Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors

The legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors varies from country to country and concerns simulated pornography and child pornography.

Some analysts have argued whether cartoon pornography depicting minors is a “victimless crime“.[1][2] Laws have been enacted to criminalize “obscene images of children, no matter how they are made”, for inciting abuse. An argument is the claim that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the fact that there is no scientific basis for that connection as of 1999,[3] and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a non-criminal outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[4][5]

Currently, countries that have made it illegal to possess (as well as create and distribute) sexual images of fictional characters who are described as or appear to be under eighteen years old include Australia, Canada, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea and the United Kingdom.[6][7] At the upper edge, this encapsulates pornographic depictions of even seventeen-year-olds together, or adults where the predominant impression conveyed is of a person under the age of 18 (such as small-breasted women).


All sexualised depictions of children under the age of 18 are illegal in Australia, and there is a “zero-tolerance” policy in place.[8]

In December 2008, a man from Sydney was convicted of possessing child pornography after sexually explicit pictures of children characters from The Simpsons were found on his computer. The NSW Supreme Court upheld a Local Court decision that the animated Simpsons characters “depicted”, and thus “could be considered”, real people.[9] Controversy arose over the perceived ban on small-breasted women in pornography after a South Australian court established that if a consenting adult in pornography were “reasonably” deemed to look under the age of consent, then they could be considered depictions of child pornography.[citation needed] Criteria described stated “small breasts” as one of few examples, leading to the outrage. Again, the classification law is not federal or nationwide and only applies to South Australia.[10]


While the simple visualization of cartoons depicting sexual acts involving fictional lookalikes of human minors may not be illegal in itself, possession and especially production and/or distribution can be interpreted in courts to be of the same level of actual child pornography, since legislation is vague on the subject, criminalising de facto child pornography created by image manipulations as the Italian legislation, though not excluding cartoon pornography from such scenario (see Articles 241-C and 241-E of the Code of Minors here, in Portuguese, and here, in English).


Canadian laws addressing child pornography are set out in Part V of the Canadian Criminal Code, dealing with Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct: Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals. Section 163.1 of the Code, enacted in 1993, defines child pornography to include “a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means”, that “shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity”, or “the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years”.[11] The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production.

2011 tourist case[edit]

In June 2011 a visiting American citizen was arrested in Canada for bringing erotica based on Lyrical Nanoha.[12][13] By October 2011 he was charged with possession and importation of child pornography and faced a minimum of 1 year in prison.[14]

2015 Nova Scotia case[edit]

A man was sentenced to 90 days after pleading guilty of possessing mostly anime images. Roy Franklyn Newcombe, 70, pleaded guilty to the charge after a NSCAD student found a USB thumb drive with sexually explicit images and videos at a computer lab in April 2014.

There was no indication the images involved local people or had been manufactured by Newcombe. Most of the 20 images were anime, although a few appear to be of real girls between five and 13 years old.[15]


Producing and distributing pornography which realistically or factually depicts a child is illegal in Finland and punishable by a fine or up to two years imprisonment. Possession of such pornography is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to one year. Realistic and factual depiction of a child appearing in sexual acts is defined as it having “been produced in a situation in which a child has actually been the object of sexually offensive conduct and realistic, if it resembles in a misleading manner a picture or a visual recording produced through photography or in another corresponding manner of a situation in which a child is the object of sexually offensive conduct”.[16] Purely fantasy-based virtual child pornography remains legal by Finnish law.[citation needed]


Since a reform of the French penal code, introduced in 2013, producing or distributing drawings that represent a minor aged less than 15 years old is considered the same as producing real child pornography and is punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a 75,000 euros fine, even if the drawings are not meant to be distributed.[17][18]

However, Amendment 462 was passed in 2015 guaranteeing the unhindered sharing of all artwork. The French law states, “the priority of public authorities is to ensure that artistic creation is disseminated and can be seen by the widest possible audience”. While clarity is provided on viewing and distribution of such drawings to now be legal, it remains illegal to produce.[1] [2][dubious ]


