any "Illegal, unless ...." should be replaced with light red. Yellow should remain only in actually "Legally Unclear", or "Legally Complex" situations.

With the color matching the first word in the cell, the table would be more consistent, since there are always exceptions and particularities of the definitions in every single national legislation, even those so far labelled clearly "legal" and "illegal", so if one were to be really precise all could be labelled yellow under the current system. As an example, saying that some forms are illegal unless certain redeeming qualities apply is common basically anywhere, for example the "scientific purposes" exception applies in almost every country. So this alone does not warrant a change away from color code red. Similarly the exception that "realistic" - confusable with reality - fictional forms are not legal applies basically everywhere, as anything else would make enforcement impossible. So this alone does not warrant a change away from the color green. This is already an issue, as the EU section of the table is basically all yellow in the fictional section. With the precision updates in the section above most of the table would be yellow, defeating the purpose of color coding. This is no wonder, since it is a nuanced topic with wide variation, but if the article is to have color coding, then it should actually be useful. Additionally, the difference in terms of actual application of the law between "Legal, unless" and "Illegal, unless" is usually bigger than the difference between "Illegal", and "Illegal, unless" or "Legal", and "Legal, unless". This should be represented in the color coding.

2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:48E3:4E72:DD13:B889 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The colors are the way they are in part to help those who are color blind (see: MOS:COLOUR). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great, but it doesn't contradict what i suggested? There can be a darkness gradient as well as a hue gradient, the point is just that having "Illegal, unless" "Legally Unclear" and "Legal, unless" be represented with the same color is nonsense.
 * Worst comes to worst just use Green for "Legal, ...." and Red for "Illegal, ...." 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:241E:76DF:18EE:7879 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

 * All of the sections below are either tagged on hold or done. None (currently) open. Closing the tag until they are ready to be looked at. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  02:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After half a year of gathering data on and off, I believe all the legislations that needed updating have now been updated below. Due to the intersection of serious crimes and fundamental freedoms of expression, lots of care went into making the table entries as accurate as possible from a lay person. English primary sources for the currently in-force laws are used wherever available, translation and secondary expert sources were used where not, and opinions of experts and citizens were included when the interpretation was not readily apparent. Explanations are given in the description where necessary, and the tagging is consistent with the rest of the table. It's ready to be transposed into the article. 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:341D:1C82:1EB4:4200 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi IP – would you mind getting an account? Edit requests generally aren't meant for so many changes—I count 35—and this is a controversial article where WP:BRD would work much better than this ponderous process. I will the implement the most obvious ones, and urge you to create an account to instate anything more complex. Ovinus (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Small corrections for clarity:

Completed requests
Democratic Republic of Congo: possession: illegal - the first source linked in description clearly states it Democratic Republic of Congo: change possession to "Illegal", the sources are already present. ✅

It's honestly tiring to correct all of these mistakes. It appears Barbados is of 2021 only considering a new cybercrime legislation. The current one is this and this. It specifically excludes unrealistic forms without involvement of real persons from criminal liability. CORRECTION: the criminalization of non digital forms exists, but is part of separate legislation, applying the same standard. Barbados: Change fictional to "Legal: not realistic, no real persons" possession to "Illegal, except fictional", add to description "Non-realistic representations without involvement from a real person are excluded in the law.", add sources ✅
 * I am not comfortable with adding a law that dates back to 1990, but if no newer revisions are available then its better than the information we had. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

In contrast, in Mauritius relatively new legislation, which apparently fully entered into force in 2022, addresses everything. This on the other hand fails to clarify whether pure fiction counts as a representation of a "person", making that legally unclear.2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:B419:253F:CA09:121 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Mauritius: Change fictional to "Legally Unclear", change description to: "The law bans any sexual representation of a person under 18. The law does not make it clear whether pure fiction counts as a representation of a person.", add source, remove old description and sources, as they are no longer current and no longer reachable.✅
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Woah. If it was tiring for you to correct all these mistakes, it is daunting reading the number of replies you are making. Asking other editors to read everything you have written (which is a bit of a beast), parse it, develop the prose, and insert it is a bit of a stretch. If you would like this performed via an edit request, you would need to do what you did with Portugal for all other countries you have mentioned and explicitly say to insert X or replace X with Y. If additional sourcing is needed to support a change you would also provide that.


