CNIT 422 EXAM 2 STUDY GUIDE
child pornography protection act of 1996 - Answer --virtual child pron
-images of a minor what was created through the use of tech rather than the actual
exploitation of a real victum
-congress stated it "inflames the desire of child porn..."
Virtual child pronography - Answer -images of a minor that was created through the use
of tech rather than the actual exploitation of a real victim
free speech coalition - Answer -(2002) Ashcroft vs free speech coalition
-"appears to be" and "conveyed the impression" violated constitutional rights (too broad
and vague)
-protected under first amendment because Ferber defined child porn as obscene to
protect children from sexual abuse
PROTECT Act of 2003 - Answer --courts burdened with proving the images were real
children and not virtual children
-"persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors"
-burden of proof shifted to the defense
morphed images - Answer -non-porn images of real children modified or changed to
create child porn
Protect our Children Act of 2008 was created for this
US Sentencing Guidelines - Answer --harsher sentences for production, distribution,
and possession, respectively
-offense characteristics leading to harsher sentences:
1. number of images in collection (scaled 10-149 through 600 images)
2. violent images of child sex abuse
3. real vs. virtual
internet service providers role - Answer -In US, has a duty to report to law enforcement,
not required to delete, shut down website, monitoring, ...
-No civil liability (ex. Verizon is a third party)
children's internet protection act (2000) - Answer -filtering software
libraries under government grants use filtering software
does not violate free speech- adults may request the library to turn off the filtering
software
COPINE levels - Answer -Copine has 10 levels of severity - level of victimization of a
child (1 lowest, 10 most)
(legal and illegal)
, 1. indicative
2. nudist
3. erotica
4. posing
5. erotic posing
6. explicit erotic posing
7. explicit sexual activity
8. assault
9. gross assault
10. sadistic/bestiality
ICMEC 2016 Report Findings - Answer -ICMEC (international centre for missing and
exploited children)
35 member countries had no laws specifically addressing child porn
2006, number decreased from 95
NCMEC - Answer --Protect our children act of 2008
-cybertipline of NCMEC
-responsible for contacting law enforcement
-contacts ISP (internet service providers) to block transmission of images
-granted limited immunity - "good faith"
-ISPs still socially and politically pressured to block, filter, or delete child porn content
BUT NOT A LAW TO DO SO
Emotion-led policy/moral panic - Answer --child porn users are not homogenous
1. motivations and rationalizations vary
2. more CP users than child sex offenders
3. convicted child sex offenders more likely to use child porn (opposite has been
proven)
-current federal laws and sentencing guidelines
1. based on assumptions about recidivism
2. based on number of images in collections (tech = intention?)
3. violent images = violent offender?
4. CP use cross-over to hands-on sex offense?
oliver image description scale - Answer -?????
- what is "small" and "large" quantity of material?
-R vs. Thompson (2004)
-Oliver guidelines not meant to be a "straitjacket"
-Oliver used copine as guideline for laws
Canadian child pornography laws - Answer --has a scale like copine but doesn't site
-different than US laws
child pornography protection act of 1996 - Answer --virtual child pron
-images of a minor what was created through the use of tech rather than the actual
exploitation of a real victum
-congress stated it "inflames the desire of child porn..."
Virtual child pronography - Answer -images of a minor that was created through the use
of tech rather than the actual exploitation of a real victim
free speech coalition - Answer -(2002) Ashcroft vs free speech coalition
-"appears to be" and "conveyed the impression" violated constitutional rights (too broad
and vague)
-protected under first amendment because Ferber defined child porn as obscene to
protect children from sexual abuse
PROTECT Act of 2003 - Answer --courts burdened with proving the images were real
children and not virtual children
-"persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors"
-burden of proof shifted to the defense
morphed images - Answer -non-porn images of real children modified or changed to
create child porn
Protect our Children Act of 2008 was created for this
US Sentencing Guidelines - Answer --harsher sentences for production, distribution,
and possession, respectively
-offense characteristics leading to harsher sentences:
1. number of images in collection (scaled 10-149 through 600 images)
2. violent images of child sex abuse
3. real vs. virtual
internet service providers role - Answer -In US, has a duty to report to law enforcement,
not required to delete, shut down website, monitoring, ...
-No civil liability (ex. Verizon is a third party)
children's internet protection act (2000) - Answer -filtering software
libraries under government grants use filtering software
does not violate free speech- adults may request the library to turn off the filtering
software
COPINE levels - Answer -Copine has 10 levels of severity - level of victimization of a
child (1 lowest, 10 most)
(legal and illegal)
, 1. indicative
2. nudist
3. erotica
4. posing
5. erotic posing
6. explicit erotic posing
7. explicit sexual activity
8. assault
9. gross assault
10. sadistic/bestiality
ICMEC 2016 Report Findings - Answer -ICMEC (international centre for missing and
exploited children)
35 member countries had no laws specifically addressing child porn
2006, number decreased from 95
NCMEC - Answer --Protect our children act of 2008
-cybertipline of NCMEC
-responsible for contacting law enforcement
-contacts ISP (internet service providers) to block transmission of images
-granted limited immunity - "good faith"
-ISPs still socially and politically pressured to block, filter, or delete child porn content
BUT NOT A LAW TO DO SO
Emotion-led policy/moral panic - Answer --child porn users are not homogenous
1. motivations and rationalizations vary
2. more CP users than child sex offenders
3. convicted child sex offenders more likely to use child porn (opposite has been
proven)
-current federal laws and sentencing guidelines
1. based on assumptions about recidivism
2. based on number of images in collections (tech = intention?)
3. violent images = violent offender?
4. CP use cross-over to hands-on sex offense?
oliver image description scale - Answer -?????
- what is "small" and "large" quantity of material?
-R vs. Thompson (2004)
-Oliver guidelines not meant to be a "straitjacket"
-Oliver used copine as guideline for laws
Canadian child pornography laws - Answer --has a scale like copine but doesn't site
-different than US laws
