Political CV

THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
by Diana E.H. Russell, Ph.D.
Written September 2004

DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT OBTAINING MY PERMISSION.

Introduction and Background:
I sent this manuscript to my editor at Routledge Publishers in September 2004. Unfortunately, I was very late in meeting my deadline for many reasons, especially my intense involvement in initiating a campaign against the richest landlord in Berkeley (after UC Berkeley) for his 15-year exploitation of minor sexual slaves imported from India -- among other crimes.
My editor had just quit her position at Routledge to accept a job at the New York University Press, so my manuscript remained unread while Routledge searched for a new editor. By January of 2005, a new editor had still not been hired, so I wrote to Mary McGinnis, the Vice President of Routledge to ask her what I should do about this. I feared if I revised the manuscript before I had an editor, she might well request that I revise it yet again. Ms. McGinnis told me to go ahead and revise it. Meanwhile, she said she would also like to see my manuscript.
Less than a week later, she called me and declared that, "There is no way that Routledge will be associated with a book of this nature." "Why not?" I asked her. "It's the branding issue," she replied. "What do you mean?" I asked her, but she didn't explain. I interpreted her statement to mean that she didn't want Routledge to become known for publishing such a shocking book. It included many sexually explicit child pornography stories written for pedophiles, as well as descriptions of child pornography, including gross cartoons, all of which were legal.
I told Ms. McGinnis that I was willing to remove the material that bothered her, but she insisted that she had discussed the issue with members of the staff, and she wasn't willing to reconsider. She resolutely held to her position despite my continued pleas. Since my manuscript was late, I had broken our contract, so I knew she would have this excuse to disregard it. Of course, this wasn't a genuine concern for her, since she had told me that I should go ahead and revise my manuscript. She said that she would help me find another publisher for this book. However, she did not follow through on this promise.
I contacted my previous editor at New York University Press to ask if she and this publishing house would be interested in publishing Stolen Innocence. It so happened that New York University Press had published the major social scientific book on child pornography in recently. So she said that there would be no interest in publishing a book that would be in competition with this volume.
I considered suing Routledge for breach of contract, since the lateness issue was obviously not the real reason for refusing to give me a chance to revise my manuscript. A respected colleague advised me not to, because she believed this would make it next to impossible to find another publisher, as well as jeopardizing publishers' interest in future projects of mine.

Stolen Innocence: The Damaging Effects of Child Pornography
Chapter 3: The Legal History of Child Pornography

There was a "general relaxation of censorship standards" during the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s "when pornographic pictures and films of children became widely available in Europe and the United States (Jenkins, 2001, p. 31). "At least for a few years," Jenkins wrote,

"it was easy to walk into a store in New York, Los Angeles, or London and purchase what was frankly advertised as child porn. This might include pictures of, say, young girls performing oral sex on adult men or women or men performing anal sex on young boys, as well as countless pictures of eight- or ten-year-old girls in Penthouse-type cheesecake poses." (2001, p. 32)

According to Jenkins (2001), "The modern history of child porn" as an industry dates from this period" (p. 31). David Baker (1978) claims that the child pornography that "began to cautiously appear in an 'under-the-counter' fashion at adult bookstores in the late 1960's" was, up until 1968, mostly pseudo-child pornography (p. 810). After 1968, according to Baker, little girls of eight to 14 years old were made to pose naked in magazines with titles such as Lollitots and Moppits. "As the sexual appetite of pedophiles increased," Baker (1978) noted that, "so did the demand for child pornography" (p. 810). Hence,

"by 1976, child pornography had become a featured item among obscenity dealers, displaying in great volume and variety children aged three to sixteen in every conceivable sexual pose and act, heterosexual, and homosexual. Such magazines graphically exhibit[ed] children as young as three years old 'in couplings with their peers of the same and opposite sex, or with adult men and women. The activities featured [a] range from lewd poses to intercouse, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, rape, incest and sado-masochism." (p. 810)

Researcher Kutchinsky claimed that the research he conducted in Denmark in 1970 and 1973 showed that the repeal of the laws censoring pornography resulted in a lowering in the rate of sex crimes. Although this research was severely defective, it was nevertheless used to validate the belief that exposure to pornography had a cathartic effect. This erroneous conclusion contributed to the proliferation in child pornography that followed. According to Jenkins,

"The magazines produced in these years offered a wide range of subjects, from girls in their mid-teens down to toddlers, and the activities portrayed varied from innocuous nudity on a beach or at a nudist camp to extreme sexual acts, showing children performing with each other and with adults." Titles of magazines included Children-Love, Lolita, Lollitots, Nudist Moppets, and Bambina-Sex (p. 32).