 * Now, what I've requested isn't necessarily easy for you, either. Do note that this page is only semi-protected. If you were to create an account you would gain the ability to edit this page automatically after 4 days so long as you make 10 edits anywhere on Wikipedia. That would streamline your well meaning work considerably. Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried doing exactly that with the "replace X with Y", but will clarify further. There's also no reason to make an account. It's just some hyperfocusing on this topic due to errors and a lack of information in the fictional article. I am just correcting things as it is vital that there is correct information about that, due to widely different national attitudes towards it. However, this article is about more than just laws for fiction. And since the topic is unsavory, any longer than necessary association or focus on this topic would be unpleasant for most, including me.

In Thailand ALL pornography is strictly speaking illegal. Thailand: change fictional to "Illegal, Legally Unclear", change first sentence of description to "In Thailand all pornography is illegal.", keep existing source and add ✅

2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Costa Rica: everything correct, add source art173,art174 in spanish❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The law in Zimbabwe likely includes fiction, as any entertainment forms considered indecent are banned, without any reference to people or events that could be real or fictional. Zimbabwe: change description to "All pornography in all forms is illegal in Zimbabwe. The law has apparently been used to crack down on mere possession of adult pornography as well.", change fictional to "Illegal", add sources ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:E43A:CED6:2C3B:F880 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done with the latter ref, although it isn't an amazing source. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

