Quote from US doj [1]:
> The term “child pornography” is currently used in federal statutes and is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old. While this phrase still appears in federal law, “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child. In fact, in 2016, an international working group, comprising a collection of countries and international organizations working to combat child exploitation, formally recognized “child sexual abuse material” as the preferred term.
Child porn is csam.
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/child_sexual_abuse_materi...
> “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child.
Yes, CSAM is preferred for material depicting abuse reflecting resulting trauma.
But not for child porn such as manga of fictional children depicting no abuse and traumatising no child.
> Child porn is csam.
"CSAM isn’t pornography—it’s evidence of criminal exploitation of kids."
That's from RAINN, the US's largest anti-sexual violence organisation.
> That's from RAINN, the US's largest anti-sexual violence organisation.
For everyone to make up their own opinion about this poster's honesty, here's where his quote is from [1]. Chosen quotes:
> CSAM includes both real and synthetic content, such as images created with artificial intelligence tools.
> It doesn’t matter if the child agreed to it. It doesn’t matter if they sent the image themselves. If a minor is involved, it’s CSAM—and it’s illegal.
[1]: https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abus...
I agree with that. I'd hope everyone would.
Dude, I litterally provided terminology notice from the DOJ. At this point I don't really know what else will convince you.
> I litterally provided terminology notice from the DOJ
You provided a terminology preference notice from the (non-lawmaking) DOJ containing a suggestion which the (lawmaking) Congress did not take up.
Thanks for that.
And if/when the French in question decide to take it up, I am sure we'll hear the news! :)