Virtual child pornography is punished with up to a third of the sanctions for real-life child pornography. Virtual images include images, or parts of images, produced and modified with software from actual photos of minors, where the quality makes it so that fake situations are manipulated to appear realistic. Therefore, lolicon, shotacon, and cartoon pornography in general are not included.[19]


In Japan, pornographic art depicting underage characters (lolicon, shotacon) is legal but remains controversial even within the country. They are commonly found in manga, erotic computer games, and doujinshi.[citation needed]


On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470) which deemed “virtual child pornography” illegal.[20] The laws appear to only outlaw “Three-dimensional, realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct”. In January 2011 the law was expanded and non-realistic 3D images are now counted as child pornography.[citation needed]

In a 2010 case, after viewing the images in question, which were created on a computer, the court opined that the virtual child pornography images did not fall under criminal law.[clarification needed] “All images can be termed as pornographic (three dimensional) cartoons, animations, or drawings. The court concludes that it is immediately obvious to the average viewer that the event is not real and that the images are manipulated images and not realistic.”[clarification needed][citation needed]

As of September 1, 2018, the Dutch criminal law punishes “anyone who spreads, sells, openly exhibits, manufactures, imports, transports, exports, acquires, possesses, or accesses by means of an automated system or using a communication service an image (or data carrier containing an image) depicting sexual conduct, in which someone knowingly under the age of 18, is involved (or appears to be involved)” with a prison sentence of up to 4 years or a fine in the fifth category (up to €82.000).[21][22]


In Belgium, only pornographic art that realistically depicts underage characters is illegal.[23]

New Zealand[edit]

In New Zealand, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 classifies a publication as “objectionable” if it “promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support, the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes”. Making, distribution, import, or copying or possession of objectionable material for the purposes of distribution are offences punishable (in the case of an individual) by a fine of up to NZ$10,000 on strict liability, and ten years in prison if the offence is committed knowingly.[24]

In December 2004, the Office of Film and Literature Classification determined that Puni Puni Poemy—which depicts nude children in sexual situations, though not usually thought of as pornographic by fans—was objectionable under the Act and therefore illegal to publish in New Zealand. A subsequent appeal failed, and the series remains banned.[25]

In April 2013, Ronald Clark was jailed for possession of anime that depicts sex between elves, pixies, and other fantasy creatures.[26] It was ruled as obscene and he was jailed for three months following the trial.[27] Clark was previously convicted for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and his lawyer noted that ethical issues complicated the case.[27]


As of 2005, the Norwegian penal act criminalizes any depictions that “sexualize” children, even if it does not actually show sexual acts with children.[28] This could include any artificially produced material, including written text, drawn images, animation, manipulated images, an adult model with childish clothes, toys, or surroundings.[29] This law can be used against lolicon but it has not been tried in that aspect yet.


Since the 2008 amendment to the Polish Penal Code (Article 202 § 4b), production, dissemination, presenting, storing and possession of pornographic content depicting “made or remade” image of minor taking part in any sexual activity is punishable by monetary fine, restriction of personal liberty, or imprisonment up to two years.[30][31] The “minor”, according to Polish law, is a person under 18 years old.[32] If the age of a depicted person is in question, a court may appoint anthropological experts to determine it.[33]

This law faced criticism from legal experts. Maciej Wrześniewski questioned the legitimacy of this article, arguing that “it is not possible to unquestionably confirm the age of a depicted person – since such a person does not in fact exist”.[34] This view was shared by Maciej Szmit, who called the whole article “unfortunately worded”.[35]

From 2008 to 2016, there were 12 people found guilty under Article 202 § 4b (as a primary crime).[36][37]

