> The first two points of the official document, which I re-quote below, are about CSAM.
Sorry, but that's a major translation error. "pédopornographique" properly translated is child porn, not child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The difference is huge.
> The term “child pornography” is
currently used in federal statutes and
is defined as any visual depiction of
sexually explicit conduct involving a
person less than 18 years old. While
this phrase still appears in federal
law, “child sexual abuse material” is
preferred, as it better reflects the
abuse that is depicted in the images
and videos and the resulting trauma
to the child. In fact, in 2016, an
international working group,
comprising a collection of countries
and international organizations
working to combat child exploitation,
formally recognized “child sexual
abuse material” as the preferred term.
> “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child.
Yes, CSAM is preferred for material depicting abuse reflecting resulting trauma.
But not for child porn such as manga of fictional children depicting no abuse and traumatising no child.
> Child porn is csam.
"CSAM isn’t pornography—it’s evidence of criminal exploitation of kids."
That's from RAINN, the US's largest anti-sexual violence organisation.
> That's from RAINN, the US's largest anti-sexual violence organisation.
For everyone to make up their own opinion about this poster's honesty, here's where his quote is from [1]. Chosen quotes:
> CSAM includes both real and synthetic content, such as images created with artificial intelligence tools.
> It doesn’t matter if the child agreed to it. It doesn’t matter if they sent the image themselves. If a minor is involved, it’s CSAM—and it’s illegal.
Maybe US law makes a distinction, but in Europe there is no difference. Sexual depictions of children (real or not) is considered child pornography and will get you sent to the slammer.
On the contrary, in Europe there is a huge difference. Child porn might get you mere community service, a fine - or even less, as per the landmark court ruling below.
It all depends on the severity of the offence, which itself depends on the category of the material, including whether or not it is CSAM.
The Supreme Court has today delivered its judgment in the case where the court of appeals and district court sentenced a person for child pornography offenses to 80 day fines on the grounds that he had called Japanese manga drawings into his computer. Supreme Court dismiss the indictment.
The judgment concluded that the cartoons in and of itself may be considered pornographic, and that they represent children. But these are fantasy figures that can not be mistaken for real children.