Given that the easy availability of child pornography was already widespread when the 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was sponsoring new research on pornography, their handling of the child pornography issue was all the more reprehensible. Not only did they disallow research on children out of an alleged concern for childrens' welfare, but they concluded on the basis of no research that they were "satisfied ... that juveniles rarely purchase explicit materials" (p. 168). The Commissioners naively believed that "their obligation to the young was over" once so-called adult pornography was labelled "'for adults only,' or 'parental guidance recommended'" (Rush, p. 168). They also maintained that pedophilia was irrelevant to child pornography, and that "the use of prepubescent children is almost nonexistent" (Rush, p. 167).

Furthermore, when the Commissioners claimed in their final report that there was no evidence that pornography causes harm, a few members of the Commission specifically included children in this generalization (1970), and "recommended the repeal of laws restricting the sale of [all] pornography" (p. 168).

The Commission's conclusion, the inaccurate interpretation of Kutchinsky's research, and the change in attitudes that occurred during the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s, intensified a new tolerance toward the proliferation and mainstreaming of pornography, including child pornography.

"By 1973 the Supreme Court abandoned a national standard definition of obscenity and allowed individual states to establish their own guidelines" (Rush, p. 168). By the mid-1970s, child pornography was "sold over the counter and in considerable quantities," according to the 1985 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography" (cited by Tate, p. 61). Much of this material was made in the United States (ibid).

On February 4, 1977, psychiatrist Judianne Densen-Gerber held a press conference to protest the proliferation of child pornography. She documented the quantity and accessibility of these materials by displaying "250 publications [that she had obtained in New York] dedicated to sex with children aged three, four and five" (Rush, 1980, p. 169). There was an immediate flurry of media coverage and investigation of her claims as well as vociferous expressions of public outrage about the examples of child pornography that she had brought to public attention. Even the Federal Government responded rapidly to the furor.

Many people will be surprised to learn that child pornography was legal in the United States prior to 1978 -- except in Tennessee where there was already a law prohibiting the use of children in pornography (Osanka and Johann, 1989, p. 458). Densen-Gerber demanded that special legislation be designed to outlaw child pornography (Tate, p. 64). Proponents of a child pornography law argued that, "Child pornography should not have First Amendment protection because it is a product of child abuse" (Osanka and Johann, 1989, p. 458). However, they also contended that "Such materials 'may be excluded from first amendment protection, even if no child abuse activity occurs'" (p. 458).

In May 1977, evidence was presented to the Senate sub-committee on Juvenile Delinquency documenting that 264 monthly child pornography magazines were being published in the United States, as well as a large number of one-issue specials (Tate, p. 65). The sub-committee heard testimony about parents who sold their children for use in pornographic movies and photographs and about the enormous profits that were being made from the commercial production of child pornography (Tate, p. 65).

A federal Sexual Exploitation of Children Act was passed in 1978 prohibiting the "manufacture or commercial distribution of obscene material involving subjects aged under sixteen years" in the United States (Jenkins, 2001, p. 35). This new federal statute also criminalized inter-state transportation of child pornography and children intended for use in sexual activities. According to Jenkins, this legislation "virtually eliminated the open availability of child porn materials in adult stores" (2001, p. 35).

As a result of this 1978 anti-child pornography legislation, a cottage industry in home-made child pornography developed, the products of which were traded, not sold. In addition, child pornography that was made in the United States was exported for publication in Europe, then imported back into the U.S. for distribution (Tate, xx).

Because the 1978 federal child pornography law did not regulate text, there was also a sizeable market for pornographic books in which sex between adults and children was described (Dietz and Sears, 1987/88, p. 28). Sexually explicit drawings of children were -- and still are -- also untouched by legal constraints. Sexually explicit photographs of children that are taken by photographers who qualify as artists (e.g., Mapplethorpe) or those who can pass themselves off as such, also seem to enjoy considerable latitude.

