Child pornography is illegal in most countries, but there is substantial variation in definitions, categories, penalties, and interpretations of laws. Differences include the definition of "child" under the laws, which can vary with the age of sexual consent; the definition of "child pornography" itself, for example on the basis of medium or degree of reality; and which actions are criminal (e.g. production, distribution, possession, and/or downloading and viewing of material).^[1] Laws surrounding fictional child pornography are a major source of variation between jurisdictions; some maintain distinctions in legality between real and fictive pornography depicting minors, while others regulate fictive material under general laws against child pornography.

Several organizations and treaties have set non-binding guidelines (model legislation) for countries to follow. While a country may be a signatory, they may or may not have chosen to implement these guidelines. The information given in this article is subject to change as laws are consistently updated around the world.

The neutrality of this section is disputed. (August 2023)

While laws criminalizing child sexual abuse now exist in all countries of the world,^[7][8] more diversity in law and public opinion exists on issues such as the exact minimum age of those depicted in pornography, whether the mere possession of child pornography should be a crime, or the extent to which criminal law should distinguish between the possession, acquisition, distribution and production of child pornography. Convictions involving child pornography typically include prison sentences in most countries, but those sentences are often converted to probation or fines for first-time offenders in cases of mere possession.^[4]

In 1999, in the case of R. v. Sharpe, British Columbia's highest court struck down a law against possessing child pornography as unconstitutional.^[9] That opinion, written by Justice Duncan Shaw, held, "There is no evidence that demonstrates a significant increase in the danger to children caused by pornography", and "A person who is prone to act on his fantasies will likely do so irrespective of the availability of pornography."^[10] The Opposition in the Canadian Parliament considered invoking the notwithstanding clause to override the court's ruling.^[11] However, it was not necessary because the Canadian Supreme Court overturned the decision with several findings including that viewing such material makes it more likely that the viewer will abuse, that the existence of such materials further hurts the victims as they know of its existence, and that the demand for such images encourages the abuse.^[12]

In the United States, some federal judges have argued that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines' recommended penalties for possessors of child pornography are too harsh.^[13] Judge Jack B. Weinstein of New York criticizes the mandatory sentence for possession of child pornography as often higher than the penalty for actually committing the act of child abuse it depicts. Furthermore, child pornography prosecutions have led to dozens of suicides, some of them among the innocently accused.^[14] The requirement that people convicted of possessing child pornography pay restitution has been criticized by some judges and law professors. This has been particularly controversial in cases involving millions of dollars of restitution, as in those pertaining to the Misty Series.^[15] But in 2010, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that restitution directly to depicted minors was an appropriate penalty for possession of child pornography.^[16]

During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.^[17] Shane Cory, on behalf of the minarchist United States Libertarian Party in his role as executive director, issued a response saying, "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children." Cory resigned after the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws.^[18]

• Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors
• List of pornography laws by country