While US federal child pornography laws prohibit the use of minors “in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct,” paedophiles are using computer technology to produce a new form of child pornography, which is not included under these statutes. Congress expanded the definition of child pornography in the CPPA of 1996 to include computer generated images of sexually explicit conduct if they are, or appear to be, of a minor engaging in that conduct.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the statute unconstitutional, but the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have upheld it.
In Family Research Council filed its friend-of-the-court brief as an interested party in the case of Ashcroft against the Free Speech Coalition. The brief argues that:
In the UK, the Protection of Children Act makes it an offence to distribute or share indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children or have them in one’s possession with a view to doing this. Children include those under the age of 16 and those giving the impression that they are under 16. Data stored on a computer disk is also caught if it is capable of conversion into a photograph.