San Francisco photographer Jack Sturges, for example, who was apprehended because of his sexually explicit pictures of children, was eventually found not guilty because of his profession -- regardless of the fact that the salacious photographs in question were part of his private collection (i.e., not done for job-related reasons). This reasoning implies that professional photographers cannot be prosecuted for taking sexually explicit photographs of children no matter their quality, no matter if they shot them for their sexual gratification, and no matter if they kept them as a record of their past exploits -- an area of the law ripe for reform.

In 1982, "the key Supreme Court case of New York v. Ferber accepted the argument that child porn is evidence of the crime of child sexual abuse and that stopping distribution of child porn was the only effective way to end the abuse" (Osanka and Johann, 1989, p. 448). The Child Protection Act of 1984 then

"virtually removed the whole category of child pornography from first Amendment protection. Any depiction of sex involving a minor was automatically obscene, making it child pornography and therefore illegal (Jenkins, 2001, p. 36).

This law also raised the age of a minor from 16 to 18 years old.

In their study of so-called adult bookstores, Dietz and Sears reported that "we are aware of no instance of over-the-counter commercial distribution of child pornography since the enactment of the Child Protection Act of 1984" (1987/88, p. 28, fn. 46).

The Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act of 1986

"created a separate offense for transporting a child in foreign or interstate commerce when an intent to have the child engage in sexual acts 'for the purpose of producing child pornography' could be shown" (Osanka and Johann, 1989, p. 466).

It also created new offenses for 'Knowingly advertising or causing a notice to be made that a person was either seeking or offering to: a) receive, exchange, buy, produce, display, distribute, or reproduce child pornography; or b) secure the participation of a child for sexual conduct in order to produce child pornography'" (Osanka and Johann, 1989, p. 466).

Also in 1986, the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act allowed

"any minor who is a victim of a violation of the federal child pornography law and who is personally injured as a result of such violation to sue to recover actual damages plus the cost of the lawsuit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Such lawsuits must be initiated within six years after the cause of action accrues or, if the child was a minor at the time, no later than his or her twenty-first birthday." (Osanka and Johann (1987/1988), p. 466)

According to Jenkins (2001), "the legal campaign against child porn continued vigorously, ensuring that the legal availability of child porn material declined sharply" (p. 35). Although the public and legislators alike responded with a sense of urgency to the issue of child pornography once it was brought to their attention, under-age children continued to be used in the pornography industry, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally (for example, when a child or her pimp lied about her age).

In the mid-1980s, the availability of video equipment enabled amateur child pornographers to produce their own videos "in the privacy of their homes, cheaply and with minimal risk of discovery by informants or authorities" (Doyle, p. 126). The portability of camcorders made it possible to produce child pornography almost anywhere. For example, it enabled producers "to capture on videotape the mass rape of female children during the Bosnian war" (p. 126). That this video sells for more than the equivalent of $8,000 in US dollars reveals the dreadful truth that many pedophiles are extremely eager to add very violent and sadistic child pornography to their collections (Doyle, p. 126).

Furthermore, the availability of home camcorders "has greatly facilitated the production and copying of child pornography" without requiring "the services of a photographic laboratory" (Faller (1990) Understanding Child Sexual) p. 46). In addition, Faller notes that the production of child pornography videos is "quite a lucrative enterprise, which further enhances its appeal" (p. 46).

Some of the most popular pornography magazines like Playboy* [*Dines (1990) found that there were many sexual cartoons about children in Playboy in the 1970s and 1980s], Penthouse, and especially Hustler, used the cartoon format to sexualize children, belittle adult-child sexual abuse, and reinforce myths about young girls enjoying sex with adult men. For example, the Chester the Molester cartoons, a regular feature of Hustler magazine for many years, constantly joked about and belittled child molestation (see several examples in Chapter 14).

Pseudo-child pornography is another legal way that pornographic magazines responded to the crack down. Consider Larry Flynt's text accompanying a crotch shot of a young-looking childified woman.

The Lolita complex is one of the most common sexual fantasies of the heterosexual male. Many men fantasize about having sex with young girls -- which is taboo in today's society. But many wives and girlfriends gratify and fulfill their man's fantasies by dressing and acting like adolescent girls ... wearing pigtails and bobby socks. It's a harmless fantasy carried out by two adults. And, as our own Lolita reports, she too enjoys playing a little girl with her boyfriend.

