During the recent negotiations of a new international treaty on cybercrime at the UNWestern countries, led by the United States and the European Union, have proposed decriminalize certain forms of child pornography. Among these exceptions, pornographic material that represents fictional minors or minors generated by artificial intelligencecovering topics such as manga and doujinshi.

Western countries argue that minors who share sexualized images of themselves, even with adults, should not be penalized, arguing that they have a “right to engage in sexual relations.” This position has generated controversy, especially because The proposal also suggests that self-generated material within the context of consensual relationships It should not be considered a crime if it is kept for private use.

A delegate from Austria explained the Western perspective clearly: “Minors over the age of 14 have the right to have sexual relations. It is our belief that images produced within the scope of a legal and voluntary relationship should not be criminalized.”. Germany supported this position by stating that these exceptions represent “the minimum” for subscribing to the treaty.

However, a bloc of 22 countries, led by Syria, strongly opposes these exceptions.arguing that they undermine the purpose of the convention, which is to protect children. These countries, which include Russia, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabiaargue that decriminalizing fictional child pornography and practices such as “sexting” among minors could generate a “impunity for sexual abusers”.

The Western proposal has been defended by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, which considers that Without these exceptions, there is a risk of criminalizing legitimate expressions of art and literature that depict fictional individuals.. This position has been criticized by detractors of the treaty, who warn that decriminalizing these representations could pave the way for greater exploitation of minors.

The future of the treaty remains uncertain, with countries divided between those seeking maintain current international standards protection of children and those who advocate greater flexibility in the treatment of fictitious or self-generated materials.

Source: Center for Family and Human Rights