One of the cases where the discussed Article 202 § 4b of Polish Penal Code was used in court was the case of a painter Krzysztof Kuszej, whose art “with photographic accuracy depicted children and men’s genitalia during intercourse”. His pictures implied that the men were priests.[38] The artist argued in court, that his art is a social commentary on subject of pedophilia by Roman Catholic priests, and his artistic measures were adequate for the problem. The court’s ruling was “not guilty”. The ruling was based on the experts’ opinion, that the presenting of pedophilia was not an intent of the artist, and that his works were of critical nature. The court warned, however, that “an artist must be aware that artistic freedom is not an absolute principle”.[39]

South Africa[edit]

With the promulgation of the Films and Publications Amendment Bill in September 2003, a broad range of simulated child pornography became illegal in South Africa. For the purposes of the act, any image or description of a person “real or simulated” who is depicted or described as being under the age of 18 years and engaged in sexual conduct, broadly defined, constitutes “child pornography”.[40] Under the act, anyone is guilty of an offence punishable by up to ten years imprisonment if he or she possesses, creates, produces, imports, exports, broadcasts, or in any way takes steps to procure or access child pornography.


Spain allows drawn pornography which doesn’t seem like real children, including cartoons, manga or similar representations, because they would not be properly ‘realistic images’. The Attorney General’s Office considers that only extremely realistic images should be pursued. “In order to avoid undue extensions of the concept of child pornography, the concept of ‘realistic images’ must be interpreted restrictively. According to the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy ‘realist’ means that which ‘tries to adjust to reality’. Therefore, ‘realistic images’ will be images close to the reality which they try to imitate.[41] However, too realistic image, even painting, is strictly prohibited due to the law of European Union, this can be understood as images can not be distinguished from children in reality by normal people. Therefore having realistic simulation materials that showing child porn, such as simulation pictures or videos, will be encountered penalty.


Pornography depicting fictional minors appears to be legal. In August 2018, a Swiss otaku’s collection of manga was held by customs, but determined to not be in violation of the law and released.[42]


Any images or videos that depict children in a pornographic context are to be considered child pornography in Sweden, even if they are drawings.[43] A “child” is defined as a “person” who is either under the age of 18 or who has not passed puberty.[44]

These laws have been recorded in the media being put into play in Uppsala: the district court punished a man with a monetary fine and probation for possession of manga-style images.[45][46] This was appealed and taken to the Court of Appeal.[47][48] In court, Judge Fredrik Wersäll stated that a “person” (as in the definition of a “child”) is a human being. The man possessing the illustrations, as well as his lawyer, stated that a comic character is not a person (a comic character is a comic character and nothing else) and that a person does not have cat ears, giant eyes, or a tail and that a person has a nose. Some of the pictures featured illustrations of characters with these unusual body parts. The prosecutor and an expert on child pornography argued that these body parts had no effect and that the comic characters indeed were persons. As examples of what is not a person, the child pornography expert mentioned The Simpsons and Donald Duck.[49] The Court of Appeal upheld the former verdict, for 39 of the 51 pictures, and the monetary fine was reduced.[50][51][52] It was immediately further appealed to the Supreme Court.[53] While the Prosecutor General agreed with the verdict of the Court of Appeal, he still recommended that the Supreme Court hear the case, to clarify the issue,[54] and the Supreme Court decided to do so.[55] On 15 June 2012, the Supreme Court found him not guilty. They decided that the images were not realistic and could not be mistaken for real children, and that they therefore could not be counted as exceptions to the constitutional law of freedom of speech. One picture was still considered realistic enough to be defined as child pornography according to Swedish law. However, his possession of it was considered defensible through his occupation as a professional expert of Japanese culture, particularly manga.[56]

United Kingdom[edit]

The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) created a new offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since Scotland has its own legal System, the Coroners and Justice Act does not apply. This Act did not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered “pseudo-photographs“—images that appear to be photographs. In 2008 it was further extended to cover tracings and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs.[57] A prohibited cartoon image is one which involves a minor in situations which are pornographic and “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.