The outlandish statement that many "normal" men are attracted to prepubescent girls (Lolitas) validates this deviant sexual interest. The claim that many females are willing to childify themselves to fulfill their male partners sexual desire for young girls encourages men to feel entitled to having this deviant interest satisfied. After all, their female partners should understand that "today's society" deprives them of the opportunity to directly pursue their interest in children because it has been made illegal.

Although pseudo-child pornography is frequently provided as an alternative to child pornography to avoid breaking the law, "some judges are ruling that even images in which the 'kids' are played by adults violate the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act" (Ladd, Village Voice, July 4, 2000, p. 41). Could it be that the women who are used in pseudo-child pornography judged to be illegal use particularly young-looking women? Or do judges' rulings depend on their views on pornography, or some other such idiosyncratic opinions? Unfortunately, Ladd does not describe the content of the pseudo-child pornography, or try to find out why some judges rule against these images..

In 1988, the "Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act made it unlawful to use a computer to transmit advertisements for or visual depictions of child pornography" (Jenkins, 2001, p. 38). Because child pornography producers were able to use child prostitutes ("porn models") who could pass for minors, this legislation was amended by the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 to prevent distributors from avoiding prosecution by claiming ignorance of a child prostitute's ("porn model's") true age, and producers from maintaining "that they had been deceived" (Linz and Imrich, 2001, p. 96). Hence, this legislation required

"that any producer of books, magazines, films, or videotapes that contain visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer, most importantly the date of birth of each performer" (Linz and Imrich (2001, p. 96).

This section of the 1988 law was reversed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on X-Citement Video in 1994 after which, "if pornographers do not know that the children they use are children, the pornography made using them is legal" (MacKinnon, 1995, p. 1965). According to MacKinnon (1995), the Court's decision

"accomplishes an effective drop in the age of consent for use in child pornography to the age of physical maturation -- for some girls, 10 or 11 years old -- a change that pornographers, including those on computer networks, can be predicted to exploit fully." (p. 1965)

Indeed, as MacKinnon pointed out, the Carnegie Mellon researchers had documented "extensive use of children for sex" in cyberspace (p. 1965).

In an attempt to fill the demand for child pornography without breaking the law, the pornography industry invented what Dietz and Sears referred to as pseudo-child pornography: "depictions of presumably adult women wearing childlike clothing or photographed amid childlike props or settings" (1987/88, p. 28). Dietz and Sears report that females were thus depicted on 9.4% of book covers, 3.1% of pornographic magazine covers, and 1.5% of video covers in their large scale survey of such materials (1987/88, p. 28).

Other techniques used to create pseudochild pornography include shaving the pubic hair of youthful-looking, small-breasted women over the age of 18, posing them in childlike ways, requiring them to hug a doll or a teddy bear, describing them as children in the text and/or fabricating child-like quotations to put into their mouths. However, as Dietz and Sears point out:

"Despite the use of pigtails, bobby socks, and teddy bears, the women in these pictures most often resemble adolescents rather than prepubescent children and therefore correspond more to the interests of hebophiles [persons particularly attracted to postpubescent children/adolescents] than of pedophiles." (1987/88, p. 28).

In 1989, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child required that "all State Parties will undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, and take all measures to prevent 'the exploitive use of children in pornographic performances and materials'" (Doyle, 1999, p. 131). This convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989. Only two of the 189 nations in the United Nations have not ratified this convention: the USA and Somalia (emphasis added; www.freethechildren.org/peace/childrenandwar/uncrc.html).

In 1990, Osborne v. Ohio made it illegal to view or possess visual child pornography. "By the 1990s," Jenkins (2001) notes, the Federal government defined child pornography as a "'visual depiction ... of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,' including 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person'" (p. 37). Moreover, "Even advertisements featuring naked children" were "strictly taboo in the United States" (Jenkins, 2001, p. 39).

