Is it child porn if it is only stories?

Question

I have Found a Websites where it gives stories of children as young as 5 being spanked and used as sex slaves. it speaks of bondage and of them being forced to have sex. Is it Child Porn?

Answer 1

No. United States law specifically defines child pornography as a visual depiction.

Answer 2

I beleive that to be somehting of a legal quandry.

There was a highly publicized case a few years ago here in Vancouver, Canada about a guy named Robin Sharpe - who had written NAMBLA man-boy love short stories and attmepted to challenge the courts on it as it was only "fantasy" and thusly no exploitation.. so legally a greyish area, certainly bannable but not necessarily indictable

IMO, it's still child porn, whether or not the governemnt can legislate it as such

def. pornography
"1 Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

Answer 3

Yes, it is child porn. Is it just fantasy stories, or are the real photos at the website? If it is the latter, you had better inform the authorities of such activities! This is a case of pedophiles and it is a crime anywhere in the world. Please report this website to your local police or authority as soon as possible!

Answer 4

Yes, it's still child porn unless it's used in like an educational sense. Where it is telling the stories of something that really happened. It all depends on how it's portrayed.

Answer 5

I do not believe textual depictions of children involved in sexual acts is illegal. Disturbing and quite disgusting, but probably not illegal. (links 1 & 3)

I'm not certain, but I think the child pornography laws pretty much address visual depictions. Those laws were extended to include computer generated photos, but I don't recall that text has, traditionally, been addressed by the law in this specific of a manner. (link 2)

The law (in part) reads:
obscenity (adult)-Not protected by the First Amendment. The "Miller Test" applies to actual or simulated sexual materials and lewd genital exhibitions. See Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15, at 24-25 (1973); Smith v United States, 431 U.S. 291, at 300-02, 309 (1977); Pope v Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, at 500-01 (1987), providing the three-pronged constitutional criteria for federal and state laws and court adjudications:

whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); and
whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sadomasochistic sexual abuse); and
whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
child pornography-An unprotected visual depiction of a minor child (federal age is under eighteen) engaged in actual or simulated sexual conduct, including a lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genitals. See New York v Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), Osborne v Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), U.S. v X-Citement Video, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 464 (1994). See also U.S. v Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 856 (1987), U.S. v Knox, 32 F.3d 733 (3rd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 897 (1995). Note: In 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A was enacted and § 2256 was amended to include "child pornography" that consists of a visual depiction that "is or appears to be" of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. See Free Speech Coalition v Reno, No. C-97-0281 SC, judgment for defendants, Aug. 12, 1997, unpublished, 1997 WL 487758 (N.D.Cal 1997).


As you can see, it mainly deals with visual rather than textual depictions. The determinate is (possibly) that in creating text one does no harm to a child, while creating a photograph does. I cannot explain the dichotomy of computer generated images being considered pornographic while text may not be. I wish I could.

As a writer, I must say that I would never in a million years depict sexual or even lascivious acts with children, but I think it should be a protected form of freedom of speech. THERE ARE NO children actually involved, ergo (in my opinion) actual harm to children is not present. I don't subscribe to cause and effect as a determinate. Each individual can and must decide for him or herself if they will allow certain things to impact or absolve their behavior. If we say "porn leads to acts against humans" we must also conclude that watching a television program where a person is a thief leads to people stealing. In so doing, we have given up our rights to freedom of thought which is a very insidious path to travel.

While emotionally I would love to lock everyone of those sickos away forever, intellectually I feel we must allow this material to be written to protect our innate freedom of speech as dictated by the Constitution. Age of consent is a relative term, after all. At one time a twelve year old was old enough to marry and have children. We have changed that due to modern thoughts and cultural reasoning in this nation. Ergo, at what point does one stop being a child and protected under the law? It's arbitrary at best.

Answer 6

No.
Child porn consist of pictures & images.
It seems you are reading an article about the horrible acts of society, regardless of what part of the continent you're located in. Unfortunately, this takes place even in the most civilized parts of the world.

Answer 7

Gets rather tricky there now doesn't it. While sick is sick to look at it as something written to be banned ... well .. lets just say you open a can of worms because such things as Romeo and Juliet would also be included. Tons of classic literature contains sexual situations involving what are today considered minors.

Very tough ....

Answer 8

I'm sure different states have different laws.

But if it does not have pictures (even hand drawn or cartoon ones) it MAY fall under protected speech.

If it has pictures of sex acts and children (even hand drawn or cartoons) then it is probably violation
federal laws on the subject...

Answer 9

Porn, in my opinion, would be a form of photography. I don't think that is porn, but it isn't far from it; and that is extremely horrible and inappropriete, even just being written out.

Answer 10

no its not. the supreme court ruled that stories and graphics have no victim. if you can find a victim in that let me know because the last time I checked pencil and paper had no feelings. look it up. child erotica and lolicon are perfectly legal at least in the us.