Here Is A Guide Entitled “Can You Be Charged With Child Pornography For Looking At Animation?” written

Here is a guide entitled “Can You Be Charged with Child Pornography for Looking at Animation?” written by the Law Offices of Seth P. Chavin, a firm with over 30 years of experience in sex crimes and other criminal issues. This is in regards to American law only; all child pornography is morally and objectively WRONG, so all this legal jargon is just to prove a point. 

Some highlights: 

What does federal law say?

In 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act, which stands for the, “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today” Act. Under the Protect Act, it is illegal to create, possess, or distribute, “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting”, that “depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is ‘obscene’ or ‘depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in…sexual intercourse…and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” (18 U.S. Code § 1466A). To clarify, under federal law, drawing and animation are considered child pornography, and you can be convicted for possession or marketing of such material.

I didn’t know the animated characters were minors!

It is illegal to own or distribute a depiction in which, “an identifiable minor is engaging in a sexually explicit conduct” (18 U.S.C. Section 2256(8)©). The word “identifiable” implies that you must be aware that the character represented was a minor.

This means that the onus is on the prosecution to prove your awareness. It is thus possible for your lawyer to formulate a defense that you were unaware that the character represented a person under 18 years of age.

People will argue that the Protect Act is in reference to real children only, because of the term “identifiable”; but that is actually in reference to the knowledge of said character being a minor. 

Furthermore, Congress has identified problems with the language of the law, so here is more detail [x]: 

visual depictions where minors are depicted engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (2) visual depiction which are, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (3) visual depictions which have been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (4) visual depictions which are advertised, promoted, presented, described or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The Act further defines the term “identifiable minor,” as a person who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature. In reviewing the proposed language, the Department specifically raised with Congress the concern that the definition of the term “identifiable minor,” might be viewed as requiring the Government to prove the specific identity of the child depicted or the child whose body parts are used in the created child pornography. Congress responded with a specific rule of construction that the definition “shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.” New Section 2256(9)(B).

And here, for all of the pedophiles, “age up” artists and apologists to see, is the statement that incriminates every fictional child porn “artist” out there: 

The definition also criminalizes material which is pandered as child pornography or which “conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” This definition will reach a great deal of material, including material featuring adults if the visual depiction was advertised or pandered as child pornography. Congress has made a clear determination that pseudo-child pornography places children at risk by encouraging certain behaviors and being susceptible to invidious uses by pedophiles to harm children.