In which countries distribution and streaming of child porn is allowed

1. The legal landscape: what “allowed” actually means

Describing a country where distribution is “allowed” requires nuance: in many places the absence of a statute criminalizing distribution or the failure to define CSAM clearly does not equate to affirmative legal permission, it signals a legislative gap that enables distribution to occur with little or no legal consequence ^{[1] [4]}. International inventories—such as the ICMEC‑based surveys summarized on maps and in academic reviews—classify countries by whether they meet criteria like explicit criminalization, definition of child pornography, criminalization of possession, and internet distribution offenses; failing those criteria is how researchers identify states where distribution may not be prohibited ^{[5] [1]}.

2. How many countries have gaps, and where the evidence comes from

A widely cited estimate from international reviews is that child pornography laws were sufficiently robust in roughly 118 of 196 Interpol member states as of recent counts, leaving around 78 countries with incomplete or no specific CSAM legislation—figures repeated in academic and policy summaries and in ICMEC reviews referenced by researchers and human‑rights monitors ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Public interactive maps and datasets assembled from those reviews show clusters of incomplete regulation in parts of Africa, some states in Latin America and Asia, and a scattering of other jurisdictions, but those visualizations also warn that countries with general anti‑pornography laws can be misclassified if they lack CSAM‑specific provisions ^[5].

3. Known exceptions and legal oddities cited in reporting

Some jurisdictions make content‑based distinctions that create narrow legal spaces: several sources note that a number of countries treat “virtual” or computer‑generated depictions differently from images of actual abused children—examples in reporting and forum summaries include Finland and cases in the United States where purely fictional depictions have been treated with different legal standards, though many countries have tightened laws to include realistic CGI or drawings in CSAM prohibitions ^{[6] [1]}. Other fragments of reporting suggest a handful of states historically criminalized possession but not always distribution, or vice versa, producing further ambiguity in enforcement ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Countries that clearly criminalize distribution and those with possession laws

A number of developed countries explicitly criminalize production and distribution via computer and the Internet—international summaries and government reports single out states such as Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States as having laws that cover production, distribution and, in many cases, possession ^[7]. European states broadly prohibit producing and distributing CSAM, and national reports and Statista summaries note that France and most European countries treat producing and distributing child pornography as a criminal offence ^[8]. These contrasts matter because where distribution is criminalized, online streaming or sharing is plainly illegal.

5. Limits of available reporting and the responsible conclusion

The available sources do not provide a definitive, current country‑by‑country list in this dataset that states “distribution and streaming are legally permitted”; instead they document where laws meet international model criteria and where gaps remain, leaving open the possibility that in many of the ~78 states with incomplete laws distribution could occur with little legal risk ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Given the human‑rights stakes, most international instruments and policy advocates press countries to adopt comprehensive prohibitions covering production, distribution, possession and ISP reporting; the existing data shows widespread progress but persistent legal blind spots rather than an organized set of jurisdictions proudly permitting streaming of CSAM ^{[3] [5]}.