Fact check: What is the international definition of child pornography?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal that there is no single, universally accepted international definition of child pornography. The most concrete definition comes from U.S. federal law, which defines child pornography as "any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age)" under 18 U.S.C. § 2256 ^[1].

However, the sources indicate that international efforts focus more on frameworks and conventions rather than unified definitions. The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse includes provisions addressing child sexual exploitation and abuse online, but the specific definitional language is not provided ^[2].

Multiple law enforcement operations demonstrate international cooperation in combating these crimes, including cases involving networks across five continents ^[3] and platforms like "Kidflix" with nearly two million users ^[4], but these operational descriptions do not establish formal international definitions.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes that a standardized international definition exists, but the analyses reveal significant gaps in definitional consensus. Several critical perspectives are missing:

• Terminology debates: The NSPCC strongly advocates against using the term "child pornography" altogether, arguing it "implies a sub-category of legally acceptable pornography" and instead recommends "child sexual abuse materials" to emphasize the seriousness of the crime and its impact on children ^[5].
• Jurisdictional variations: While U.S. law provides a specific definition ^[1], the analyses do not include definitions from other major jurisdictions like the European Union, United Kingdom, or other countries that may have different age thresholds or scope criteria.
• International organizations' approaches: UNICEF and other child protection agencies are mentioned in relation to child protection broadly ^{[6] [7] [8]}, but their specific definitional frameworks for child sexual abuse materials are not detailed in the analyses.
• Technical and legal distinctions: The analyses do not address how different countries handle computer-generated imagery, written materials, or other edge cases that complicate international harmonization efforts.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may be misleading: it presupposes that "the international definition" exists as a singular, agreed-upon standard. This framing could lead to misinformation because:

• No evidence of unified definition: The analyses provide no evidence of a single international definition that all countries have adopted ^{[1] [2] [6] [7] [8]}.
• Terminology bias: By using "child pornography" in the question, it perpetuates language that child protection experts actively discourage, as the NSPCC analysis demonstrates that this terminology minimizes the severity of child sexual abuse ^[5].
• Oversimplification of complex legal landscape: The question implies a level of international legal harmonization that the evidence does not support, potentially misleading users about the actual state of international cooperation and legal frameworks in this area.

The question would be more accurate if framed as "How do different countries and international organizations define child sexual abuse materials?" or "What are the various legal definitions used internationally for crimes involving sexual exploitation of minors?"