If it doesn’t depict a real person, then what’s the crime exactly? It’s still disgusting, but that’s another topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetie_(internet_avatar)
where an org lured predators by posing as an animated 10 years old.
Japan has a pretty bad reputation for making their child porn laws pretty narrowly defined in the international community.
For these reasons Japan has a very high level of child pornography activity, but I know very little beyond that or of details.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...
Are you sure this is true? As weird as it is it seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that someone drawing a sketch could be guilty of the same thing as someone abusing a real child.
> The Child Pornography Prevention Act added two categories of speech to the definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In Ashcroft case, the Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means."
> The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_A... )
"Computer-generated" images was a remarkably prescient thing to include in 1996, since it criminalizes deepfakes and GAN images.
I think the standard argument is that even though actual minors aren't harmed by the creation of such images, the images trigger pedophiles to become more depraved or something. There's probably an element of the old obscenity laws to it - real or not, child porn is obscene, and obscenity isn't covered by the first amendment without some artistic merit.
I'm not sure of case law around enforcement of this.
Not that anyone would ever put their name behind attacking this.
If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal?
The pixels are just the conduit, just as the the adult actress depicting a minor in a sexual act.
So it should be.
But whether it is moral- I don't know. I don't know enough psychology, public policy, etc. to express an informed opinion.
But my personal choice? Yes. It should be illegal. Hypothetically, if it ever comes to a vote, I would vote against child porn even when there is no real human involved.
That's why child porn in animations is banned as well.
Due to that pesky First Amendment, this is not illegal in the USA. The USA bans child pornography under the rubric that producing or even viewing it implicates the perpetrator in the abuse of a child. If no actual child abuse is taking place, they can't ban it.
Cartoon images and the like may be banned if they depict an actual minor.