What is child pornography?

In the United States, child pornography is prohibited under both federal and state laws with some state laws including more or less restrictive definitions compared with federal law. Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 1 engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals.

In some court cases, the so-called "Dost factors" have been used to judge whether an image is child pornography. These are a list of six considerations originating in a 1986 court case, "United States vs. Dost". The six standards are:

whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genital, pubic or anal areas
whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity
whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child
whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude
whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity
whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
However, the Dost factors are not held to be an absolute standard. In particular, the 1994 precedent United States vs. Knox set aside the question of nudity, stating that images of clothed children may also constitute a "lascivious exhibition." The ruling states:

"The harm Congress attempted to eradicate by enacting the child pornography laws is present when a photographer unnaturally focuses on a minor child’s clothed genital area with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles. The rationale underlying the statute’s proscription applies equally to any lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area whether these areas are clad or completely exposed."
There is no clear legal definition in federal or state law as to what exactly constitutes a "lewd" or "lascivious" exhibition. These terms are to be interpreted according to "contemporary community standards."

Questions arose in late 1990s as whether the depiction of nudity of minors could constitute obscenity. After the U.S. Customs Service seized in 1998 over 200 nudist magazines sent from Europe that featured nude depictions of minors, a court case ensued in which an appellate court ruled in 2000 that depictions of nude minors engaging in activities otherwise normal for their age cannot be held obscene. The court based its ruling partly on a previous Supreme Court ruling that had concluded that nudity in and of itself does not constitute obscenity.

Texts are not considered child pornography in USA, because, the court has ruled repeatedly that the only valid basis for laws restricting free speech in this way is actual damage to real children. Any text or work that involves or depicts no real child, (and is not otherwise "obscene", is never illegal. (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition).

As with all cases, courts must interpret the law and apply it to the specifics of a case. As such, the final decision as to whether an image is pornographic is made by a judge. Since the context of the image may indicate the sexual nature of the image, the nature or even name of the website on which it is displayed may be considered.

Cases of pornography involving court-adjudicated minors over the age of 18 or adults under age of 18 (emancipated minors) are rare or nonexistent. Accordingly, the application of state and federal laws to these cases is uncertain.

I live in the UK where if those images were captured on my screen, even accidently, I could be in deep trouble, including a prison sentance.

"Texts are not considered child pornography in USA, because, the court has ruled repeatedly that the only valid basis for laws restricting free speech in this way is actual damage to real children. Any text or work that involves or depicts no real child, (and is not otherwise "obscene", is never illegal. (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition)."

You are ignoring the otherwise obscene part. Your quote in no way suggests that such images are not illegal in the United States.

The Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value.
The third condition is also known as the (S)LAPS test ((Serious) Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific). The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard. What offends the average person in Mobile, Alabama, may differ from what offends the average person in New York City. The relevant community, however, is not defined.

Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test, stemming from the English precedent.

Because it allows for community standards and demands "serious" value, some worried that this test would make it easier to suppress speech and expression. They pointed out that it replaced a stricter test asking whether the speech or expression was "utterly without redeeming social value"--a much tougher standard than "serious" value. As used, however, the test generally makes it difficult to outlaw any form of expression. Much pornography has been successfully argued to have some artistic or literary value.

Some critics of obscenity law argue that the existence of Miller proves that federal obscenity laws are in fact not defined, and thus unenforceable and legally dubious.

(and LL has the right to ban anyone caught doing it, it's their game afterall)

haha Wikipedia isn't a very good legal resource ESPECIALLY considering how it's been in the news in recent months.

Let's look at the FBI's website where they detail how they prosecuted a man for having anime with imagery of children in sexual situations. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm

Let's draw your attention to this paragraph...

"The law, designed to help protect children from sexual exploitation, makes it a federal crime to produce or distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, paintings, or any other visual representations involving the sexual abuse of children."

Everything on SL is an image. It's all pixels...you mentioned that before. Well, according to US Federal law images of children (real or not) in sexual situations is child porn and therefore illegal.

I don't know why you keep at this, October.

If a man in SL is not a paedophile, what is the attraction of having sex with child-like avs?

I can't think of any logical explanation why they would want to do it and presumed females who play in child avatars - I hope their own child is never molested by a paedophile in real life. My sister's youngest daughter was by a family friend and she has never got over it. Most men would find it repugnant. I find it repugnant regardless of laws.

However you have no right to dictate what consenting adults can and cannot do when said activities are allowed under the law. Personally I find lots of things repugnant.

...except for how you've been shown repeatedly that said activity is NOT allowed under the law. Just because you misinterpret it doesn't mean it's not the law.

Hell, you have yet to cite the actual section of the law you're referring to that makes simulated child sex imagery legal.

...except for how you've been shown repeatedly that said activity is NOT allowed under the law. Just because you misinterpret it doesn't mean it's not the law.

Hell, you have yet to cite the actual section of the law you're referring to that makes simulated child sex imagery legal.

No, I have demonstrated how it is permissable under the law.

There is no section that explicitly states it is legal. Law doesn't work like that. Law does not state what is legal, the law states what is not legal.

Silly me for hoping this could stay rational and logical and not devolve into another emotion-fueled witch hunt.

If "Miller", he/she is referring to case law, not statute.

Miller v California

Uh...are you being hunted here? Is there something you're trying to justify for yourself or something? I don't get that remark.

Could you at least put up a link to this law you've read instead of resorting to insults?

It looks like you're the one getting emotional this time.

A wikipedia link doesn't count.



uh...ok.

Uh...are you being hunted here? Is there something you're trying to justify for yourself or something? I don't get that remark.

Could you at least put up a link to this law you've read instead of resorting to insults? It looks like you're the one getting emotional this time. I'm just working with logical deduction from information that's been made available to me.