The original purpose of the internet was so academics could have easier access to each other and the research available in their field. By the end of 1969, there were four computers linked together. By the late 80s, before the internet was available to the public, users were sharing low-quality scanned pornographic images.
The internet has been a major source of pornography ever since. Developments include:
- Higher-resolution images
- Text-based sex-chatting
- Simulated acts in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) — both games that are designed for more general purposes and games that are specifically created for such activities
- Solicitation on sites like Backpage and Craig's List
- Sites where users can "rate" different prostitutes
- Video sex-chatting
- Real-time video-based prostitution wherein the user can interact with and direct the prostitute via text or voice (virtual sex tourism)
Within these never-ending cans of worms are some controversial legal and ethical ramifications that our culture is having to deal with. Many individuals displayed on-line are held under the qualifications of sex trafficking, which is against international law. Many images are taken without the consent of the subject, which is illegal. And many subjects, in all formats, are children, which is also against international law. It is obviously ethically wrong to enslave someone; it is obviously ethically wrong to use an image of someone who hasn't given their consent; and it is obviously ethically reprehensible to do either with children.
The latter is what motivated the international humanitarian organization Terre des Hommes ("land of the people") to run an
undercover operation to weed out pedophiles across the globe. They offered Sweetie, a young Filipina girl, for webcam child sex tourism. Over 1000 people from 65 different countries took the bait within less than two-and-a-half months. The identifying features of these users have been passed on to the authorities of their respective countries.
The thing is, "Sweetie" never existed. She was an adult staff member manipulating a virtual, animated cartoon. The graphics were so good the users didn't know the difference.
This opens a huge can of worms. If a Dutch human rights charity can gather the resources to create a lifelike avatar, surely the sex industry, with near limitless resources, can do the same. We know that the world of trafficking is filled with abuse, violence, forced drug-use, and murder. But if online webcam tourism replaces real children with computer animated avatars, will this part of "the world's oldest profession" truly become a victimless crime?
Is the sexual exploitation of children wrong because it harms children or because it's wrong to sexualize children? Is there a fundamental difference between using a child and using a surrogate that has the
appearance of a child?
Different legislative bodies give different answers. Possession of virtual child pornography gets up to
five years in prison in Germany. In Victoria, Australia, media that "describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context" is illegal. Sweden also prohibits virtual child pornography. From
"Crime and Policing in Virtual Worlds" by Marc Goodman:
Across the world, government legislatures are answering this question differently. In Germany, Ireland and many other European countries the possession of "virtual child pornography" is considered the legal equivalent of possessing "real" child pornography and is equally punishable by law. In the United States the courts have ruled that "virtual" child sex depictions are a form of fantasy and, as such, they do not constitute criminal behaviour because no actual child was ever abused or photographed in the production of those virtual child abuse images.
Is virtual child pornography obviously ethically wrong, as some nations say? Is it wrong if it harms no child, if the child doesn't exist, and the entire operation can be reduced to an animation algorithm?
Eneman, Gillespie, and Stahl, in their paper
"Criminalising Fantasies: The Regulation of Virtual Child Pornography," put it succinctly:
While most people agree that child pornography should be illegal there are critical voices raised about the criminalisation of virtual child pornography that does not demonstrate a direct link of harm to children (Williams, 2004). One of the main arguments in the debate regarding this issue is whether it is appropriate for the law to regulate peoples fantasies and imaginations through the creation of a "thought crime" (Home Office, 2007) or whether this is a threat to the individual's privacy and right of freedom of expression.
The problem is illustrated in the history of the U.S. law regarding virtual child pornography.
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 made illegal "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."
The act had solid supporting findings. In
Section 121, Subsection 1., points 4, 5, 7-10, Congress found that child pornography is used to seduce children into sexual activity, invades the privacy of the child represented, encourages child molestation and pedophilia, increases the market for child pornography, encourages society to see children as sexual objects, "undermines the efforts of parents and families to encourage the sound mental, moral and emotional development of children." It also found the effects are
the same whether the child pornography consists of photographic depictions of actual children or visual depictions produced wholly or in part by electronic, mechanical, or other means, including by computer, which are virtually indistinguishable to the unsuspecting viewer from photographic images of actual children;
the danger to children who are seduced and molested with the aid of child sex pictures is just as great when the child pornographer or child molester uses visual depictions of child sexual activity produced wholly or in part by electronic, mechanical, or other means, including by computer, as when the material consists of unretouched photographic images of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
Furthermore, congress found that:
the elimination of child pornography and the protection of children from sexual exploitation provide a compelling governmental interest for prohibiting the production, distribution, possession, sale, or viewing of visual depictions of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct, including both photographic images of actual children engaging in such conduct and depictions produced by computer or other means which are virtually indistinguishable to the unsuspecting viewer from photographic images of actual children engaging in such conduct.
