Brian Ribbon

Percy Shelley

Pro-Reform is a framework arguing that cautious legal reforms are needed to offer greater rights and protections to MAPs and Youth. The framework being proposed reflects the position of two of Mu's editors, but is not necessarily agreed upon by all members of Mu.

Pro-Reform activists argue that the civil liberties of MAPs and young people don't need to come at the expense of minors' safety. We support a rational and logical approach to prevent actual abuse of children without throwing people in prison unless they've caused harm. Policies shouldn't prohibit things merely on the basis of disgust or subjective morals, neither should they make blind assumptions about what measures may be successful in preventing harm. No more is this evident than when it comes to policy regulating PIM (Prohibited Images of Minors). This article follows on from our proposed AMSC reform (linked here), which seeks to balance the protection and agency of minors, as well as our article on 'soft' social reforms. We will explore PIM policy and outline our philosophy for legal reform.

Terminology

At Mu, we use the acronym PIM (Prohibited Images of Minors) as a value-neutral term which reflects the fact that not all criminalized images of minors are pornographic or abusive, and often depict older minors to whom the term 'children' does not readily apply. We do not deny the existence of images that are pornographic, abusive, and feature very young children. However, we choose to approach the matter using accurate terminology that covers the whole range of what is 'prohibited', meaning anything from horrific abuse of toddlers to an AI-generated cartoon image of a teenager posing in a bikini. Terms like 'CSAM' (Child Sexual Abuse Material) are absurd when used to refer to the latter, and such emotionally-laden language is unfit for use in anything but the trashiest of tabloids. It is utterly shocking that supposedly 'respectable' publications choose to use such language.

Current policies on 'traditional' PIM

At present, the vast majority of countries criminalize the production and distribution of PIM. Of those that do not criminalize PIM per se, they criminalize the production and distribution of pornography featuring people of any age. Laws on the possession of PIM are a little less consistent, although the majority of countries have criminalized simple possession of PIM even when no payment has been made.

The definition of PIM varies widely between countries. In the US, where PIM laws come with the harshest penalties, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" is the standard for determining whether or not an image is criminalized. Six criteria are considered, and not all need to be met for an image to be deemed unlawful:

• Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
• 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.

In the United Kingdom, which was one of the first countries to criminalize PIM, images merely need to be deemed 'indecent' by a jury, interpreted as "offending against the recognized standards of propriety". This definition is open to quite wild differences in interpretation, and allows for the criminalization of images of minors in the bathtub or sitting in their underwear, depending on the feelings of the jurors. These personal feelings dictate whether or not a person's life is permanently ruined, absent of any evidence of causing harm to young people.

Self-made PIM

According to recent reports, most examples of PIM featuring real young people are now made by young people themselves. We do understand and accept that there are many cases in which young people were tricked by adults into making such images, and we think these cases should be treated as an entirely different matter to genuinely self-made material. Unfortunately, while legislation has been adapted to punitively respond to changes in the way PIM is produced, distributed, and viewed, there have been no changes mitigating for the fact that many examples of PIM are now self-produced rather than being examples of abuse.

Current policies on AI PIM

Laws on AI PIM vary around the world. In some advanced countries such as Japan, PIM that does not depict a real child is not criminalized. In neighboring Korea, there is no such distinction, and a man recently received a two and a half year sentence for making AI images of non-existent minors for himself on his own computer. In the US, laws differ state by state; a popular graphic artist in California was recently caught out by a new state law mere days after it took effect. In the UK, the extremely low bar of 'indecency' is applied to images that look like real photos, meaning that an AI image of a teenager in a bikini could be sufficient for a person to have their name dragged through the gutter over 'CSAM'. Cartoon-like images are criminalized separately there, and a higher threshold than indecency is applied. There is even a bill (almost certain to pass) that criminalizes models and LORAs which can be used to make PIM.

Some countries, such as Canada, prohibit even written 'pornographic' depictions of children. In the UK, a literal statue can be considered illicit. Many countries also ban sex dolls that look like children under obscenity laws, which has drawn the ire of organizations like Prostasia and MEDAL.

Arguments and rebuttals

Popular arguments in favor of current policies include the following:

• Every image of PIM is a crime scene photo that depicts the abuse of a real child.

Reality: As discussed above, the threshold for criminalization is much lower than claimed by advocates of harsher laws and penalties for what they call 'CSAM'. A study performed by Irish police Garda, quoted in a 2007 book on child pornography, found that in 44% of indecent images cases, the most serious images depicted nudity or erotic posing. In 7%, they depicted sexual activity between children; in another 7%, they depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children; in 37%, they depicted penetrative sexual activity between adults and children; in 5%, they depicted sadism or bestiality. This means that, as of the 2000s in the UK and Ireland, most people being prosecuted for what is now labeled 'CSAM' possessed only images depicting no sexual activity whatsoever.

