Does Virtual Child Porn Equal Child Exploitation?
by Larry Magid
April 16, 2002
I feel conflicted by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the congressional ban on child pornography. As a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I'm against censorship and strongly in favor of free speech rights on the Internet, even when that speech is detestable. But, as a board member of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I'm highly sensitive to the role that child pornography can play in the exploitation of children -- even children who aren't used to produce that material.
The long-standing ban against child pornography was put into law because, until the advent of high-quality computer graphics, the mere creation of the material involved the direct exploitation of children. Photographers and filmmakers simply couldn't create child porn without photographing or filming a child, which by definition is a form of exploitation. It doesn't matter whether that child is identifiable or whether he or she lives in the United States or abroad. But virtual porn doesn't necessarily harm or even involve children.
It is now possible to create sexually explicit images of "children" without actually photographing or filming a child. One could create the image from scratch, "morph" or combine an image of a child in a non-sexual situation with an adult in a sexual situation, or modify the picture of an adult so he or she looks like a child. The end result could be an image that looks exactly like the photograph of a child in a sexual situation. If that image were real, it would be a felony. But if it's virtual, it's free speech.
Cause and Effect
My friends at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children offer compelling
evidence that, either way, it harms children. Child pornography isn't just an end in itself but it's also a means to an end -- in some cases the end of a child’s life. Stories about the arrests of child predators report the confiscation of child pornography. Pedophiles use child porn not only for sexual stimulation but also as a way to justify their sexual preference for children. If they expose themselves to pictures of children in sexual situations -- especially if those images also involve adults -- it tends to create the impression that such activity is somehow "normal" and maybe even acceptable. NCMEC has posted an analysis of the issue on its web site at www.missingkids.com/html/legalmemorandum.html.
Child pornography can also be used to help lure a child into a sexual act. It is sometimes used by pedophiles to break down the resistance of children to the sexual advances of an adult. Pedophiles have been known to send or show images of children and teens engaged in sex to potential victims as a means of convincing the young person that such activity is not out of the ordinary.
Finally, there is the issue of enforceability of laws against real child porn. Flooding the Internet with images of virtual child porn could make it more difficult for police and prosecutors to find and prosecute real child porn. It could even lead to a stricter interpretation of rules of evidence, requiring prosecutors to unambiguously identify the child to prove that the image is real and not virtual. Police departments, prosecutors and perhaps even courts are going to have to arm themselves with electronic tools to determine whether images are real or virtual.
Slippery Slope
Proponents of both sides of this controversy can point to the "slippery slope" argument to justify their position. A journalist friend of mine argues that the government is using a child porn ban to get the public to accept the idea of censorship of the Internet. This year it's child pornography, next year it's adult pornography, the following year it's political speech.
The other side could argue that allowing virtual porn will open the floodgates to real porn by creating the impression that images of children engaged in sex is somehow acceptable. What's to stop production companies from churning out child porn films for our local video stores? And how are we to really know whether all that child porn is really virtual or really real?
Personally, I hesitatingly think the Supreme Court made the right decision, but I also think that our democracy, and the First Amendment, would have survived if the court had ruled the other way. Banning virtual child porn that is indistinguishable from the real thing would not necessarily lead to the suppression of other forms of creative expression. Yet lifting the ban won't necessarily open the floodgates to widespread exploitation of children.
Tougher for Cops
The vast majority of us will continue to find adult sexual gratification from children engaged in sex acts to be reprehensible, regardless of whether it's illegal. And just about everyone continues to agree that any direct exploitation of children must remain against the law.
What this decision does do is to require police and prosecutors to be more rigorous. It means that law enforcement needs to become more sophisticated, employing devices and software that can analyze images to better understand how they were created and where they came from. It means that everyone -- in and out of law enforcement -- must be even more vigilant in working to protect children not just from sexual crimes but from other forms of abuse, exploitation and neglect.
If you come across evidence of child porn or the online enticement of children -- even if you're not certain whether a crime has been committed – you should report that activity to the CyberTipline by pointing your browser to www.cybertipline.com or calling 1-800-843-5678.
© Larry Magid. Distributed by Los Angeles Times Syndicate International, a division of Tribune Media Services
Links:
Supreme Court Ruling
American Civil Liberties Union
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
