The first two points of the official document, which I re-quote below, are about CSAM.

> complicité de détention d’images de mineurs présentant un caractère pédopornographique

> complicité de diffusion, offre ou mise à disposition en bande organisée d'image de mineurs présentant un caractère pédopornographique

[1]: https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...

▲

chrisjj 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The first two points of the official document, which I re-quote below, are about CSAM.

Sorry, but that's a major translation error. "pédopornographique" properly translated is child porn, not child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The difference is huge.

▲

pyrale 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Quote from US doj [1]:

> The term “child pornography” is currently used in federal statutes and is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old. While this phrase still appears in federal law, “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child. In fact, in 2016, an international working group, comprising a collection of countries and international organizations working to combat child exploitation, formally recognized “child sexual abuse material” as the preferred term.

Child porn is csam.

[1]: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/child_sexual_abuse_materi...

	▲	chrisjj 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child. Yes, CSAM is preferred for material depicting abuse reflecting resulting trauma. But not for child porn such as manga of fictional children depicting no abuse and traumatising no child. > Child porn is csam. "CSAM isn’t pornography—it’s evidence of criminal exploitation of kids." That's from RAINN, the US's largest anti-sexual violence organisation.

▲

direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They are words for the same thing, it's like arguing they can't seize laptops because the warrant says computers.

	▲	chrisjj an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Actually it's like arguing they can't seize all computers because the warrant only says laptops. I.e. correct.

▲

mortarion 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe US law makes a distinction, but in Europe there is no difference. Sexual depictions of children (real or not) is considered child pornography and will get you sent to the slammer.

	▲	chrisjj 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		On the contrary, in Europe there is a huge difference. Child porn might get you mere community service, a fine - or even less, as per the landmark court ruling below. It all depends on the severity of the offence, which itself depends on the category of the material, including whether or not it is CSAM. The Supreme Court has today delivered its judgment in the case where the court of appeals and district court sentenced a person for child pornography offenses to 80 day fines on the grounds that he had called Japanese manga drawings into his computer. Supreme Court dismiss the indictment. The judgment concluded that the cartoons in and of itself may be considered pornographic, and that they represent children. But these are fantasy figures that can not be mistaken for real children. https://bleedingcool.com/comics/swedish-supreme-court-exoner...