Back in February 2019, the UN proposed an international initiative titled Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The goal of this initiative is to fight child exploitation, such as pornography.
If the UN cares so much about protecting children maybe they should focus on third world immigration and LGBTQ instead of lewd Senko-San and Strike Witches fan art.
Regardless, this initiative's language is vague at times while leaving too much room for abuse. Especially when manga and anime can obviously be considered 'drawings of non-existing children'.
For this reason, the UN proposal came under scrutiny. The United States, Japan, Austria, and others stated their concerns.
The US stated it'd rather follow local laws over the UN's. Get fucked. lol
“Paragraph 62: “… urges States parties to prohibit, by law, child sexual abuse material in any form …. including when such material represents realistic representations of non-existing children.”In the United States, federal law provides that it is illegal to create, possess, or distribute 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. However, visual depictions (CGI, anime, etc.) where there is not a “real” child are typically protected by the First Amendment (unless the visual depictions are obscene) and the United States’ obligations under the ICCPR. We suggest editing the paragraph as follows: “… urges States parties to prohibit, by law, consistent with their national legal systems, child sexual abuse material in any form …. including when such material represents realistic representations of non-existing children.”
14. Japan believes that restriction on freedom of expression should be kept to a minimum and that highly careful consideration needs to be given to the scope of child pornography. In light of this, considering that ‘pornography’ is traditionally referred to as visually recognizable objects, whether it includes audio representations or written materials needs to be carefully considered. Japan thus proposes deleting “audio representations;” and “written materials in print or online;” from the third sentence of paragraph 61.
In addition, for the reasons explained above, whether penal sanctions should be imposed even if the case involves pornography of a non-existing child needs to be carefully considered. Japan proposes adding “as far as it represents an existing child” at the end of paragraph 61. […]”
The Japan Society For Studies in Cartoons and Comics (JSSCC) released a statement as well:
First of all, we would like to stress that we sincerely respect and support the UN’s efforts to protect real children from abuse and sexual exploitation.
However, the latest UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s draft guidelines seem to state that all fictional representation including through drawings and/or written prose should be subject to regulation and prohibited by law.
We argue that there would be many cases where, as stated in paragraph 64 of the draft, “it may be complicated to establish with certainty if a representation is intended or used for “primarily sexual purposes.”” This difficulty in establishing this point could cause confusion. In fact, in Japan, there were cases in which the 1999 Act of Regulation and Punishment of Acts Relating to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and the Protection of Children brought about confusion in both the market and society. Soon after the law was enacted, manga such as Vagabond and Berserk, works which have received high praise for their artistry within Japan and abroad, were withdrawn from stores for the sole reason, without any regard to the context, that they depict sexual acts involving minors. This withdrawal, however, was later revoked.
These cases demonstrates that the line between whether one sees something as “intended or used for “primarily sexual purposes”” or not is very subjective.
Therefore, JSSCC is deeply concerned that the proposed guidelines lack clarity in terms of the scope of the regulation, and that what should be subject to the regulation may be decided arbitrarily, resulting in the suppression of some works unnecessary.
According to the Committee’s proposal drawings and cartoons can be regarded as child pornography in the sense of Article 2 letter c of the OPSC. In this context, we would like to point out that the definition of child pornography in the more recent EU Directive 2011/93/EU comprises
1. depictions of a real child (Article 2 letter c (i) and (ii)
1. depictions of any person appearing to be a child (Article 2 letter c (iii)
2. realistic images of a child (Article 2 letter c (iv).
“As far as drawings and cartoons do not contain realistic images, we do not see the necessity to treat them as child pornography.”