Prior to this, although not explicitly in the statutes, the law was interpreted to apply to cartoon images, though only where the images are realistic and indistinguishable from photographs.[58] The new law however covered images whether or not they are realistic.


In 2006 the government was giving close consideration to the issues and options regarding cartoon pornography, according to Vernon Coaker.[clarification needed] On 13 December 2006 UK Home Secretary John Reid announced that the Cabinet was discussing how to ban computer-generated images of child abuse—including cartoons and graphic illustrations of abuse—after pressure from children’s charities.[59] The government published a consultation on 1 April 2007, announcing plans to create a new offence of possessing a computer-generated picture, cartoon or drawing with a penalty of three years in prison and an unlimited fine.[60][61]

The children’s charity NCH stated that “this is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph”. Others stated that the intended law would limit artistic expression, patrol peoples’ imaginations, and that it is safer for pedophiles’ fantasies “to be enacted in their computers or imaginations [rather] than in reality”.[62]

The current law was foreshadowed in May 2008, when the Government announced plans to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images depicting under-18s.[63][64] Home Secretary John Reid and Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Justice Maria Eagle both specifically cited lolicon as something they wanted to ban under this new law.[64]

These plans became part of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sections 62–68,[65] and came into force on 6 April 2010.[66] The definition of a “child” in the Act included depictions of 16- and 17-year-olds who are over the age of consent in the UK, as well as any adults where the “predominant impression conveyed” is of a person under the age of 18. The Act made it illegal to own any picture depicting under-18s participating in sexual activities, or depictions of sexual activity in the presence of someone under 18 years old. The law was condemned by a coalition of graphic artists, publishers, and MPs, who feared it would criminalise graphic novels such as Lost Girls and Watchmen.[67]

The government claimed that publication or supply of such material could be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, if a jury would consider it to have a tendency to “deprave and corrupt”.[61] However, the published bill made no reference to the “deprave and corrupt” test.

In October 2014, Robul Hoque was convicted of possessing up to 400 explicit manga images involving fictional children, in the UK’s first prosecution of its kind. He received a 9-month suspended sentence. He was also warned in court that had he been in possession of actual child pornography, he would have been sentenced to jail for a longer term in years.[68]

United States[edit]

1973 – 2002[edit]

The legal treatment of simulated child pornography in the United States requires an understanding of the components of that phrase: pornography, child, and simulated. United States law treats these as separate concepts. In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it fails the Miller test, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography. The basis for the ruling was that the CPPA made unlawful some forms of protected First Amendment speech, banning depictions of sex between children even if not obscene and not involving real child victims. Under New York v. Ferber, if the depiction is of real child abuse or a real child victim, as a result of photographing a live performance, for instance, then it is not protected speech. Under Miller v. California, obscene speech is likewise excluded from First Amendment protection.

2003 – PROTECT Act[edit]

In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by President George W. Bush.[69] The PROTECT Act amended the previous law on child pornography by adding an affirmative defense which states that “the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors”. This new act also modified the law by changing the previous “appears to be a minor” section with “indistinguishable from that of a minor” phrasing. It is specified that “the term ‘indistinguishable’, used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.”[70][71][72][73] The PROTECT Act also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting”, that “depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is “obscene” or “depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in … sexual intercourse … and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the internet, or transported across state lines.[74] There is also an affirmative defense made for possession of no more than two images with “reasonable steps to destroy” the images or reporting and turning over the images to law enforcement.[75]

The first major case occurred in December 2005, when Dwight Whorley was convicted in Richmond, Virginia under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive “obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males”.[76][77][78] On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, consisting of 20 years imprisonment.[79] Whorley appealed to the Supreme Court, but this was denied.[80][81][82]

2008 – present[edit]

