Talk:Simulated child pornography

Title broadness
(Removed as outdated) Reeeka Hidaka (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Arguments against section
For one, the elephant in the room, it depicts a child. You can say that "fictional characters do not have age", but then why do they have the same proportions and (usually) same mentality as a child? Reeeka Hidaka (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Arguments for child pornography
I deleted this section because it only had one sourced argument, which linked to articles that had nothing to do with child pornography. The articles were about pornography and sexual violence in general. Oct13 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

list of countries where it's banned
(Roger that Baruch ben Alexander)

Reeeka Hidaka (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mozambique (Illegal although unenforced)
 * Albania
 * Algeria
 * Andorra
 * Armenia
 * Australia (All states and territories)
 * Azerbaijan
 * Bangladesh
 * Belarus
 * Belize
 * Botswana
 * Burkina Faso
 * Burundi
 * Canada
 * Peoples republic of China
 * Egypt
 * Republic of Congo
 * Ivory Coast
 * Comoros
 * Croatia
 * Czech Republic
 * Djibouti
 * Ecuador
 * Eritrea
 * Gabon
 * Gambia
 * Georgia
 * Greece
 * Guinea
 * Hong Kong
 * Hungary
 * Iceland
 * India
 * Iran
 * Israel (Excluding Palestinian Territories)
 * Italy
 * Jamaica
 * Kazakhstan
 * Kenya
 * Kosovo
 * Kuwait
 * Lesotho
 * Liberia
 * Libya
 * Macau
 * Madagascar
 * Malaysia
 * Maldives
 * Mali
 * Mauritania
 * Mauritius
 * Monaco
 * Morocco
 * Nagorno-Karabakh
 * Namibia
 * Netherlands (All Territories)
 * New Zealand (All Territories)
 * Niger
 * North Korea
 * Northen Cyprus
 * Norway (All Territories)
 * Oman
 * Pakistan
 * Palestine
 * Papua New Guinea
 * Philippines
 * Poland
 * Portugal
 * Romania
 * Russia (Including Crimea)
 * Rwanda
 * Saudi Arabia
 * Senegal
 * Sierra Leone
 * Singapore
 * Slovakia
 * Somalia
 * South Africa
 * South Korea
 * Spain
 * Sri Lanka
 * Sudan
 * Syria
 * Taiwan
 * Thailand
 * Togo
 * Transnistria
 * Turkey
 * Uganda
 * Ukraine
 * United Kingdom (All Territories)
 * Vietnam
 * Yemen
 * Zambia

misinformation about German laws
The punishment for posession in Germany is milder than distribution. Minimum punishment is a fee, and maximum 2 years prison. There is no 5 year punishment for posession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.110.232.89 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the current debate concerning these laws, several news stations have reported that possession of child pornography may be punished by up to two years imprisonment and dissemination by up to one year (e.g. Deutsche Welle here and Business Insider here).
 * However, the text of §184b StGB “Distribution, Acquisition, and Possession of Child-Pornographic Writings” does state, “Whoever disseminates, produces, stocks child-pornographic writings shall be punished by three months up to five years in prison” (“Wer […] kinderpornographische Schriften […] verbreitet, […] herstellt, […] vorrätig hält, […] wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft”). Note that the StGB defines “writings” (“Schriften”) to equal video and audio recordings as well as pictures and other presentations (“Den Schriften stehen Ton- und Bildträger, Datenspeicher, Abbildungen und andere Darstellungen […] gleich”, §11(3) StGB).
 * Clause 3 of the same §184b even allows for a six months up to ten years imprisonment in case of a criminal organisation (although I doubt this is relevant for this article). --78.51.31.101 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim that “possession of virtual images is punishable by up to five years in prison” in Germany is wrong. According to, the Bundesregierung wants according laws to be not applied to virtual images:--92.226.147.54 (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
The portion on United States only references the PROTECT Act of 2003, and does not even address the issue raised in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. In that case, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that virtual child pornography is constitutionally protected speech. Biccat (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears you are correct. Supposedly the PROTECT ACT cured the issue presented by removing "appears to be" from the statute, but given the courts reasoning in dicta, its doubtful that certain sections ofthe PROTECT act are themselves constitutional from first reading of it, if we are to apply stare decisis evenly to the subject matter. 2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:11F9:62D3:9710:CD3C (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Legal status in Germany
Besides my remarks on “misinformation” I wonder whether the article should mention that most of §184b StGB is worded to only apply if the writings in question “depict actual or close-to-reality events” (“die ein tatsächliches oder wirklichkeitsnahes Geschehen wiedergeben”, §184b StGB). There has been a considerable amount of confusion as to how “close-to-reality” (“wirklichkeitsnah”) is meant to be understood. Bundestag member Siegfried Kauder once told a questioner on abgeordnetenwatch.de regarding that very question that it means “the depiction of events which present themselves to an average beholder as appearing to be real” (“die Darstellung eines Geschehens, das sich dem durchschnittlichen Betrachter dem äußeren Erscheinungsbild nach als ein tatsächliches darstellt”, 2.09.2008). (And I seem to remember he – or another Bundestag member – even bluntly told a questioner who had specifically asked about lolicon manga that drawn pictures would neither be considered “actual” nor “close-to-reality” even under that law; however, I have not been able so far to recover a source for this claim.)