'''Democratic Republic of Congo: add source ''' 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:F8E0:9956:E0B0:87D5 (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Fiji only has illegal in case of "persons appearing to be", this is already written in the detail column, and supported by the sources. Purely fictional depictions are not addressed, so fictional depictions without a person involved seem not to be criminalized. 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:1032:CF26:8F9B:C75E (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Fiji: Change fictional to "Likely Legal: no actual persons involved", possession to "Illegal, except fictional", Add to description: "The country summary source quotes the law requiring "direct or indirect involvement from persons [...]"" the sources are already present. ❌
 * Treated this as a challenge to the existing content and replaced it with "No data". Please provide secondary sources. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For Croatia the current description only mentions artwork, but that is an exception to most such laws, as artwork is mostly considered not pornography. The much more important element is within the already linked criminal code, that the images must be from a real person or realistic to be illegal. Croatia: Change fictional to "Legal: not realistic", possession to "Illegal, except unrealistic fiction", remove last sentence from description, add to description "Unrealistic depictions, or artwork is not criminalized.", the sources are already present✅ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:58DF:8A6E:2C71:365D (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For India the sources given do not mention fictional depictions as completely exempt. (Whether a fictional character would count as a person for that law is unclear.) However sweeping exceptions for "in the interest of art" exist. India: Change fictional to "Legal: art only", add to description "except fictional depictions the existence of which can be said to be in the interest of art or literature", sources are already present✅
 * Done. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Declined requests (new sources)
More corrections still: For the Marshall Islands none of the sources actually refer to any active legislation. Production is addressed, but possession and fictional representations are not, neither in the criminal code nor the most recent available Child Rights Protection Act. Possession might be included indirectly as the law makes provisions for victims of viewing such content, but there are no specific regulations to be found. Marshall Islands: production: "Illegal", fictional "Legal", possession "Legally Unclear", replace description with: "Production is illegal as child abuse/trafficking, viewing and possession seem only indirectly addressed.", add sources ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I waited here as you seem to have alot of corrections in mind. I have implemented two of them so far and will continue to look into your sources. Thanks so much for providing sources! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The "indirectly addressed" part needs a source. It's an interpretation. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Declined as original research. Please find secondary sources. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Condensed the Sri Lanka topic for clarity: Obscenity in all forms may be criminalized, but is not further defined. The current source does not assess the compliance with the Convention on Cybercrime correctly, as it values expressing reservations as non compliance, even though such reservations are explicitly allowed under the convention and utilized by several parties. This casts doubt on the reliability of the source for evaluations. Otherwise however the data it contains seems to be accurate. The relevant legislation is twofold: First, as someone else pointed out, all obscenity, even possession of, is technically illegal, but this is not well defined. Second, any indecent recording with a minor is explicitly illegal. This means that while obscenity is not well defined, any real recording that would be illegal elsewhere can be assumed to be indecent and thus illegal. Fictional would fall under the general obscenity ban, but obscenity is ill defined. change first column to "Illegal", change second column to "Illegal, Legally Unclear", change third column to "recordings: Illegal, fictional: Illegal, Legally Unclear" Change description to: "Anything related to indecent recordings of minors is criminalized. However, publication and possession of anything in general could be deemed illegal under the Obscene Publications Ordinance, if it is deemed obscene. This however, is not defined.", add sources  ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:1587:E041:2392:3A52 (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is original research as an exegesis of a law from 1927. Please find an in-depth secondary source which analyzes the status of (child) pornography in Sri Lanka. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For Bhutan no information exists on whether a fictional character would count as a person for the law, but the wording makes it likely that it is. Possession or 'collecting, seeking, or browsing' has since been criminalized, making this source once again imprecise. Bhutan: Change fictional to "Illegal, Legally Unclear" possession to "Illegal", change description to "Any sexualized representation of a child is criminalized in Bhutan. The law does not explicitly mention fictional characters, but seems to ban those too, as even text can qualify.", replace sources:  ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:1C8C:4B6C:B3D3:57D6 (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "the wording makes it likely that it is" – This is improper original research. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In Chile fictional is not criminalized, as the law specifically refers only to representations for the production of which minors or their images have been used. Penal code article 366 4 and 5 It is clear that the "representations" in article 366 refers to representations of actual minors per the legal definition, since "other representations in which their voices or likeness have been used" is a separate case under that article, which would not be necessary if the prior cases covered unreal depictions in general. Chile: change fictional to "Legal", add to description "Only representations utilizing minors or their likeness are banned.", add sources art 366 page 16, sources in spanish source possibly outdated❌
 * Improper original research. Please provide a secondary source and/or case law. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In the Czech Republic, the criminal code section 192 deals with this. Fictional appears to be legal as there is a distinction between child and person appearing to be a child. If "child" was to be understood to include anything "looking like" children, like fiction, then that would seem to already include persons who appear to be children as well. With no references to anything fictional, fictional appears to be legal. It depends on interpretation a bit, so "Legally Unclear" can be kept, but the law cited definitely appears to not criminalize fictional depictions. Czech Republic: add to description "The law makes a distinction between displaying of children and persons appearing to be children. This means that "children" might not include things just appearing to be children, like fictional depictions. However, this is not further defined.", add source ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Improper original research. Please provide analysis through secondary sources and/or case law. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Latvia lacks a proper definition within the criminal code. Latvia: add to description: "A definition is not provided within the criminal code.", add source ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In Uganda the active law only covers "realistic images". This is evident from the already existing source. Primary source is now linked too. A previous bill banning all forms of pornography was declared void for unconstitutionality by the constitutional court. Uganda: change fictional to "Legal, not realistic", possession to "Real: Illegal, Fictional: Legal", add to description: "Fictional forms that are not realistic are exempt under the law. A previous law banning all pornography was declared unconstitutional in 2021.", add references ❌
 * I see no mention of child pornography in the LoC source, nor the second source. Please clarify. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Vietnam isn't really legally unclear when one examines the text of Ordinance on Prostitution Prevention and Combat. Why the current source comes to the conclusion that it is unclear is difficult to understand. Maybe it is because it is a blanket ban on anything sexually stimulating, not specific things with narrow definitions. Vietnam: Change all columns to "Illegal", add to description "Producing or storing any sort of pornography or sexually stimulating content is punishable by law in Vietnam according to Article 26 of the Prostitution Ordinance.", add source ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:D025:7C45:17A4:1393 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please counter a secondary source with a secondary source, rather than a primary one + your analysis. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In Bosnia articles 189 and 211 in the Federal BiH criminal code only criminalize recordings of real events. The articles 186 and 208 of the Brčko District criminal code also only criminalize recordings of real events. The Srpska Republic criminal code criminalizes in article 175 (6) only depictions of realistically presented non-existing children or their faces. The description confused the wording of the source. Bosnia and Herzegovina: change fictional to "BiH, BD: Legal, RS: Legal, not realistic", change second description sentence to: "In RS these laws also apply to any realistically presented fictional depictions, regardless of their origin.", add sources  ❌
 * Please provide secondary sources. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Moldova: change fictional to "Illegal, Legally Unclear", add to description "Fictional images are likely criminalized under the "any representation of a child" phrasing of the law, although it is not explicitly clarified if purely fictional characters would count as "children" or not.", add source ❌
 * As above. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

