There many reasons why people may look at what is now referred to as child sexual abuse material (CSAM), once called child pornography. Not everyone who looks at CSAM has a primary sexual attraction to children, although for some this is the case. They may not realize that they are watching a crime and that, by doing so, are committing a crime themselves. This includes sending nude or sexually explicit images and videos to peers, often called sexting.

Governors in more than a dozen states have signed laws this year cracking down on digitally created or altered child sexual abuse imagery, according to a review by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Laws like these that encompass images produced without depictions of real minors might run counter to the Supreme Court’s Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ruling. That case, New York v. Ferber, effectively allowed the federal government and all 50 states to criminalize traditional child sexual abuse material. But a subsequent case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition from 2002, might complicate efforts to criminalize AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

Findings based on hashed image analysis

Internet Hotline Center Japan, which patrols cyberspace on commission from the National Police Agency, said it received 1,706 reports last year child porn on illegal public displays of child porn. Aichi, Gifu and Saitama prefectural police in June arrested three operators of the “AV Market” online video marketplace on suspicion of violating the anti-child porn law. The report brings together current research on the developmental appropriateness of children’s sexual behaviour online and the comparison and cross-over between children and young people displaying online and offline HSB. Last month, a former British Army officer who arranged for children to be sexually abused in the Philippines while he watched online was jailed. But the consequences of children sharing explicit images – especially when the content could be leaked – may continue to haunt them for a long time to come. The girl later revealed to staff that she had been posting “very sexualised, pornographic” images, says the school’s head of safeguarding, who also told us about a 12 year-old girl who said she had used the site to contact adult creators and asked to meet up.

Many states have enacted laws against AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), but these may conflict with the Ashcroft ruling. The difficulty in distinguishing real from fake images due to AI advancements may necessitate new legal approaches to protect minors effectively. Child pornography, now called child sexual abuse material or CSAM is not a victimless crime.

‘Sucked into’ appearing in videos

“At the most serious end”, children were using the language of violent pornography and it was affecting their behaviour, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. In a statement in response to our investigation, the government was highly critical of OnlyFans. The website has “failed to properly protect children and this is completely unacceptable”, a spokesperson said.

Leah used most of the money to buy presents for her boyfriend, including more than £1,000 on designer clothes. Caitlyn says she doesn’t approve of her daughter using the site, but can see why people go on it, given how much money can be made. Leah had “big issues” growing up and missed a lot of education, Caitlyn says. We were also able to set up an account for an underage creator, by using a 26-year-old’s identification, showing how the site’s age-verification process could be cheated. In return for hosting the material, OnlyFans takes a 20% share of all payments. OnlyFans says its age verification systems go over and above regulatory requirements.

• Among the child pornography offenders referred to prosecutors last year, 44.1 percent were teenagers, nearly double their share from a decade earlier, according to data released by the National Police Agency.
• Telegram allows users to report criminal content, channels, groups or messages.
• In tweets advertising her OnlyFans account – some of which include teaser videos – people call her “beautiful” and “sexy”, and ask if she would meet up.
• In November 2019, live streaming of child sex abuse came to national attention after AUSTRAC took legal action against Westpac Bank over 23 million alleged breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism laws.
• Even minors found distributing or possessing such images can and have faced legal consequences.

What we know is that child sexual abuse material (also called child pornography) is illegal in the United States including in California. Child sexual abuse material covers a wide berth of images and videos that may or may not show a child being abused – take, for example, nude images of youth that they took of themselves. Although most of the time clothed images of children is not considered child sexual abuse material, this page from Justice.gov clarifies that the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. So it’s possible that context, pose or potentially even use of an image can have an impact on the legality of the way an image is perceived. While the Supreme Court has ruled that computer-generated images based on real children are illegal, the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision complicates efforts to criminalize fully AI-generated content.