This blog post takes an in-depth look at whether videos featuring people in school uniforms actually incite sexual crimes, examining the issue from both legal and societal perspectives.
In Korea, the number of sex crimes has been steadily increasing recently. Sex crimes targeting children and adolescents are particularly serious offenses that can rob a person of their entire childhood or adolescence, going far beyond being mere crimes. To prevent such crimes against children and adolescents, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family recently implemented the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Abuse, commonly known as the ‘Youth Protection Act’. While the intent to reduce the number of child and adolescent sex crimes and prevent their harm is commendable, the process of implementing the ‘Act’ and its punishment standards appear problematic. First, simply classifying and punishing images as child pornography solely because they depict individuals wearing school uniforms is unreasonable. Second, labeling someone a potential criminal merely because they downloaded or possess such images is a leap in logic. Third, while it has been customary to actively publicize the law to citizens and implement it after a grace period, the current enforcement appears problematic. Police and prosecution authorities seem to be rushing implementation solely to boost performance metrics, despite lacking firm punishment standards. Finally, punishing minors who are still socially dependent is problematic.
Almost every profession has its work uniform. For example, as commonly seen around us, police wear police uniforms, and firefighters wear firefighting gear. Pornographic videos often imported from Japan are called AVs, and those working in that industry are called AV actors. For AV actors, school uniforms are merely a work uniform. Furthermore, the fact that they wear school uniforms does not mean that current adults become minors. However, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family’s claim that viewing pornography featuring school uniforms incites child sexual crimes is unacceptable. If the purpose of the laws currently enforced by prosecutors and police to protect children and adolescents from sexual harm is to prevent and eradicate sexual victimization of minors, then treating mere viewing of such pornography as potential sexual crime is unjust.
Furthermore, the notion that mere possession of child pornography makes one subject to punishment is logically untenable. Laws are meant to judge the severity of harm inflicted upon others and serve as a standard for punishment; they are not meant to impose fines or sentences for crimes not committed. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family’s claim that viewing child pornography makes one a child sex offender is a stretch. For example, drunk driving is currently prohibited by law. However, to prevent it, one is not sentenced to a punishment equivalent to drunk driving simply for possessing alcohol in the car. In contrast, when a pastor actually sexually assaulted a missionary, the punishment was only a 500,000 won fine, but the current ‘Child and Youth Protection Act’ imposes fines of up to 20 million won merely for possession. In reality, those who sexually assault and mock their victims receive lighter sentences, while relatively minor offenders like downloaders and uploaders face heavy punishment. This creates confusion among the public regarding the severity of crimes. The discovery of child pornography on the hard drives of a tiny minority of sex offenders should not lead to hasty generalizations that place the majority of possessors on the path to becoming sex offenders. Indeed, research on whether pornography influences sex crimes is harder to establish than studies examining whether violent videos increase aggression. Furthermore, ethically, it is problematic to conduct studies showing pornography to people to measure whether it increases sexual desire. However, despite these difficulties, it is worth noting data from the United States that has published research findings. A study comparing states with high and low rates of sex crimes in the U.S. found that states with relatively higher numbers of single men or higher unemployment rates tended to have more sex crimes. As this study shows, it is impossible to simply conclude that mere possession increases sex crimes; the criminal’s social environment appears to be the primary factor. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by the Chosun Ilbo, the majority of Korean men have experience viewing pornography. However, an adult with intelligence and the moral capacity to judge right from wrong would not harm others to satisfy their sexual desires. If such individuals exist, they are the perpetrators of sex crimes. Yet, only a tiny fraction of those who view pornography become sex offenders. Therefore, the problem lies less with pornography itself and more with the individual perpetrators and their environment. Addressing these root causes seems the proper solution.