New criminal code criminalizes possession, and provides a better definition of pornography '''Laos: change fictional to "Likely Legal", Change possession to "Real: Illegal, Fictional: Likely legal", add to description: "The new criminal law punishes possession, but clarifies pornography to be sexual actions/displays between humans, thus likely excluding purely fictional characters.", add source: article 3 / 10, article 169, article 257, ❌

2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:3D35:92CF:F933:655D (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In Ecuador the spanish name of article 103 of the criminal code contains the phrase "con utilización de niñas, niños o adolescentes" which indicates that only materials actually utilizing real minors in some form would be banned. The text of the article does not address this however, and talks about representations in general. It is also possible that fictional characters would be counted as having been "utilized" for the production of any fictional material. Case files could not be found. As a precaution Illegal should stay as well. Ecuador: change fictional to "Legally Unclear, Possibly Illegal", add to description "Article 103 and following of the penal code concern material utilizing minors. It is unclear if this would include fictional characters.", add source  ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Mexico should be legally unclear for fictional, as the law only refers to simulated or real actions, involving minors or people with a diminished capacity for decision-making. Most seem to understand this as referring to real minors needing to be involved for it to be illegal. There is a source claiming that cartoons are illegal, but it refers to a different source, which is not available for crosschecking. This leaves the claim of illegality of fictional matter not substantiated through any direct analysis, and thus not verifiable. Mexico: change fictional to "Legally Unclear", add to description: "The law refers to actions both real and simulated being banned, and some sources mention fictional cartoons being criminalized. However, the spanish wording makes it clear that "real and simulated" refers only to actions not to persons. The popular consensus is therefore that anything without an actual person involved would remain legal. The law does not clarify either way.", add sources   {{Not done} 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:F86B:9E30:29D6:655C (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Quora is not a reliable source, and neither are the other Q&A sites you've given here. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Article 263 of the Armenian criminal code bans possession as well. Fictional matter is not explicitly mentioned and the only definition of banned material comes from article 166 which would require an actual child to be engaged in the manufacture of the material. Armenia: change possession to "Illegal", change fictional to "Legally Unclear", add to description, "The only definition in the criminal code is in Article 166 which talks only about the participation of an actual child. It is likely, but not confirmed that this would make fictional material allowed.", add source  ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:65AF:FF21:A559:E975 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As above; secondary sources needed. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a source available for the Solomon Islands. It describes even fictional forms as illegal, as any type of "depiction or description" is included. However, all of the laws apply only if the material is found to be offensive. (lacking journalistic, literary, scientific, educational, artistic, etc merit) Solomon Islands: change fictional to "Illegal, offensive", change possession to "Illegal, offensive", replace description with "Any matter depicting, describing, or advocating for sexual things or cruelty happening to persons under 18 or depicted as under 18 is illegal if it is offensive. Determinants of offensiveness include journalistic, literary, scientific, educational, artistic, and similar merit.", add source  ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:24F8:EB79:1E6C:637 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Although material may be child exploitation material if it depicts a person as a child, even though the person is not in fact a child is fairly clear, this is still too intricate to not use a secondary source. Sorry. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Madagascar: change fictional to "Legal, not realistic", possession to "Legal, not realistic", add sources,  ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:48E3:4E72:DD13:B889 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Nicaraguan penal code talks about using the image or voice of minors, which would leave entirely fictional things unaffected, in contradiction to the current source. Nicaragua: change fictional to "Legally Unclear", add sources, add to description "However, only media using the image or voice of a minor seem to be banned by Art. 175 of the criminal code." ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:F8E0:9956:E0B0:87D5 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. Ovinus (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

'''Angola: change fictional to "Legally unclear", add to description "Written material involving minors is illegal, but the penal code only mentions visual material of minors or persons appearing to be minors, which might mean a restriction of the ban to real events excluding fictional characters. However, this is not elaborated on." Add source ''' ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:F8E0:9956:E0B0:87D5 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As above.

Declined requests (no new sources)
All the corrections below are sourced. It's just that the sources are already linked within the description. They were either originally misread, not fully read, or have changed since.2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:F8B1:5526:3DA5:CBFE (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Portugal: put "not realistic" in fictional and possession columns - This restriction to "realistic" is already included in the detailed description and is confirmed in the sources but seems to have been overlooked for the table.