Response to “18 U.S.C. § 1466A” has been met with legal challenges on a number of fronts. On May 19, 2008, the SCOTUS again applied the holding of Ashcroft, supra, to virtual child pornography via United States v. Williams (2008). It was ruled that “an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means ‘a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed…Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever.” Also of issue has been the wording of “18 U.S.C. § 1466A”, where parts of the law testing the criminalization of a “visual depiction of any kind” have been tried in the courts. In October 2008, a 38-year-old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley was prosecuted for possession of explicit lolicon manga. The judge ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting” were unconstitutional, but Handley still faced an obscenity charge.[83] Handley was convicted in May 2009 as the result of entering a guilty plea bargain at the recommendation of his lawyer, under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images in question.[84]

Drawn child pornography has been in a legal grey area ever since this late 2008 ruling. While two parts of the PROTECT Act were ruled unconstitutional on a federal level, laws regarding drawn child pornography still differ between states. Several states have laws that explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography and similar depictions, while others have only vague laws on such content. In California such depictions specifically do not fall under state child pornography laws, while in Utah they are explicitly banned.[85][86] On a federal level, works depicting minors that offend contemporary community standards and are “patently offensive” while lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” continue to stand as illegal. Legal professor Reza Banakar has since stated that “serious artistic value” is very difficult to evaluate, and that the legal task of evaluating the lack of such value cannot be executed objectively.[87] The mainstream media has not picked up any cases since 2012, when a man from Missouri entered a plea bargain to “possession of cartoons depicting child pornography”.

The following are cases which have been brought up since the ruling in 2008[a]

2010 Idaho case[edit]

In October 2010, 33-year-old Idaho man Steven Kutzner entered into a plea agreement concerning images of child characters from the American animated television show The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts.[88][89] The case was originally brought up due to the fact that the German Federal Police identified and reported to U.S. authorities Kutzner’s IP address as one where a known file containing actual child pornography was being shared.[90] During the forensic investigation, which uncovered “six hundred and thirty two (632) image files, seventy (70) of which were animated images graphically depicting minors engaging in sex acts”, “five-hundred-and-twenty-four (524) pornographic image files, most of which depict what appears to be teenaged females”, and “more than eight-thousand files containing images child erotica involving younger children, many of them prepubescent”,[90] Kutzner admitted that he had knowingly received photographic child pornography “for at least eight years”.

2011 Maine case[edit]

In November 2011, Joseph Audette, a 30-year-old computer network administrator from Surry, Maine, was arrested after his username was linked to child pornography sites. A search inside Audette’s home did result in photographic child pornography in addition to “anime child pornography”.[91] Audette was never formally charged subsequent to his arrest; after he posted bail, a judge eventually lifted all bond restrictions placed on him.[92]

2012 Missouri case[edit]

In October 2012, after being reported by his wife, a 36-year-old man named Christian Bee in Monett, Missouri entered a plea bargain to “possession of cartoons depicting child pornography”, with the U.S. attorney’s office for the Western District of Missouri recommending a 3-year prison sentence without parole.
The office in conjunction with the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force argued that the “Incest Comics” on Bee’s computer “clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value”. Christian Bee was originally indicted for possession of actual child pornography, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea deal, and was instead charged with possession of the “Incest Comics”.[93][94][95][96]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ 2 of the 3 following cases have also involved the possession of real life child pornography