The increasing significance of the availability of both adult and child pornography on the Internet brought with it a daunting new challenge to law makers and law enforcement agencies regarding how to deal with child pornography in this new abstract world where the application of community standards was no long relevant. In a period when no solutions seemed to be forthcoming, the findings of a very influential study of pornography on Internet Bulletin Boards was published in July 1995. The principal investigator of this study -- a Carnegie-Mellon graduate student called Marty Rimm -- maintained that the Internet offered "an unprecedented availability and demand of [for] material like sadomasochism, bestiality, vaginal and rectal fisting, eroticized urination ... and pedophilia" (Jenkins, 2001, p. 50). (Rather than "pedophilia" Jenkins presumably meant incest and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.)

Rimm's findings were dramatically described in a Time magazine cover story authored by Philip Elmer-Dewitt (July 1995) which came to the immediate attention of members of Congress. In addition, Rimm showed some members of Congress some examples of pornographic pictures (including child pornography) that he had downloaded from pornography bulletin boards. The Congress members were duly shocked by the pictures, their viewing of which played a major role in their formulation of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which was passed in 1996. The public was also outraged about young people having access to online adult pornography.

Jenkins (2001) described the Communications Decency Act) as "a sweeping censorship measure" (p. 8). The conservative supporters of this measure in Congress -- influenced by Rimm's lobbying about his research findings -- maintained that "a vast amount of Internet business involved the most horrifying pornography," whereas "liberals all but denied that such material existed and underplayed the existence of pedophile newsgroups and BBS's" (Jenkins, 2001, p. 51).

By passing this legislation, Congress was attempting to limit the availability of online adult pornography to children. "Paradoxically," Jenkins (2001) pointed out that the debate about children's access to adult pornography on the Internet

"helped divert attention from the graver dangers of the Internet, particularly from child porn. By focusing public attention on the supposed threat posed by mainstream adult sites, anti-smut campaigners framed the debate in terms of depriving adults as well as children of the right to view nudity and 'mainstream' porn sites." (p. )

When Rimm's study was subsequently trashed by Internet devotees who feared it would lead to censorship -- they succeeded in destroying his reputation, both personally and professionally, as well as putting great pressure on Time reporter Philip Elmer-Dewitt to perform many "mea culpas" and retract his favorable review of the study's findings. Although many of the arguments of the internet-philes were untenable, it was the enormous numbers who participated in the anti-Rimm campaign and the intimidating tactics they employed that resulted in the irrational invalidation of all Rimm's findings.

A number of plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act resulting in a District Court entering "a preliminary injunction against enforcement" on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment because it was too vague and overly broad. However, the Court left in tact the "Government's right to investigate and prosecute the obscenity or child pornography activities prohibited therein" (p. ). The Government appealed the Court's decision which was then sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also struck it down on June 26, 1997.

Computer-Generated Child Pornography

Two kinds of "virtual" or "computer-generated" child pornography were created in the 1990s:

1. Child pornography based on images created by computers without using real children. However, Healy (2002) maintains that, "it is still impossible to create entirely computer generated images that appear lifelike" (p. 7). However, she predicts that, "technology will soon be able to facilitate the creation of lifelike child pornography without using any real children at all" (p. 7).

2. Child pornography based on images made by using some body parts of a real minor, for example, by grafting a picture of "a real minor's face on the body of an adult engaged in sexual conduct" (Linz and Imrich, p. 97). Another variation on this theme has involved photographs of childrens' faces lifted from school yearbooks on the Internet and attached to the bodies of other children or pseudo-children, making it appear as if the children whose faces were used are participants in the child pornography industry. In addition, a photograph of a real child can be digitally altered so that the child is no longer recognizable.

Healy also notes that "it is ... possible to insert digital images of a person into a video in which they have not appeared" (p. 7). In addition, she states that,

"it is not difficult to add objects to an image. One can also delete objects or parts of a photo. An individual may superimpose a child's face on an adult's body, erase pubic hair or facial hair, and reduce and minimize breasts so as to make adult images look like children." (Healy, 2002, p. 7)

Some researchers and individuals concerned about child pornography consider computer-generated child pornography as a positive advance because it "may soon take the place of those materials which require the sexual abuse of real children for their production" (Friel, 1997, p. 224-225). Friel (1997) makes the plausible suggestion that "the economic and legal incentive[s] should encourage the business-oriented pornographers who are just in it for the money, [and pedophiles concerned about security] ... to switch to legal pornography." She optimistically surmises that "this makes it appear as if the advent of computer-generated child porn will achieve a groundbreaking decrease in the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the United States and elsewhere" (Friel, p. ?).

