The Digital Divide in Child Pornography

With the combination of digital animation software and internet distribution, concern for the spread of child pornography is reaching new heights. If the image of a child is digitally animated and used in a virtual sexual manner does it still constitute as offensive or harmful material? Erotic film and video has reached a level of acceptable mainstream adult entertainment and the current rating system and restrictions on distribution attempt to keep the explicit material out of the hands of minors. This does not change the offensive content of child pornography and will not if sexual innocence is to be protected with the existence of legal virtual child pornography.

Consenting adults making sexually explicit material for mature adults is protected under first amendment rights, but even considering a form of child pornography as acceptable is offensive in itself. If depicting children in sexual conduct in film or video is illegal if the child is real, then depicting an animated or virtual image of a child should lawfully coincide. It is the idea and not the form that is offensive. The logic of the argument seems clear, but may need some clarification as to why the form of the material has no distinction in the case.

The Digital Divide

In considering form, how is it that a separation between the form of real footage or animated virtual footage should qualify as a distinction in offensive, potential harmful sexual material of children? It is understood that drawing or animating images of children engaged in sexual activity is not directly harmful, as no one is being harmed in the process of its creation. It is in the indirect, what can be considered "secondary harm", that the material is offensive and potentially harmful, (Bonevac, 209).

The secondary harm is the notion that sexually explicit material exploiting children can lead to harmful situations secondary to the act itself. Whether it is an adult who could potentially imitate the material and harm a child or it is child who views the material and imitates the act. This applies to animated, digital or virtual images of children in that even though it is not an act; the image implies the act and idea of children engaged in sex. Both cases are potentially harmful because it involves sexual conduct where a child who is not sexually mature is affected and used. A digital or virtual image does not exclude the fact that the image of a child is being exploited and if a distinction must be made, then such material should only be used under a Scientific, Literary, Artistic or Political orientation.

Child Porn is still Child Porn

Even in the case of the S.L.A.P. ordinance, it is a fine line easily crossed if the filmmaker or artist's intentions are not clearly defined in the material. As is the case if a film is made exploiting children in violently sexually acts, and thus banned, it should be no different if the same script was used to animate or digitized a virtual image depicting the same images or ideas. If the allowance of material that eroticizes children is sustained then consider the speculative situation:

A man, who is a prior sex offender, lives on his own under the restrictions set forth for his past offenses. Should he partake in the actual making of a pornographic film or video depicting real children, if caught, he would be immediately prosecuted. Alternatively if he is caught having drawn animated or virtual images of children in pornographic acts it can be argued that he has caused no direct harm. The problem lies within the fact that in being a past offender, being allowed to create such images or view such images further desensitizes his already sexually corrupt mind. Regardless of what therapy he may have received, having legal access to such material only reverses that therapy by exposure to the material.

Desensitization

The danger of desensitization lies not only in sex offenders, but in children as well. What can we expect from children who, if a decision is upheld to allow virtual images of children engaged in sexual conduct, can gain access to such material? As children are exposed to sexual material at an early age, the sooner they may become sexually curious, contributing to the rising concerns of teenage pregnancy. Again this is a secondary harm, but should not be considered any less, especially when the welfare of children is concerned.

Unfortunately the material will exist, regardless of laws that can be made against it, due to the black-market environment that can thrive on the Internet. That is just another reason why every effort should be made to discourage the creation of virtual child pornography by creating laws against it. Efforts are being made to put blockers on Internet access for children, much like the V-chip being implemented by the Federal Communications Commission. The chip, installed directly in television sets, blocks adult programming from children. Such technology will eventually be adapted to computers for the Internet, but this is not reason to put off legislation that will circumvent as much possible offensive material from inception.

Supreme Court Rulings

In April 2002 the Supreme Court made a 6-3 ruling that the law restricting computer-generated images of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct violated First Amendment rights, (www.cnn.com). This decision was considered a major set back in stopping child pornography and does not fully consider the potential harm such an allowance can cause. Then Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and O'Connor opposed the ruling, but First Amendment Rights still dominate the majority. This is generally necessary to protect our rights, but technology is rapidly raising concerns that need to be addressed.

While risking to talk about the "cures" of societal ills, with Child Porn it seems simply a case of prevention vs. cure, and action taken now can prevent harmful social ills that could be costly to cure in the future.

Citied Material:

"The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography"

Bonevac, Daniel - Editor, Today's Moral Issues

(McGraw Hill Publishers, 2002) (Page 209)

Supreme Court Rulings Information:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/index.html