Fact check: How do different countries define and regulate child pornography?

1. Summary of the results

The definition and regulation of child pornography vary across different countries, with a global consensus on the need for international cooperation to combat it ^[1]. According to ^[2], child pornography is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor, and federal law prohibits its production, distribution, importation, reception, or possession ^[2]. The global nature of child pornography is highlighted by the fact that an international operation involving 35 countries resulted in the identification of almost 1,400 suspects and the arrest of 79 individuals ^[1]. Additionally, a Ukrainian man pleaded guilty to running a child exploitation enterprise, leading to the conviction of 600 American subscribers to the illegal site, demonstrating the global reach of child pornography ^[3]. The EU has also been reported to host a high number of child sexual abuse reports, with the Netherlands hosting the highest number, emphasizing the need for EU legislation to tackle child sexual abuse material ^[4]. 71 countries have called for the urgent removal of online child sexual abuse materials, recognizing the long-lasting trauma caused to victims and the need for increased public awareness ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

While the analyses provide insight into the global nature of child pornography and the need for international cooperation, there is a lack of specific information on how different countries define and regulate child pornography ^[6]. For instance, ^[6] discusses the global status report on preventing violence against children but does not specifically address child pornography ^[6]. Furthermore, the analyses primarily focus on the EU and the US, with limited information on the regulations and definitions in other countries. Alternative viewpoints may include the challenges faced by countries with limited resources in combating child pornography, as well as the role of technology companies in tackling online child sexual exploitation and abuse ^[5]. Additionally, the analyses do not provide a comprehensive overview of the cultural and social factors that contribute to the prevalence of child pornography in different countries.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be too broad, as it does not account for the variations in definitions and regulations across different countries ^[2]. The statement may also be biased towards a Western perspective, as the majority of the analyses focus on the EU and the US ^{[1] [4]}. Furthermore, the statement may overemphasize the role of international cooperation, while neglecting the importance of national and local efforts in combating child pornography ^[5]. The sources cited may also have a pro-law enforcement bias, as they primarily report on the efforts of law enforcement agencies to combat child pornography, while neglecting the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as victims' rights groups and technology companies ^{[1] [3]}.