  1. ^ Unsavoury cartoon ruling sparks debate in Sweden icenews
  2. ^ Being virtual: who you really are online Davey Winder Page 155
  3. ^ In Free Speech Coalition v. Reno {513 U.S. 64, 78} (later Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), the court held that “[f]actual studies that establish the link between computer-generated child pornography and the subsequent sexual abuse of children apparently do not yet exist.”
  4. ^ Hotline proposed operational guidelines”「ホットライン運用ガイドライン案」等に対する意見の募集結果について” (in Japanese). Internet Association Japan. 2006-05-31. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  5. ^ Can cartoon child pornography help paedophiles? Archived 2014-01-10 at the Wayback Machine radio Netherlands
  6. ^ “House wants to ban pornographic cartoon”. House of Representatives of the Philippines. Retrieved 2009-04-16.
  7. ^ Email from the
  8. ^ McLelland, Mark. The World of Yaoi: The Internet, Censorship and the Global “Boys’ Love” Fandom Australian Feminist Law Journal, 2005.
  9. ^ “Simpsons cartoon rip-off is child porn: judge”. The Age. Melbourne. 2008-12-08.
  10. ^ “Aussie censor balks at bijou boobs”. The Register. 2010-01-28.
  11. ^ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 163.1, as enacted by SC1993, c 46, s 2.
  12. ^ Thompson, Jason (24 June 2011). “American Faces Minimum 1 Year in Prison for Bringing Manga to Canada On His Laptop”. Archived from the original on 26 June 2011. One of the items is believed to be a doujinshi, or fan-made comic, of the mainstream manga series Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha. Another is believed to be a comic in the original Japanese depicting stick-figure like figures in various sexual positions.
  13. ^ Alverson, Brigid (24 June 2011). “Comics Lead to Child Porn Charges at Canadian Customs”. Comic Book Resources. Archived from the original on 2 September 2016.
  14. ^ Kelts, Roland (14 October 2011). “How Japanese manga can land international travelers in jail”. Archived from the original on 5 March 2013. He has since been charged with possession and importation of child pornography and he faces a minimum of one year in prison if convicted — not to mention a reputation ruined for a lifetime.
  15. ^ Jennifer Henderson (4 May 2015). “Japanese anime child porn leads to jail for former NSCAD technician”. CBC News. Retrieved 13 February 2017.
  16. ^ “Chapter 17, sections 18 and 19” (PDF). Retrieved 2015-06-04.
  17. ^ “Code pénal – Article 227-23”. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
  18. ^ “Dessiner des lolicons devient illégal, même s’ils sont privés”. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
  19. ^ “New law to fight child pornography, Polizia di Stato (Police of State) March 2006”. 2006-03-27. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  20. ^ Justitie (1 October 2002). Retrieved January 20, 2006. Archived April 19, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  21. ^ (in Dutch) Wetboek van Strafrecht, Artikel 240b
  22. ^ (in Dutch) Maximum Dutch fines per fine category
  23. ^ “Belgian Law Regarding Child Pornography”.
  24. ^ Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  25. ^ Puni Puni Poemy: Banned in New Zealand. Retrieved August 23, 2007.
  26. ^ “Legal in the US, watching “pixie sex” lands New Zealand man in jail”. Ars Technica. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
  27. ^ a b “Man sent to jail for watching ‘pixie sex. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
  28. ^ (in Norwegian) Lovdata – Straffeloven, 19. kapittel, Seksualforbrytelser, § 204a
  29. ^ (in Norwegian) Om lov om endringer i straffeloven 20. mai 2005 nr. 28 (siste delproposisjon – sluttføring av spesiell del og tilpasning av annen lovgivning)
  30. ^ “Rządowy projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw” (in Polish). Sejm. Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  31. ^ “Art. 202 of Polish Penal Code” (in Polish). Retrieved 2013-07-13.
  32. ^ Art. 10 ustawy z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. – Kodeks cywilny (Dziennik Ustaw (in Polish) (16), 1964, 93)