Of course, it should go without saying that an image generated entirely by a computer, and not depicting the specific likeness of an existing child, does not depict the abuse of a real child.

• A child is harmed every time their image is viewed.

Reality: A kind of 'harm by voodoo', there is no logical mechanism by which such harm can occur. It is true that a person knowing their images are 'out there' may feel traumatized by the knowledge, but it is that knowledge which causes harm, not the act of an individual viewer looking at their image. The moral culpability belongs to the distributors who share PIM for likes and written praise, not silent viewers. Furthermore, one has to wonder how a person knows that their images are being distributed? If the authorities are telling them, as in the Vicky case, the blame lies with the authorities.

In the 'Vicky' case, the child depicted in the images, now an adult, signed up to be informed of cases involving her likeness so that she could sue for massive amounts of money each time her images were viewed. There are other examples, and there is even a law passed in the US to assist with such lawsuits.

• Downloading PIM encourages production via supply and demand economics.

Reality: There is virtually no PIM industry outside of China, and even that is being heavily cracked down on. The vast majority of images and videos of real children reach individual viewers via darknet forums, reposted by individuals who are distributing the material free of charge in a manner akin to piracy. In the same way that piracy via torrents doesn't help professional movie studios, those downloading PIM from darknet sites (the majority of cases) are not helping the PIM producer.

• Watching PIM (including AI-generated) will turn people into 'pedophiles' or fuel their fantasies, causing them to commit a contact offense.

Reality: Evidence leans in the other direction; that is, viewing PIM acts as a release rather than a motivator to go out and have sex with a real child or teenager. Some PIM viewers do also commit contact offenses, but there is no evidence to suggest this is typically caused by viewing PIM. * Furthermore, if the justification for criminalizing an action is that the person might do something harmful in the future, but as of yet has not, that action should not constitute a crime.

• Not criminalizing AI PIM makes 'child sexual abuse' look normal and acceptable.

Reality: The extreme hatred and persecution of not only contact offenders, but anyone attracted to minors, is overbearing to such an extent that being able to access AI images is unlikely to suddenly make anyone think that having sex with children or teens is considered socially acceptable. In fact, a bit of kindness toward MAPs, and the availability of harmless sexual outlets, would go some way toward reducing the risk of harm to young people. See The Push.

• AI PIM looks so realistic that investigators cannot tell any difference from real PIM.

Reality: There are always subtle hints that an image is AI-generated. If authorities cannot see these, they need better training. Moreover, criminalization means potentially throwing someone in prison. Incarcerating a person to make one's job easier, and not because they have harmed a real child, is a despicable thing to do.

• AI PIM is made using the likeness of real children, via LORAs

Reality: There are reportedly cases of LORAs being used to make deepfake images, or new images of real children used in real PIM, but these don't represent the majority of cases. There are also technological solutions to differentiate between images that are fully AI-generated, and those which are not. See our detailed article on AI PIM hysteria in the UK.

Pro-Reform's position

• Decriminalization of possession of all PIM

As there is no logical mechanism by which the simple possession of PIM leads to harm to children, the action of possessing (or downloading) PIM should not be a criminal offense. Paying for PIM could be subject to proportionate penalties, which would in our opinion mean fines rather than long prison sentences in most cases.

• Lesser penalties for distribution of old PIM

Redistributing old PIM, while potentially distressing if the person depicted is aware of the redistribution, ought not to constitute a serious criminal offense, but should still be subject to minor punishment and compensation that is proportionate to harm done. However, a scheme by which people sign up to be informed of redistribution of their images constitutes a financial racket rather than harm reduction. If harm reduction is the true purpose, and people are harmed each time by knowing their images were redistributed, authorities should not inform.

Distributing images or videos of young people who are tricked into performing on camera, typically by a man posing as a young girl, should be treated harshly if the young person becomes aware of what happened and experiences distress as a result.

• Decriminalization of AI PIM; proportionate penalties for distributing deepfakes

The production of AI PIM does not cause harm to anyone. If a real person's likeness is used, the distribution is harmful if the person resembled becomes aware of the distribution. In these cases, the distributor ought to be liable to proportionate criminal or civil penalties.

• No criminalization of AI model-making. No extreme sentences for LORA-making

Making AI models, which do not intentionally output images in the likeness of a particular person, should not be criminalized. Penalties for making LORAs that intentionally output pornographic images of real people should be subject to proportionate penalties.

What does proportionate mean?

Proportionate means that the penalty is commensurate with the actual harm caused, and not based on the stigma surrounding MAPs. Unless there is evidence of significant harm, the penalty should not lead to significant prison sentences, sex offender registration, or other lifelong consequences.

Thoughts? Feel free to comment in our dedicated forum thread.