The term pornography is derived from the Greek porne, meaning ”to prostitute,” and graphein, meaning ”to draw or write” (Siegel 1998). Adult pornography is defined as pictures, literature, or other materials that are intended to stimulate sexual arousal rather than serve aesthetic or emotional purposes. These materials describe, suggest, or depict some form of sexual activity among adult participants. All fifty states prohibit (to some degree) the production, sale, and distribution of pornographic material. Child pornography is usually regulated under a separate legal category. Child pornography is defined to be images, literature, or other materials that depict a child (any individual under the age of eighteen) engaging in sexual activity or portray the child in a sexually explicit manner. Child pornography involves either the creation of materials depicting minors engaged in sexual activities or the production and distribution of materials harmful to minors.
Up until recently, the controversies surrounding pornography generally fell into two categories. The first consists of those that oppose restrictions on pornography based on free speech and other issues related to first amendment rights (West 2005). The first amendment prohibits law enforcement from limiting the right of free speech; however, in cases of victimization, especially the victimization of children, law enforcement’s response often includes investigation of the case and arrest of the perpetrator(s).
The second category views pornography as a ”gateway to violence” (West 2005). Two government commissions resulted from this controversy. The first, performed during the Lyndon Johnson administration in the 1960s, found little or no evidence supporting the belief that pornography is related to sexual violence. Further, the report recommended sexual education in schools, more research on pornography, and discouraged restrictions on adult pornography. The U.S. Congress eventually rejected this report on the basis of widespread criticism. A second report, funded by the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography and released in 1986, suggested that there is a possible relationship between pornography and sexual violence. In particular, the commission’s report suggested that pornography may lead to a greater acceptance of violence toward women (Borda 2002).
To address the issue of pornography and computer technology, the 1977 Sexual Exploitation of Children Act prohibited the transportation of child pornography by mail or computer (McCabe 2000). In 1984, the Child Protection Act defined anyone younger than eighteen as a child. In 1988, the Child Protection Enforcement Act made it unlawful to use a computer to transport child pornography and provided a specific age definition of a child based on the child’s physical characteristics. The 1996 Child Pornography Act amended this definition to include computer-generated children (McCabe 2003). Since 1996, the U.S. Congress has continued to pass various acts of legislation concerning child pornography and online child pornography. These include the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, and the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000.
The 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act extended current child pornography legislation to include materials generated and disseminated using computer technology. This act defines child pornography in three parts. First, the production of the pornographic materials must involve the use of a minor in sexually explicit behaviors. Second, the visuals must appear to depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit behaviors. Last, the materials must be advertised, described, or presented in such a way that it implies that they suggest the depiction of a minor engaging in sexual explicit conduct.
The 1996 Telecommunication Reform Act, which included the Communications Decency Act as a rider, attempted to regulate information dispersed over the Internet, to including child pornography. However, in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to strike down a federal ban on ”virtual” child pornography or the use of computer-generated child pornography. The content of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), in contrast, concerns which websites children (under the age of seventeen) are permitted to access. More specifically, this legislation seeks to restrict children from accessing websites that may contain pornographic content. It also mandated a commission with the sole purpose of ascertaining methods by which children can be prevented from accessing websites deemed harmful. The 2000 Children’s Internet Protection Act addressed similar concerns by mandating that schools and libraries receiving certain forms of federal funding must implement procedures to monitor Internet use by children including the use of filtration technology.
The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998 was also intended to regulate the dissemination of child pornography on the Internet. This act has two parts. The first requires Internet service providers (ISPs) to report any possible or actual evidence of child pornography or abuse to the appropriate law enforcement personnel. ISPs are also required to report evidence of child abuse. The second portion of the act specifies that possession of child pornography is grounds for criminal prosecution.
One of the main difficulties with these acts of legislation is that they are repeatedly challenged in the courts, particularly for constitutionality issues. The 1995 Communications Decency Act (CDA), for example, prevented individuals from using the Internet to distribute materials deemed offensive to children. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this act unconstitutional in 1997 on the grounds that its wording was too vague. To correct these errors, the 1998 COPA legislation was far more specific, perhaps too much so. However, on June 22, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld an injunction against the act and held that the act may still be overbroad.
Unfortunately, technological advances in the last twenty years have created a plethora of difficulties for law enforcement. The first is that the legal system has yet to catch up to the latest Internet technology being used to create and distribute pornography, and there is much controversy over the rights of federal, state, and local governments to regulate material available on the Internet. A second problem is that although many law enforcement agencies have created specialized units to address the problem, some have neither the funds nor the resources to take such an initiative. This is problematic when combating online pornography.
Online child and adult pornography is distributed using a wide variety of techniques. These include e-mail and mailing lists, listservs, newsgroups, discussion boards, instant messaging, chat rooms, and personal websites. Pornography production, on the other hand, is aided by the use of web cameras and videophones. A new technique in the creation of child pornography, virtual child pornography, consists of images that are created using morphing techniques in which visual materials are combined to create a pornographic image. Due in part to the absence of a victim in its creation, this form of child pornography has only been banned in select jurisdictions.
During 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded ten state and local law enforcement agencies the funds to design and implement a program to counter the emerging issue of child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children via the Internet. These law enforcement agencies became members of the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program (McCabe 2003).
Under this program, the law enforcement agencies serve as regional resources in education and prevention of child sexual abuse via the Internet. In 2000, OJJDP funded twenty new awards across the nation to support similar efforts by other law enforcement agencies. Of these, one of the most recognized is Operation Blue Ridge Thunder in Bedford County, Virginia. Operation Blue Ridge Thunder (OBRT) is the code name for a task force of undercover law enforcement personnel who work to stop those who attempt to create or distribute child pornography on the Internet as well as those who use the Internet to lure children for illicit purposes. OBRT now includes a supervisor, two investigators, an analyst, and other law enforcement personnel dedicated to the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children. The Virginia State Police, U.S.
Customs, U.S. Postal Investigation Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have also contributed to this endeavor. This coordinated effort has led OBRT to be the recipient of many national, state, and local awards. Due to the widespread media attention accorded the OBRT, several nonprofit organizations, celebrities, and other law enforcement agencies have instigated their own efforts. The Safe Surfin’ Foundation (formed in 2000), for example, began its campaign as a support for the educational programs of the OBRT. Now, Safe Surfin’ is dedicated to the education of the public about Internet crimes, specifically those involving children.
Pornography, particularly child pornography, is a prominent national issue that continues to surface within the political arena. In the last decade, a series of legislative acts have been passed in an effort to curb child pornography on the Internet and to prevent children from accessing pornographic materials. However, these acts are the subject of much debate in that they seek to regulate materials generally protected by the First Amendment. Regardless, law enforcement agencies (local, state, and federal) have combined resources to combat pornography, specifically child pornography. It is clear that pornography will continue to be a crucial issue facing law enforcement personnel in the years to come.