  33. ^ “Zadaj pytanie – Prokuratura Okręgowa w Zielonej Górze”. Prokuratura Okręgowa w Zielonej Górze (in Polish). Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  34. ^ Wrześniewski, Maciej. “Krytycznie o przestępstwach pornograficznych” [Some critical remarks on pornography offences]. Prokuratura i Prawo (in Polish) (11/2011): 109–111. Retrieved 22 September 2018. Nie ma w tym przypadku możliwości, aby potwierdzić w sposób niepodważalny wiek zaprezentowanej osoby – gdyż osoba taka de facto nie istnieje.
  35. ^ Maciej Szmit (18 August 2014). Wybrane zagadnienia opiniowania sądowo-informatycznego (in Polish). European Association for Security. pp. 164–166. ISBN 978-83-61645-10-8.
  36. ^ “Skazania prawomocne – dorośli – w latach 2002-2016”. Informator Statystyczny Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości (in Polish). Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  37. ^ “Skazania prawomocne – dorośli – wg rodzajów przestępstw i wymiaru kary w l.2008-2016”. Informator Statystyczny Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości (in Polish). Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  38. ^ “Artysta, malarz, zboczeniec?”. (in Polish). Archived from the original on 26 January 2016. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
  39. ^ “Malarz Krzysztof Kuszej uniewinniony od zarzutu propagowania pedofilii”. (in Polish). Retrieved 22 September 2018.
  40. ^ “Films and Publications Amendment Bill of 2003 (104kb pdf file)” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2006-01-14.
  41. ^ “Los fiscales no perseguirán cómics ni manga de pornografía infantil” (in Spanish). MANUEL MARRACO. Retrieved 2018-02-19.
  42. ^ “66 Pounds of Hentai Confiscated from Comiket-goer by Swiss Customs”. Otaku USA Magazine. 2018-08-18. Retrieved 2018-11-14.
  43. ^ “Barnpornografibrott” (in Swedish). The Swedish Police. Archived from the original on 2010-08-25. Retrieved 2010-07-11. Digitaliserade tecknade och animerade bilder och filmer som skildrar barn i pornografiska sammanhang är att betrakta som barnpornografi. Förbuden mot skildring och innehav gäller inte den som tecknar eller målar en sådan bild om den inte görs tillgänglig för andra.
  44. ^ “Brottsbalk 16 kap. 10 a §” (in Swedish). Sveriges rikes lag. Retrieved 2013-07-13. Med barn avses en person vars pubertetsutveckling inte är fullbordad eller som är under arton år. Är pubertetsutvecklingen fullbordad, ska ansvar för gärning enligt första stycket 2–5 dömas ut bara om det av bilden och omständigheterna kring den framgår att den avbildade personen är under arton år.
  45. ^ Sweden’s “The Local”: Translator fined July 25, 2010
  46. ^ Sankaku Complex: “Manga Translator Convicted” July 26, 2010
  47. ^ Av: Ola Lindqvist “Hovrätten prövar mangaporr – Uppsala”. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  48. ^ “Hovrätten ska avgöra om manga-serier är porr – Inrikes – Ekot”. 2011-01-14. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  49. ^ As stated in court (Svea hovrätt 2011-01-14 13:00 to 14:45).
  50. ^ “Sveriges Domstolar – Svea hovrätt har idag meddelat dom i “Manga-målet. 2011-01-28. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  51. ^ “Swedish Translator’s Child Pornography Charges Upheld – News”. Anime News Network. 2011-01-28. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  52. ^ “Seriesamlare fälld för barnpornografibrott – kultur & nöje”. Archived from the original on 2012-10-09. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  53. ^ “ABC – 20/7 21:23 | SVT Play”. Archived from the original on 2012-07-28. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  54. ^ “Archived copy” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-02-25. Retrieved 2017-05-13.CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link)
  55. ^ “Norran, Skellefteå » Högsta domstolen prövar mangamålet”. 2011-11-07. Archived from the original on 2012-04-03. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  56. ^ “Högsta domstolens dom meddelad den 15 juni 2012” (PDF) (in Swedish). Supreme Court of Sweden. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-13.
  57. ^ “Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (c. 4)”. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  58. ^ “Man had cartoon-style child porn”. BBC News. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2010-05-07.
  59. ^ “Ban urged on child abuse images”. BBC News. 2006-12-13. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  60. ^ “Plan to tighten child abuse law”. BBC News. 2007-04-02. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