Thirdly, when new laws have been enacted in the past, they were implemented after a designated grace period. However, in the case of this ‘Youth Protection Act’, there was no grace period, nor was any public awareness campaign conducted during that time. In fact, most of my friends and tutoring students were unaware of the ‘Youth Protection Act’. Obscene materials have primarily circulated via webhards, where uploaders post content in adult-only sections and downloaders retrieve it. Except for a few habitual distributors profiting from large-scale distribution, most uploaders were unaware they were committing a serious crime, as the ‘Youth Protection Act’ had not been adequately publicized. Even individuals possessing drugs like LSD or ecstasy are granted a period for voluntary surrender and guidance. Those illegally possessing firearms, which can directly harm others, are given the opportunity to surrender themselves at the nearest police station and are afforded a guidance period. However, in the case of this ‘Youth Protection Act’, there was no public awareness campaign or grace period. By the time they realized they were committing a crime, many users had already downloaded and uploaded obscene material. If the plan was to crack down on obscene material on a large scale, as mentioned earlier, a grace period should have been announced through mass media and public awareness should have been conducted during that period. After the grace period, monitoring should have been implemented on P2P sites and webhards—the primary distribution channels for obscene material—followed by the imposition of fines. Only if self-regulation failed to materialize at that point would it be appropriate to impose sanctions on downloaders and uploaders. However, the current situation involves initiating crackdowns without proper public awareness of the law. Furthermore, unclear enforcement standards are exacerbating confusion. After crackdowns began and public backlash intensified, legislation was only then introduced to enforce self-censorship and proper monitoring practices on webhard sites. This reverses the sequence of law enforcement desired by the public, harming the majority of law-abiding citizens rather than cutting off the root of the problem.
Adolescence is an age where individuals are not yet capable of bearing full responsibility for their actions. It is a period when moral and ethical values are formed within the family and school environment, and when self-identity is developed. Simultaneously, the onset of secondary sexual characteristics often leads to increased interest in the opposite sex. Generally, adolescents satisfy their curiosity about the opposite sex through unhealthy methods, such as talking with friends or viewing pornography. While this approach is hardly ideal, as mentioned earlier, it seems excessive to include adolescents—who have not yet established firm values regarding sexual ethics—in the scope of punishment without sufficient publicity and an educational period for the newly enacted law. In practice, adolescents who violate the ‘Youth Protection Act’ receive phone calls summoning them to the police station, and notifications are sent to their homeroom teachers, schools, and homes without their consent. Most adolescents were largely unaware of the existence of the ‘Youth Protection Act’ itself. Treating them like criminals who committed serious offenses simply because they downloaded content out of curiosity is not the right approach. Adults, who are relatively more open to societal news than adolescents, knew about the law’s implementation in advance and refrained from downloading. Punishing students, who are relatively more isolated from society, for downloading is seen as law enforcement that violates citizens’ right to know. Furthermore, not even giving them a chance to reflect before notifying their parents and school could inflict irreparable wounds during their sensitive adolescent years. They could face ostracism from peers, and in severe cases, this could lead to suicide. Teenagers who have already downloaded the material are reportedly trembling with anxiety daily, witnessing friends being summoned to the police station and notified. This can cause severe stress for children who are still mentally immature. In fact, it is said they have created a cafe on Naver, posting messages stating they are aware of the ‘Child and Youth Sexual Protection Act’ and deeply regret their actions, pleading for leniency.
This blog post has addressed various problems arising from the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth Against Sexual Crimes and its enforcement methods. For some time now, whenever serious social issues emerge—such as army rampages, school violence, random crimes, student verbal abuse, and now this sex crime—it has become commonplace to direct blame toward the most familiar and accessible content. Rather than apprehending criminals and thoroughly investigating their motives and family backgrounds, we fall into the error of blaming mass media, such as media files, as the primary cause that led these individuals down the path of crime. We must stop making fragmented, short-sighted prescriptions driven by performance pressure and time constraints. Regarding this child and adolescent sex crime, we should refrain from unconditionally blaming pornography as the cause and instead seek fundamental solutions over the long term.