Case closed? Not quite. In 2002, the Supreme Court
struck down two of the 1996 act's provisions for being "overly broad".
Why was it overturned? Because of the definition of "free speech." Free speech isn't limited to verbal or written communication. It includes all metaphorical acts that represent but do not manifest a belief. Burning a flag represents a displeasure with a nation without manifesting any real damage to that nation. As written, the 1996 Act might have prohibited
Romeo and Juliet and would have called into question any movie graphically showing teens or teenage characters having sex. The act was overturned because such fictional portrayals were blanketed under the heading of "speech" since the sex didn't really happen.
Does that cover virtual child pornography, since neither the child nor the act really exist?
It might. So in 2003, George W. Bush signed in the
PROTECT Act, also known as the Amber Alert Law. This new law included the following:
Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
The law does not ban all simulated child pornography, just that which does not pass the
Miller Test to include that which is obscene, and has no literary, artistic, political or scientific value (so
Romeo and Juliet and even the use of "Sweetie" are allowed).
As you might guess, a subjective definition of "obscenity" isn't a very firm foundation. In 2008, Christopher Handley, a comic book collector, was charged with obscenity for owning comic books that depicted child pornography. The comics in question were a type of manga, although it's not clear whether they were yaoi (which depicts young, androgynous males in sexual situations and is, strangely enough, marketed to and usually collected by women) or "lolicon" (featuring schoolgirls in sexual situations — derived from Nabokov's
Lolita). Fearing the thought of facing a jury, Handley pled guilty on obscenity charges. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund roundly
condemned the entire affair claiming:
From start to finish, the case against Christopher Handley was an appalling abuse of the justice system. Chris Handley is going to jail not because of anything he did, but because of what he reads and thinks. In prosecuting this case, the United States government has distorted the purpose of child pornography laws, which are in place to prevent and punish the abuse of actual people who are the victims of a heinous crime. Putting Chris Handley in jail protects no one — he and his family are the only victims.
The judge agreed, ruling that criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind [of child pornography], including drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was unconstitutional.
A military chaplain once told me that the government is tying the hands of the chaplain corps; religious leaders are no longer allowed to teach ethics, only lawyers can.
This is what happens when the law attempts to define ethics. Freedom of thought and action take precedence unless there is clear, incontrovertible proof that the act in question leads directly to harm. It is difficult to substantiate real harm directly caused by virtual child pornography. No living child is involved. No real child is facing an invasion of privacy. Child pornography is only one of many ways predators groom children for abuse. Studies aimed at giving statistical proof of a link between pornography and sexual violence have mixed results. Others have mentioned the slippery slope of legislating controls over actions that may or may not encourage someone to break the law. And outlawing the method by which someone fantasizes about an act that causes harm and breaks the law would require the immediate illegalization of the vast majority of video games.
All of this to say, the world, relying on human logic and concern, cannot give a solid answer as to why virtual child pornography is wrong — as American law reflects. A law relying on human logic won't stand. Will virtual child pornography change the way the culture sees children? Yes. Will virtual child pornography incite the sexual abuse of children? Most likely. Will virtual child pornography lessen the stigma of pedophilia? You bet. But by the time the research hands us the cold, hard numbers to prove these hypotheses to the point that a stricter law will be justified, our fickle attention will be drawn elsewhere — our culture will already be too inured to care.
So if culture and law can't save us, what can? The situation shows that not only our struggle, but our solutions must be spiritual. Ephesians 6:12 says, "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." That being the case, we cannot rely on legislation designed by flesh and blood to tell us what is right.
But that also means we have to look beyond flesh and blood to find our enemy. The illegality of virtual child porn is being chipped away daily. It's possible that before long, there will be no legal condemnation of virtual child porn in the U.S.
If the supply of virtual child porn can't be stopped, we have to look at the demand.
How do we reach people who seek out child pornography? How do we lead them to healing so that their sexual desires are in line with biblical principle? Consider this hard fact: every user of child pornography is a victim of Satan's hold over the world and their lives. How do we rescue them?
Jesus not only gave us the answer, He gave us the mandate. Go, teach, make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20). Knowing, loving, and following Jesus is the answer. Legislating ethics is a good and noble fight, but it's very likely a battle we will ultimately lose. Fortunately, the war has more than one front. Rescuing people to the grace and love of God will have a more lasting (eternal!) effect.
In a very real and scary way, we have to
love our enemies.
There are millions of children in sexual slavery around the world. We should do what we can to rescue them in Jesus' name and show them the love of God. There are untold numbers of people who use child pornography and prostitution. As hard as it is and as much as we don't want to, we should also do what we can to rescue
them in Jesus' name and show them the love of God.
Absolutely, we should push for the criminalization of virtual child pornography. But law follows the culture, and the culture never stands still. It is the word of God, not the flesh-and-blood ethics of man, that will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8).