Child pornography laws in California do not explicitly cover loli or manga depicting minors engaging in sexual activity.
California statutes prohibit the possession of child pornography. Child porn includes material that “depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct.”1
The California Court of Appeals has ruled that this means there has to be a “real child” in the depiction.2 This means that anime and cartoon depictions of children engaging in sexual acts would not break the law.
What is loli anime?
Loli is Japanese manga or anime that is sexually explicit and involves cartoon characters that are underage. It is a form of hentai, which is a genre of Japanese manga that focuses on sexualized characters and plots.
Loli depicting underage girls is known as lolicon. The word comes from Vladimir Nabokov’s book, Lolita, in which an adult man is sexually attracted to a girl who is 12 years old. When loli depicts underage boys, it is known as shotacon.
In Japan, loli is widespread. However, its legality has been controversial and attempts to regulate it have increased since the 1990s.
Can I be arrested under federal law in California for loli?
Yes. Possession of loli is illegal under federal law’s PROTECT ACT of 2003 if two conditions are met:
- First, the anime depiction of an underage person is obscene or lacking serious value.
- Second, the anime was either transmitted through the mail, internet or common carrier; was transported across state lines; or there are indications that you intend to distribute or sell it.3
Otherwise, simple possession of loli in California is not illegal under federal law. Though if you possess a large amount of loli in California, federal prosecutors will likely infer that you intend to sell or distribute it. Unless you created the loli images yourself, federal prosecutors may have an easy time proving that you received the loli over the internet or through the mail.
The PROTECT Act of 2003
The PROTECT Act of 2003 (short for Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today) was passed in the aftermath of a Supreme Court case that had held that completely virtual child pornography was protected free speech under the First Amendment, so long as it was not obscene.4 A key component of this ruling was that, because the pornography was not a visual depiction of an actual child, it was a victimless crime.
After this case, Congress passed the PROTECT Act to prohibit virtual child pornography that was obscene and that was transmitted through a common carrier, transported across state lines, or of an amount that indicates an intent to distribute.
At least one person has been charged in the U.S. with possessing pornographic material transported in interstate commerce under the PROTECT Act: In 2008, Christopher Handley pled guilty to obscenity and child porn charges after buying a comic book featuring pornographic manga.5 He was sentenced to 6 months in jail, but was not required to register as a sex offender. He had been facing up to 15 years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000.6
California law does not explicitly prohibit loli involving underage characters having sex.
Legal References
- California Penal Code 311.1 PC.
- People v. Gerber, (CAl. Ct. App. 2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 368 (not child pornography to edit a child’s face onto pornographic images depicting adults).
- 18 USC 1466A. Note that according to a plain reading of the statute, simple possession of virtual child pornography seems to be illegal if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States – even without proof of it being transported across state lines, transmitted through a common carrier, or in an amount indicated an intent to distribute.
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, (2002) 535 U.S. 234.
- U.S. v. Handley, (S.D. Iowa, 2008) 564 F.Supp. 2d 996.
- Department of Justice Press Release, “Iowa Man Pleads Guilty to Possessing Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children.” (May 20, 2009).