2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:AC08:B131:2CD5:9043 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I adjusted Democratic Republic of Congo, but Portugal needs some additional input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What else is needed for Portugal? It's in the source, and it is included in the description already that only not realistic is allowed. This is the same as everywhere else with that caveat. ONLY realistic is illegal.
 * Confusion comes only from the fact that the source considers some things to be realistic, which might also be legal under portuguese law (adult actors).
 * The most exceedingly precise description for fictional would thus be: "not realistic: legal, adult actors: Legally Unclear" 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Portugal: Change fictional to "not realistic: legal, adult actors: Legally Unclear", possession "Illegal, except fictional", the sources are already present. ❌
 * The given ECPAT link seems to redirect to some company site, making it unable for me to confirm the veracity here. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For Palau the source given contradicts the summary and the chart. The penal code explicitly states that it is ONLY illegal if it was made with the involvement of real minors or depicts an identifiable (which usually means real) minor. So it is fictional: legal, no real events or identifiable minors. 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Palau: Change fictional to "Legal, no real events or identifiable minors", possession to "Illegal, except fictional", add to description "Fictional representations seem to remain legal as long as no real minor was involved and no identifiable minor is depicted.", the sources are already present. ❌
 * I don't see the reference you are referring to in the penal code. Would you mind citing the exact passage? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The definition applying to fiction is at §1800 1) B) 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:19F2:B11:9826:8E4B (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Too complicated; declined. More confusingly, the US Department of State says "[Palau] law does not specifically address child pornography." Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In the Bahamas something a lot more complex is going on with fictional in 16A 3) b) of the given criminal code source. The expression is "material which advocates for", but taken at face value that would mean merely stating the correct fact that under Bahaman law people under 18, but over 16 can consent could be illegal. Any suggestions for better phrasing are welcome. Bahamas: Change fictional to "Illegal; Legally Unclear", add to description "Any material, even fictional, including text, advocating for sexual activity under 18 is illegal, despite the national age of consent being 16. This is not further explained.", the sources are already present❌
 * Secondary source please. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In the Philippines legislation the only thing mentioned is depictions of "persons" even in the fictional case. This is enough for the given source to say that fictional forms are criminalized, as it complies with all definitions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. It does however not clearly ban fictional characters. Philippines: Change fictional to "Illegal, Legally Unclear", add to description "It is unclear whether fictional characters would qualify as "persons" and thus be banned.", source is already present❌
 * Please find a secondary source. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Turkey has no ban on fictional things, the criminal code only prohibits all conduct related to obscene material for the production of which children have been used. This is evident from the criminal code already linked. Turkey: change fictional to "Legal, no real children involved", change possession to "real: Illegal, fictional: Legal", add to description: "Textual and drawn representations of real events are illegal as well. Only material which was made completely without children is allowed by the criminal code."❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:1587:E041:2392:3A52 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

St. Kitts and Nevis: correct fictional to "Legal, not realistic", source and description already confirm that only realistic representations are illegal, and those are definitely illegal in all forms. ❌
 * Not comfortable doing this until there's a secondary source. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Botswana: change fictional to "Legal, no actual actors, not realistic", add to description "Article 16 of the relevant law criminalizes only conduct related to actual people being or looking underage, or realistic depictions." ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:3D35:92CF:F933:655D (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The source for Azerbaijan freedom of expression has in article 2.6 "Obscenity" clear description of what is illegal: actual person involvement, or realistic portrayals. Azerbaijan: change fictional to "Legal, not realistic, no distribution", add to description "Fictional representations that involve no real people and are not realistic are not banned by this law. Intended distribution may nonetheless fall under the general ban on pornography distribution." ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:65AF:FF21:A559:E975 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The rm.coe.int source quotes from the law: "any items or materials that reflect the participation of a minor or of a person impersonating a minor in real or simulated acts ... including realistic images that reflect a minor engaged in explicit sexual actions" (emph. mine). That does not preclude other things being subject to punishment. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

San Marino should probably be changed to possession: "Legally Unclear", because within the lanzarotte reply source they expressed that there was already a draft law after the adoption of the european convention on cybercrime in 2017 that would include the criminalization of possession. It is currently not found on the legal archives of the Camera Penal of San Marino, but it is unclear if it has not been accepted yet, or due to the small size of the country it just hasn't been uploaded yet. ❌
 * Secondary source please. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

