Read on Twitter
“sexualising fictional minors is different/separate from sexualising actual minors!” no, it isn’t, and here’s a thread on how you can be charged under major law systems for the production, sale, dissemination and/or possession of material that sexualises fictional minors.
under the US law system, the PROTECT act of 2003 (1466A), the production and dissemination of material “of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting” that depicts “depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor” engaging in sexually explicit conduct +
and is obscene is prohibited. sexually explicit material of minors is dealt with as obscenity, which can manifest itself in both visual and written form. violation of this law carries the same maximum penalty as that attached to images depicting real children (offenders “shall +
be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years”).
under canadian law, section 163.1 of the criminal code, the legislation was intended to extend to “drawings from the imagination, cartoons, or computer-generated composite”. it was +
under canadian law, section 163.1 of the criminal code, the legislation was intended to extend to “drawings from the imagination, cartoons, or computer-generated composite”. it was +
held that interpreting the word “person” broadly to include imaginary characters would be in “accordance with Parliament’s purpose of criminalising possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children”. the only exception to this law would be protected private +
possessions.
there are several law systems in australia. however, australian courts have interpreted the relevant provisions as including fictitious persons, and the legislation in each australian jurisdiction does not require that the “person” that is being depicted by the +
there are several law systems in australia. however, australian courts have interpreted the relevant provisions as including fictitious persons, and the legislation in each australian jurisdiction does not require that the “person” that is being depicted by the +
material actually be a child. as such, it is a prosecutable offence to be in possession, production, sale and distribution of material that depicts of describes a minor(s) in a “sexual context”.
in the uk, under the coroners and justice act 2009, images of imaginary children +
in the uk, under the coroners and justice act 2009, images of imaginary children +
in a sexual context are prohibited. prohibited images must be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character. it must also focus “solely on a child’s g*nital or an*l region” and/or depict children participating in sexual activities or present while sexual +
activities take place. the maximum penalty for breaching this section of law is 3 years imprisonment. written obscene material about fictional child pornography can be prosecuted under the obscene publication act, but only if it is published. the term “publish” extends to +
include private communications, and thus describing sexually explicit fantasies involving minors in a chat room can be and has been prosecuted. hence, it should be noted private possession of fantasy material in the uk is prohibited.
within this thread, the term “child” can +
within this thread, the term “child” can +
be used interchangeably with the term “minor”. depending on where you live, the age determining a minor varies.
tl;dr: sexualising fictional minors is absolutely prosecutable by major law systems! (us, uk, canada and australia)
tl;dr: sexualising fictional minors is absolutely prosecutable by major law systems! (us, uk, canada and australia)
