OPINION: The Tim Allen case reminds us that, in dealing with Internet child pornography and its effects on our society, we are dependent on US law and law enforcement, writes John Waters.
It is therefore of grave import to us that, nine months ago, the US Supreme Court struck down a ban on "virtual child pornography" on the basis that the 1996 legislation represented a violation of the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The Child Pornography Prevention Act had banned a range of techniques - including computer-generated images and the use by pornographers of youthful-looking adults - designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Prior to the 1996 Act, US law required that any prosecution in respect of child pornography involve the abuse of at least one identifiable, named child, and this is again the position. The Supreme Court decision has global implications for the use of Internet images depicting children in a sexual context.
The case was fought between the US Attorney General and the Free Speech Coalition - described by the Washington Post as a "Californian organisation of adult entertainment photographers, moviemakers and producers and video stores". A majority of the court agreed with the latter that, because no real children were harmed in the creation of virtual pornography, the provisions of the law were "over-broad" and infringed on established protections of material with artistic value that does not violate community standards.
It has been repeatedly stated in relation to the Allen case here that the essence of the core offence concerned the fact that real, albeit anonymous, children were featured in the material viewed by the offender. The implication is that, without this element, Allen's behaviour would not have been wrong. But in what sense can it be less offensive to society or less damaging to children in general if the images of minors engaging in sexual activity are simulated rather than real? What difference does it make, in terms of the essence of the offence, whether the image is of a real-life child, or one constructed using material from some "innocent" context?
Virtual pornography is created by a technique known as "morphing", in which everyday images of real children are scanned and merged with footage of real sexual activity to create sequences which, while essentially indistinguishable from the real thing, manage to sidestep the law in respect of identifiable children. Modern techniques even make it possible to create sexually explicit images of children without actually photographing or filming a child. It is possible, for example, to combine an image of a child in a non-sexual situation with an adult in a sexual situation, or modify the picture of an adult so he or she looks like a child.
It must be obvious that any distinction of this kind amounts to dangerous semantics. In fact, some school authorities regard the new threat so gravely that, as in Edinburgh last year, they have banned the photographing of children in school events, lest such images be employed in the creation of pornography. We have now reached the point where we may no longer be able to photograph our own children's school concerts because of the activities of pornographers. Responding to the Supreme Court judgment, the president of the US National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, Mr Ernest E. Allen, said that due to advances in imaging technology, actual child pornography and virtual child pornography had become virtually indistinguishable.
IN AN interesting contrast with evidence given in the case involving our own Mr Allen, he said: "Molesters use child pornography to stimulate their own desires and fuel their fantasies for children as sexual partners. Viewing these images whets the appetite of the molester and serves as a precursor to his own sexual acts with children.
"The more frequently a molester views child pornography, the more he, like his child victims, becomes desensitised to the abnormality of his conduct. He can convince himself that his behaviour is normal, and eventually he will need more and increasingly explicit child pornography to satisfy his cravings.
"When mere visual stimulation no longer satisfies him, he will often progress to sexually molesting live children. Child pornography is not just an aberrant form of free expression, it is a criminal tool, used to seduce and manipulate child victims, break down a child's inhibitions, and make sex between adults and children appear normal."
This is a persuasive argument, suggesting for a start that any concept of "mild" child pornography is akin to the concept of slow poison and implying that to provide assurances that any individual consumer of such pornography represents no potential direct threat to children is either amoral or naïve.
If we are truly serious about limiting the sexual exploitation of children, we must begin to see the issue not just in terms of the essentially technical issue relating to the abuse of particular named children, but in the context that any use of a child - or the idea of a child - to obtain sexual gratification represents, in principle, an attack on all children.