North Macedonia: change fictional to "Legal, "not realistic"", it is clear that fictional "not realistic" content is legal, just what is "not realistic" is not closer defined, ❌ 2001:4C4C:1EE6:5000:F5F1:478A:EFE6:4642 (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As above. It may be clear to you, but not to me. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Postmortem
Please create an account; this article is protected for obvious reasons, and the small hassle of your registering and making 10 token edits to other topics is far less than the 40 minutes I spent going through these requests. Second, I urge you to rely almost entirely on secondary sources, rather than your own exegeses of various (sometimes foreign language!) laws. I recognize that a lot of information in the article is already solely sourced to primary sources, but these are mostly violations of our policy on original research, and should be supplemented with secondary sources wherever possible. Here's my analysis: The international community is, naturally, going to be far more concerned on country laws on the production/dissemination of real child sexual exploitation material, rather than the fictional material which many of your requests concern. The question of "is simulated child pornography acceptable?" is fairly academic compared to the much more immediate problem of child abuse, probably even to legislators in less-developed countries. So, while I admit there may be a paucity of sources, that is not an excuse to try to interpret the law ourselves.

I hope to see you returning as an account. Cheers! Ovinus (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Legality of fictional content in the Netherlands
The English source https://www.government.nl/topics/crime-and-crime-prevention/sentencing is outdated or incomplete as can be seen on the official Dutch site: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/seksuele-misdrijven/kinderporno/kinderporno-is-strafbaar, specifically the paragraph under "Virtuele kinderporno," which states: "Aside from child porn consisting of imagery of real children, virtual content is also punishable. This virtual child porn consists of, for example, animations. Virtual child porn is punishable because this type of content suggests sexual abuse of children."

The table should probably be updated to illegal in all cases. Although the law (Article 240b as mentioned in the page) might seen to imply that fictional content is in the clear due to legalese, I think the fact that the official government website dedicated a paragraph specifically to fictional content clears that up sufficiently. Cantthinkofaname2022 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, although I would be more comfortable with an updated secondary source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It has by now been reverted based on another editor's assumption that it's only a proposed law.
 * There is indeed a proposed law listed at the bottom of the page on https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/seksuele-misdrijven/kinderporno/kinderporno-is-strafbaar, but it is about criminalizing preparations to child abuse- it's currently not (always) illegal to take actions that could reasonably be assumed to lead to child abuse. The article provides an example in distributing a "manual containing tips and tricks on abusing children". Cantthinkofaname2022 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * i have a question, when was that law made?(https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/seksuele-misdrijven/kinderporno/kinderporno-is-strafbaar) i went to here but i couldn't find when it was made. Brians198 (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot find when the current laws were made, but I fail to see how that would be important for a Wikipedia page on the current legality of (fictional) child pornography. In the past all child pornography was legal due to a legal loophole, but that's obviously not mentioned on this page either.
 * The (not relevant) draft law about criminalizing preparations was made somewhere in 2020 as it was published for public review on 23-07-2020.
 * If you're still uncertain of whether or not fictional content is legal in the Netherlands, here's what the police website (https://www.politie.nl/informatie/wat-valt-onder-kinderporno.html) has to say about it: "We speak of child pornography when it's about an image or video of a minor (under the age of 18) who performs sexual acts. [...] It's not just about sexual photos or videos of children, virtual content is also punishable. Think about, for example, drawings or compiled photos." Cantthinkofaname2022 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I mean is when was made “Virtuele kinderporno
 * Naast kinderporno bestaande uit beeldmateriaal van echte kinderen, is ook virtueel materiaal strafbaar. Deze virtuele kinderpornografie bestaat bijvoorbeeld uit animaties. Virtuele kinderporno is strafbaar omdat dit soort materiaal seksueel misbruik van kinderen suggereert.” <= this law. Brians198 (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not quoting a law. You're quoting the interpretation (by the government and the police) of the law (artikel 240b). According to Wikipedia this law is in effect since July 2018 (it's sourced as an archive https://web.archive.org/web/20180831211709/http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2018-07-01#BoekTweede_TiteldeelXIV_Artikel240b), but I am not a lawyer nor an expert on legislation so I cannot tell you when this law was effectively "made."
 * What is clear however is both the police and the government's official stance on the law. Why do you insist on assuming it's only a draft law when both of those institutions clearly say it's not, and proceed to revert the change based on those assumptions? Cantthinkofaname2022 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is just interpretation by the government and the police, isn't it good should be 'legally unclear' than 'illegal in all cases'? Because it's not published law and just police's supposition. In UK, for example, where all cases are illegal, the law clearly states that virtual pornography is illegal. But maybe Netherlands is not like that. Brians198 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "It's not published law," and "isn't it only a proposed law?" without sourcing any of these claims. The current law (Artikel 240b) has been in effect for years.
 * Saying it isn't illegal "because it's just the government and police interpretation" is insane, who else is going to be the most reliable source?
 * The change you reverted now states there is a legal gray area. What is the source on that statement? A government interpretation from 2011. Cantthinkofaname2022 (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not fxcking talking about 'Artikel 240b'. you know? 'Artikel 240b' is clearly published law, that's i know. But 'fictinoal porno' is not announced by law. There is no law like 'fictional porno can be punish'. do you understand? Brians198 (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The simple question is: has the law been changed since the 2013 declaration by the dutch supreme court? https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY9719 Because, to clarify BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT. Even a drawing can be illegal according to 240b if it was made with the involvement of someone underage. However, as the Supreme Court declared, drawings without that are not illegal. 2001:4C4C:1ED1:9B00:A174:D435:88A7:5E7B (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Is fictional porno really legal in sweden??
Simon Lundstrom was found not guilty, but because he was translator.(https://www.thelocal.se/20120702/41786/) Even some images were still considered child porn. We therefore need to talk again whether Sweden is a legal country. Brians198 (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have updated the description to include "legally unclear" based on the information you provided. Thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023
In the status of Turkey, change fictional's status to "Illegal" and replace the short summary with this text:

Child pornography and possession is illegal in Turkey with two to five years of imprisonment and 5000 days of fine for violations. Fictional child pornography has been banned since 2016, when KVKK went in effect.

The punishment for possession was corrected. See article 226. Fictional child pornography has been banned since 2016, as can be seen in 81st footnote of the penal code. Add a direct reference to penal code, which is in Turkish. 88.246.198.37 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 01:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Belize law updated 2022 - no longer legal
Belize law was updated in perhaps 2022. https://www.agm.gov.bz/uploads/laws/63976d192f5f1_Cap_108.2_Commercial_Sexual_Exploitation_of_Children__Prohibition__Act.pdf

(search agm.gov.bz for "pornography")

CAP.108:02- 7(3), "A person who imports, exports, distributes, finances, offers, trades, sells or possesses whether for personal use or for distribution or sale via printed media or electronic media including video, compact disks, digital video disks, phone messaging, computer image, internet, virtual media or by any other means any form of child pornography commits an offence"

Possession of child pornography is illegal in Belize. This page incorrectly marks it Legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torraff (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Illegal porn is not legal child porn
Various countries report Child Pornography as legal, however in some of these countries pornography of any kind is illegal.

Such examples, according to Wikipedia's "Pornography_laws_by_regien" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_laws_by_region) include: - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Central African Republic - Equatorial Guinea - Gambia - Guinea-Bissau - Libya - Somalia

- Jordan - Laos - Mongolia - Myanmar - Turkmenistan - Uzbekistan - Vietnam - Yemen

- Belarus - Ukraine

- Cuba

- Guyana

See also: Indonesia, on this page. "All forms of pornography in Indonesia are prohibited" "The law makes no clear definition of child pornography" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torraff (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023
I'm sorry, still new and working this out. Submitting an edit request instead of a Talk.

--- Belize law was updated in perhaps 2022. Simple possession of child pornography is now illegal. https://www.agm.gov.bz/uploads/laws/63976d192f5f1_Cap_108.2_Commercial_Sexual_Exploitation_of_Children__Prohibition__Act.pdf

(search agm.gov.bz for "pornography")

CAP.108:02- 7(3), "A person who imports, exports, distributes, finances, offers, trades, sells or possesses whether for personal use or for distribution or sale via printed media or electronic media including video, compact disks, digital video disks, phone messaging, computer image, internet, virtual media or by any other means any form of child pornography commits an offence"

Possession of child pornography is illegal in Belize. This page incorrectly marks it Legal Torraff (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)