  61. ^ a b “Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”. Home Office. 2007-04-02. Archived from the original on 2007-10-14. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  62. ^ Mark Lawson (2008-05-31). “This loophole is real. But the remedy is really perverse”. London: Guardian. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  63. ^ “New proposals will make all obscene images of children illegal – Ministry of Justice”. 28 May 2008. Archived from the original on 21 November 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
  64. ^ a b “UK to outlaw cartoons of child sexual abuse”. The Register. 2008-05-28. Retrieved 2008-11-30.
  65. ^ Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – 2009 c. 25 – Part 2 – Chapter 2 – Prohibited images
  66. ^ “The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Commencement No. 4, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2010”. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  67. ^ Taylor, Jerome (2009-03-23). “Graphic artists condemn plans to ban erotic comics”. The Independent. London. Retrieved 2010-05-07.
  68. ^ Gareth Lightfoot (20 October 2014). “Fan of Japanese anime makes British legal history after conviction for having pictures of cartoon children”. mirror. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
  69. ^ “Bush signs child protection bill”. CNN. April 30, 2003. Retrieved 2003-05-01.
  70. ^
  71. ^
  72. ^
  73. ^
  74. ^ 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(d)
  75. ^ 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(e)
  76. ^ “Richmond man first convicted under expanded child-porn law”. Archived from the original on 2005-12-25. Retrieved 2006-01-12.
  77. ^ Flannery, Sara E.; Damon A. King (November 2006). “Prosecuting Obscene Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children” (PDF). Internet Pornography and Child Exploitation. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  78. ^ Artefact (2009-01-07). “20 Years for Loli Manga”. Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  79. ^ “Text of 4th circuit court of appeals decision on United States v. Whorley” (PDF). Retrieved 2012-07-22.
  80. ^ “Court of Appeals Affirms Cartoons of Child Porn Are Illegal”. Fox News. December 19, 2008. Retrieved January 4, 2009.
  81. ^ “Child-porn cartoon conviction upheld – Federal appeals panel rules porn is porn even if it’s drawn”. MSNBC. December 20, 2008. Retrieved January 4, 2009.
  82. ^ “Docket No. 09-6521 – Dwight Edwin Whorley v. United States”. Supreme Court of the United States.
  83. ^ Iowa Collector Charged for Allegedly Obscene Manga from AnimeNewsNetwork on October 10, 2008
  84. ^ Manga Collection Ruled ‘Child Pornography’ By US Court“., May 28, 2009
  85. ^ California Obscenity Laws
  86. ^ “Utah State Legislature”. Archived from the original on 7 May 2015. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
  87. ^ Reza Banakar (2010). Rights in Context: Law and Justice in Late Modern Society. Ashgate Publishing. Retrieved February 19, 2019.
  88. ^ Former teacher pleads guilty to downloading ‘Simpsons’ porn Archived 2013-05-25 at the Wayback Machine Oct 14, 2010
  89. ^ Steven Kutzner Plea Agreement October 4, 2010
  90. ^ a b “United States Of America, Plaintiff, vs. Steven Kutzner, Defendant: Government’s Sentencing Memorandum” (PDF). United States District Court For The District Of Idaho. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
  91. ^ James Straub (November 15, 2011). “Forum in Deer Isle Focuses on Child Porn Arrest”. The Ellsworth American.
  92. ^ Restrictions Lifted on Maine Man Arrested for Explicit ‘Anime’
  93. ^ Jacob Sullum (31 January 2013). “Missouri Man Gets 3 Years for Reading ‘Incest Comics. Retrieved 19 November 2016.
  94. ^ “Monett man pleads guilty to possession of child-porn cartoons”. Joplin Globe. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
  95. ^ “Christian Bee admits having child porn cartoons”. Archived from the original on 30 October 2013. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
  96. ^ Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of “Cartoon” Child Porn published 19 October 2012 by Johnathan Grey Carter of Escapist Magazine.

Al-Alosi, Hadeel (2018), The Criminalisation of Fantasy Material, Routledge.