In February of this year, a protocol was published by the UN on a new guideline to implement the so-called "Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Prostitution and Child Pornography to a Convention on the Rights of the Child."On the ACDH website, there are letters from all interviewers available for public viewing. Specifically, the United States was the only state that explicitly defended the anime in writing against the UN proposal, which clarified that such works were protected by the First Amendment. The US letter to the UN, dated May 6, 2019, coincides with UN proposals to protect children, but when it comes to paragraph 62 on the prohibition of representations of "non-existent children," they wrote;
Japan's response to the UN was more academic. On page 2, paragraph 14, they explain ...
Austria's response, which you can read here, was far less indirect with your criticisms. They simply pointed out that fictional drawings and representations were not real children and therefore were not child pornography. It is a short answer that mainly points out the shortcomings of the OPSC proposal project, but near the end of the first page they staunchly state;
The United States explicitly defended "the animes", going against the UN proposal.
Japan's response to the UN was more academic. On page 2, paragraph 14, they explain ...
Austria's response, which you can read here, was far less indirect with your criticisms. They simply pointed out that fictional drawings and representations were not real children and therefore were not child pornography. It is a short answer that mainly points out the shortcomings of the OPSC proposal project, but near the end of the first page they staunchly state;
