| ▲ | skissane 2 months ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is a rather US-centric perspective. Under US law, there is a legal distinction between child pornography and child obscenity (see e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children”). The first is clearly CSAM; whether the second is, is open to dispute. But, in Canada, UK (and many other European countries), Australia, New Zealand, that legal distinction doesn’t exist, both categories are subsumed under child pornography (or equivalent terms-Australian law now prefers the phrase “child abuse material”), and the authorities in those jurisdictions aren’t going to say some child pornography is CSAM and the rest isn’t - they are going to say it is all CSAM | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | danaris 2 months ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are speaking of legality, not terminology. The terminology is universal, as it is simply for talking about What People Are Doing, not What The Law Says. Many people will—and do, and this is why I'm taking pains to point it out—confuse and conflate CSAM and child pornography, and also the terminology and the law. That doesn't change anything about what I've said. Fundamentally, there are two basic reasons we outlaw or otherwise vilify these things: 1) Because the creation of CSAM involves the actual sexual abuse of actual children, which causes actual harm. 2) Because we think that child pornography is icky. Only the former has a basis in fundamental and universal principles. The latter is, effectively, attempting to police a thoughtcrime. Lots of places do attempt to police thoughtcrime, in various different ways (though they rarely think of it as such); that does not change the fact that this is what they are doing. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||