I was under the impression that fictional cp was legal in Norway as it is in most of it’s neighboring Nordic countries. Sadly I was wrong.
In a 2018 case of a man convicted of possessing 378 fictional cp images, the court had this to say in summary.
"The Court of Appeal notes that there may be reason to look somewhat milder on drawings and other graphic sexualized representations of children, than on abusive material with living children as models / actors.
In the latter case, there is a real and serious assault behind each picture or film. It is nevertheless emphasized that possession of this material is a serious offence. It is assumed that the penalty is in the area of 90 to 120 days in prison."
The first paragraph is especially astonishing to me:
“The Court of Appeal notes that there may be reason to look somewhat milder on drawings and other graphic sexualized representations of children, than on abusive material with living children as models / actors.”
This is honestly more perverse and insulting than if they had kept the sentencing for the two equal.
They understand there’s a difference. They even acknowledge why actual CP is illegal in the first place and that the stuff they arrested him for is exempt of those reasons…
Sad. Of course, if fictional CP is just as morally looked down upon, seen as just as “serious” an offense, and carries almost the same punishments then why should anyone who is sexually attracted to children stick to fictional CP?
People who take great care to deal with their attractions in a way that does not harm or even involve real children are put in the same category and treated the same as those who unapologetically get off to children experiencing sexualized torture. How is that fair, humane or in any way reasonable?
I think it reveals a mentality that seems to become more and more prevalent these days: that it is more important to punish what people feel is disgusting, rather then actually protecting children from harm. I believe if people were given a choice between either putting a pedophile who has not harmed anyone in jail, or protecting a child from harm, then most people would probably choose the former.
It was very late, and I was getting very tired last night when I read @Pseudo_53’s “opening statement”. So I thought I’d get a good night’s sleep and reply to it in the morning… unaware that you were going to invade my mind as I slept and plagiarize the argument I had started to formulate; almost word-for-word.
I would just add to the judges assumed response: “…and because it makes me look good as this is what the public wants.”
Actually, I believe this is probably the main reason why the laws against fictional depictions of “CSAM” (with an emphasis on the ironic use of quotes) primarily exist. It hands to those in authority (both legislators and the acolytes involved in prosecuting their rulings) a golden opportunity to signal their virtue.
Although this could also be said of genuine CSAM, with that there are also genuine reasons to legislate and prosecute against it.
But of course, no one in the courts has the stomach to point out this discrepancy as it would be sailing too close to a charge of contempt, or at the very least a damaged reputation.
Loli/Shota depict fictional characters, doing fictional actions, represented through an artistic medium.
And so I think the terminology is accurate. Drawings don’t have rights, and neither do fictional characters, but I don’t think that it makes the term any less apt in this circumstance.
We’re not going to win a single once of acceptance or support through euphemisms and bespoke definitions. We should instead embrace the term and make the argument that its no more inherently wrong or problematic than the fictional murder, torture, and rape that they themselves enjoy in media.
When it comes to literary works involving violence, torture and sexual torture, this sort of thing is often described variously as ‘horror’, ‘erotic thriller’ or ‘murder mysteries’, or simply just ‘adult’. As; if someone were to admit that they love reading graphic descriptions of violence, torture, sexual torture and/or even murder, this could make the person they disclose this to to assume a belief they should be concerned about a desire to act out on these interests.
However, the point is that there is no euphemism that allows a person to distract from expressing a desire to read about child sexual experiences, whether violent/coerced or not. Despite that there are a lot of (ostensibly) cathartically written novels by victims of child sexual abuse. (admittedly they don’t all include graphic descriptions of their abuse, I assume.) Even if a word or phrase were available, it simply wouldn’t “fool” anyone, or allay their fears the way most existing euphemisms usually do.
