On September 28th there was an international panel discussion regarding fictional text-based child pornography in Berlin, Germany hosted by the Medical School Berlin.
Jeremy Malcom who should be familiar to you was one of the invited experts. Others included representatives from australian law enforcement, ICMEC Australia, a therapist from the german Dunkelfeld therapy program for pedophiles, a law professor and a professor who studied Japanese doujinshi culture.
It was a pretty balanced panel. As you could have guessed the guest from ICMEC Australia was extremely hostile towards any and all fictional outlets deeming it as a gateway drug. He also said that pedophilic attraction itself needs to be eradicated and that ageplay between adults should be met with prison sentences since it violates childrens rights (…?).
Jeremy highlighted how more and more resources are being tied up by fiction since prosecution has to treat it just like the real deal, so in the end less actual child abuse is prevented. Morality should also not be a guidance for penalties. ICMEC disagreed with Jeremy and said that it does not matter that there is no victim and that morality has always been embeded into law.
Law professor said that he sees no artistic value, but he seems a ban on possession itself as thought crime and can only see a ban on distribution at most.
Doujinshi Professor highlights how most consumers of this type of fiction do not meet the common stereotypes found in offenders/public perception. There are surprisingly many girls and women engaging in it. She also does not trust governments to decide what is illegal and what isn’t. A lot of non-pedophiles would end up being criminalized who are the least at risk of offending.
German therapist said that her patients use child sex stories in a variety of ways since it is legal. She says it helps them connect and accept their sexuality, cope through it and explore it in a way that does not exploit a child, but she can see a risk in certain people. She says it is more about how and where such material is distributed (e. G. a forum of people believing in consent who encourage each other through it.). She does not see the material itself as problematic, but how it is treated and in what environment it is consumed. This is funny since this is the organization that the supreme court based their doll ruling on. Almost like taking personal statements from a TV show is not to be understood as evidence for a ruling.
Australian law enforcement said that it was hard to determine what is and isn’t a pornographic child sex story. So aside from ICMEC there was no call for a blanket ban.
C4OSL will release their own article on this panel in a few days.