European Court of Human Rights
Article 10 may be one possible avenue to attack the prohibition on virtual child pornography (how the U.S. Supreme Court referred to CP produced by artificial means) in some countries in the European Union. The European Court of Human Rights seems to have the legal authority to do so, but the question is, would they? It is hard to even get a European Court to full abolish mass-surveillance which is clearly against Fundamental Rights and they acknowledged it was such.

National Courts may be another avenue, including constitutional courts. The United Kingdom is a tough nut to crack because the Human Rights Act is not a fundamental law, it is a piece of legislation like any other law, which can be repealed and preempted accordingly. If the anti-monarchists get their way, this may be possible after Queen Elizabeth II dies.

Another avenue in the United Kingdom would be to contend with Rupert Murdoch who controls a large part of the media and associated sensational tabloids who echo his sentiments on this matter. The most likely obstacles would likely be The Sun (owned by Murdoch) and the Daily Mail which used to be affiliated with the British Union of Fascists prior to the Second World War and are now affiliated with the conservatives.

I know this strange charity wants to do a fundraiser to figure out whether virtual CP reduces real offending or not. If it turns out it does reduce it, you will have a case.

We already know that it doesn’t increase real offending, as is the case with normal or ‘violent’ pornography and actual sex crimes. We’ve had this case for a very long time.

There’s already a considerable amount of empirical data which makes the claim that pornography alone, regardless of what type, is not at all likely, if at all, to induce a person to commit sex crimes. Rather, it has been more consistently observed that a comorbidity of various psycho-social impairments and disorders are far stronger and more pronounced variables than a mere correlation with pornography.

The closest thing to a causal relationship between pornography consumption and sex crimes you’ll find in most reputable, non-biased journals are questions regarding whether or not pornography consumption is a likely risk factor for those already pre-disposed to commit sexual offenses as a result of the aforementioned comorbidity, which is pretty much where we’re at right now.

There have been contradictory conclusions made about whether or not pornography consumption does pose a risk to those pre-disposed to sex crimes or aggression, with some arguing that it may, and some arguing the opposite.
More research is needed.


No, all that matters is that it does not increase offending. It needs no justification to exist.

If you apply the thinking that it must be shown to reduce offending here, then why not apply the same thinking to other things, other forms of art?