However, after making this compelling argument for anticipating a positive impact of computer-generated child pornography, Friel wisely proceeds to argue that "virtual child pornography may prove an even greater danger than its 'real' counterpart (p. 228)." For example, she argues:

"With virtual child pornography, a pedophile could manipulate a picture of a child's sibling or friend, and make it appear as though he or she had engaged in sexual intercourse with the molester. A trusting child who is not educated regarding the tricks available with today's technology would assume that the picture proves that the event occurred.... Seeing a friend, or particularly an older brother or sister, engaging in sexual conduct could send a message to the child that it is natural or acceptable for children to have sex with adults. Thus, even more so than traditional child pornography, virtual child pornography has the potential to help a pedophile seduce a child." (p. 229)

Friel also maintains that a pedophile "will find it easier to distort and manipulate pictures of actual children to create his pornography. In this case, an indirect (sic) victim is created: the child who may suffer emotional trauma at seeing her face on a pornographic image" (p. 236).

The United States Congress are firmly on the side of the argument that believes that the impact of computer-generated child pornography will be very negative. They are concerned

"not only that pedophiles use such images to whet their own appetites and lure children into sexual activities, but also that virtual child porn can 'desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children." (Stuart Taylor, 2001, p. 51)

More serious is the fact that the degree of realism present in computer-generated pornography "could be a deadly obstacle to law enforcement officers, who would not be sure if a suspected pornographer's collection was produced using real children or not" (p. Friel, p. 242). And, of course, the onus is on the police officers to prove that the material is genuine -- not computer-generated. Hence, it could become very difficult to impose legal sanctions on the producers, distributors, and sellers of child pornography.* [*Footnote: There are other arguments against legalizing depictions that do not involve the exploitation of real children which will be presented later, especially in Chapters 8 and 9].

Congress responded to the development of computer-generated child pornography by expanding the federal definition of child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 to include computer-generated child pornography. More specifically, they banned "any image that 'appears to be' sexually explicit conduct by an actual child" (Taylor, 2001, p. 51; emphasis added).

The Free Speech Coalition brought a lawsuit to strike down this statute. In reaction the Justice Department argued that a ban on computer-generated child pornography is necessary "to protect 'children who may be abused as a result of the dissemination of visual depictions of child pornography'" (Taylor, 2001, p. 51). A Federal Court found this argument unconvincing, and therefore struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act in 1999. Congress appealed this ruling.

In January 2001, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Congress' case for banning computer-generated child pornography. The Justice Department and other supporters argued "that the unquestionably valid ban on actual child porn will become unenforceable unless the court also upholds the ban on virtual child porn" (Taylor, 2001, p. 51). They also contended that as computer imaging technology advanced, "prosecutors will be unable to prove that the children depicted in sexually explicit images are real even when they are" (p. 51).

Despite these arguments, on April 16, 2002, in a 6-to-3 ruling, the Supreme Court found this law to be unconstitutional. "If no real children were used, and the pictures did not cross the line into obscenity, the ban violates the First Amendment, the court said" (SFC, April 17, 2002, p. A1). The justices also maintained that, "Virtual child pornography is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children" (p. A1/A16). However, the Supreme Court did not oppose the Child Pornography Prevention Act's provision banning "the use of identifiable children in computer-altered sexual images" (ACLU, Press Release, http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n041602a.html, p. 1).

In other words, the Supreme court decided that the first kind of computer-generated child pornography -- identified at the beginning of this discussion of this material -- is legal, but not the second kind.

The Federal Government appealed this decision, so the Child Pornography Prevention Act has been temporarily reinstated while Congress attempts to revise their law to try to convince the Supreme Court to ratify it. [check this with ACLU]

I am firmly on the side of the Federal Government with regard to this issue because of the evidence (to be demonstrated) that viewing child pornography is a significant cause of child sexual abuse. Whether or not the child pornography is computer-generated is irrelevant to the impact on the viewer. Chapters 8 and 9 will be devoted to providing a theoretical basis for the hypothesis that child pornography is a significant cause of child sexual abuse. The available empirical and anecdotal evidence supporting this theory will also be furnished.