That would imply the following: As drawn or computer-generated images can usually easily be distinguished from recordings of actual events, simulated child pornography would not come under §184b StGB and thus not be punished in Germany. Yet as far as I know no German court has had to deal with issues involving that lack of clarity, so there is probably no juristically utilizable evidence for this claim. --78.51.31.101 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"non-minor teenagers made to look younger"
A 18 year old girl can look 16, 15 or even 14, but it's still impossible for a 18 year old to look like a child, I mean prepubescent. Even a real 14-15 year old girl doesn't look like a child, so there's no way you can fake child porn by using 18-19 year old women. 89.138.2.247 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * At law and within context, tge words child and minor are used interchangeably to mean a natural person whom is a minor according to the law of the applicable jurisdiction. 2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:11F9:62D3:9710:CD3C (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Studies on the affect on Simulated child porn
Hey! I had some thoughts about this subjects and I wanted to know if anybody could answer them and maybe add those findings to the article.


 * 1) I want to know if there has been any studies about the effectiveness of Simulated child porn, doll etc. It seems to be a understudied subjected, but if anybody finds any studies they feel would be useful, please link. According to the lolicon article, there's no real evidence that people consuming lolicon content are prone to commit crimes against real children. As far I've seen, there hasn't been any stastics linked or real studies in the lolicon article, so it seems there hasn't been many studies about whether this is true or not, just reports from certain experts.
 * 2) I think we should also find out how people are determining that simulated child porn can prevent people from abusing a child, how do we know that their will alone (not wanting to a abuse a child even while being attracted to them) isn't enough and that the Simulated porn isn't needed?
 * 3) Finally, I want to know if people have discussed how these tools would be used. One could argue that stuff like Lolicon is too mainstream, and should be relegated to people who suffer from attraction to children. Personal opinion: I don't think sexualization of child bodies should be normalised, but I'm fine with it if it turned out to be an effective and (most importantly) regulated treament to adults attracted to children.

Sorry if this post is long winded, I had a lot of thoughts about this, and I can't seem to find any good (short) answers online. If you can't find any answer since there isn't enough research, that's fine. If you find any opinion pieces, that could be useful too. Pago95 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The scientific studies on point must be treated with extreme caution because the study group is usually drawn from a pathological population such as a prison population or a mental health population as to cause a control concern in terms of the effects of multiaxis diagnoses. Therefore, the research is constructively meaningless at this point in time, despite its "sincere" intentions not to be. 2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:11F9:62D3:9710:CD3C (talk) 2600:8804:6F0F:6D00:11F9:62D3:9710:CD3C (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Confliction in "Virtual child pornography" section
There is inconsistency in the current text. The passage suggests that the US law prohibits virtual child porn:

"Even handmade drawings of imagined scenarios that appear to comprise "a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" are illegal in the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A. Where an interstate nexus (e.g., via use of a computer or transmission via the internet) can be demonstrated, a person in possession of comic-book-type pictures suggesting persons under the age of 18 in sexual situations faces the same penalties as for actual child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (i.e., as much as 10 to 20 years' imprisonment)."

Which contradicts the passage below:

"The allowance of virtual child pornography in the U.S. has had international consequences. For example, French virtual child pornography producers have moved their files to servers in the United States because of its wider free speech protection" (Eko)."

I am not familiar with the matter and hope someone who knows can resolve the inconsistency. Sohardtohavename (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That's what I get for being rather absentee on Wikipedia recently and not watching things closely enough. This page (and related pages) still needs a lot of work, but I removed a section that was added that had some rather misleading language (for one, the omission of the fact that this falls under obscenity law, which is governed by certain rules), and I added some language from the PROTECT Act article to clarify some things. Sandtalon (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Consistency
I've noticed that a couple pages refer to Simulated Child Pornography, while others refer to Fictional Child Pornography, I don't think there's a major difference? Should there be renaming or a merge or something of the sort? MagiTagi (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)