Comic Legal Defense Wiki
Advertisement

Any images or videos that depict children in a pornographic context are to be considered child pornography in Sweden, regardless of how realistic or abstract they are.[1] A “child” is defined as a “person” who is either under the age of 18 or who hasn't passed puberty.[2]

These laws have been recorded in the media being put into play in Uppsala: the district court punished a man with a monetary fine and probation for possession of manga-style images.[3][4] This was appealed, and has been taken to the Court of Appeal.[5][6] In court, Judge Fredrik Wersäll stated that a “person” (as in the definition of a “child”) is a human being. The man possessing the illustrations, as well as his lawyer, stated that a comic character is not a person (a comic character is a comic character and nothing else) and that a person does not have cat ears, giant eyes or a tail and that a person has a nose. Some of the pictures featured illustrations of characters with these unusual body parts. The prosecutor and an expert on child pornography argued that these body parts had no effect and that the comic characters indeed were persons. As examples of what is not a person, the child pornography expert mentioned the Simpsons and Donald Duck.[7] The Court of Appeal upheld the former verdict, for 39 of the 51 pictures, and the monetary fine was reduced.[8][9][10] It was immediately further appealed to the Supreme Court.[11] While the Prosecutor General agreed with the verdict of the Court of Appeal, he still recommended that the Supreme Court hear the case, to clarify the issue,[12] and the Supreme Court has decided to do so.[13]

Advertisement