Online child pornography: when French law imposes a clear responsibility on broadcasters and platforms

la loi française

Online pedophilia is not a marginal phenomenon, nor an abstract digital aberration. It is now one of the most documented, monitored, and prosecuted crimes under French criminal law. Contrary to a still widespread misconception, the internet is not simply a space for passive browsing: it is an accelerator, an amplifier, and, in many cases, a trigger.

French law has understood this for a long time. It does not only punish the perpetrator of sexual assault. It targets the entire chain: production, distribution, consultation, hosting, making available and, above all, deliberate inaction.

1. Online pedophilia: a structured criminal reality

Child pornography does not circulate randomly. It is embedded in networks, communities, and platforms, sometimes visible, sometimes hidden. Its dissemination relies on known mechanisms: forums, private groups, encrypted messaging, storage platforms, archive sites, and social networks.

Judicial investigations show a consistent point: the consumption and distribution of child pornography very often precede the act itself . They contribute to the disinhibition, normalization, and radicalization of behaviors.

It is precisely for this reason that French law has chosen a preventive and repressive approach , which is not limited to the final aggression, but addresses the intermediate stages.

2. The central legal basis: Article 227-23 of the Penal Code

The fundamental text is article 227-23 of the Penal Code .

It includes, in particular:

"The act of capturing, recording, transmitting, disseminating or causing to be disseminated the image or representation of a minor when that image or representation is pornographic in nature is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros."

This same article also accuses:

• the usual consultation,

• detention,

• importing,

• export,

• the provision.

👉 The law does not distinguish between producing and distributing: the two are criminally equivalent.

Even without being the author of the images, the mere act of transmitting or making accessible engages criminal liability .

3. Dissemination: a criminal act in itself, not a neutral act

One of the major contributions of French law is to consider that dissemination is never passive .

Sharing a link, hosting a file, maintaining accessible content, citing a source, redirecting to an archive: all these acts can constitute direct participation in the offence , as long as they contribute to the circulation of the content.

The case law is consistent: 👉 it is not necessary to have created the content to be prosecuted.

Dissemination is recognized as an aggravating factor in criminal activity because it:

• increases the reach of the content,

• powers the networks,

• encourages producers,

• and fuels the fantasies that lead to acting on them.

4. Consultation and detention: enhanced individual responsibility

Since successive reforms, notably Law No. 2016-297 of March 14, 2016, French law also criminalizes the habitual consultation of child pornography content.

Article 227-23 stipulates that:

"The habitual use of an online public communication service that makes such an image or representation available is punishable by the same penalties."

This provision is based on a clear observation: to consume is to support . Every consultation strengthens the criminal ecosystem.

5. Broadcasters' responsibility: an accepted logic

French law does not simply prosecute isolated individuals. It targets distributors , in the broadest sense.

A diffuser can be:

• a website administrator,

• a forum moderator,

• a group manager,

• a user who relays,

• a platform operator.

Once it is aware of the presence of child pornography , it can no longer hide behind a supposed neutrality.

Knowledge can change the legal situation.

6. Technical service providers and hosting providers: the end of willful blindness

The legal framework is based in particular on the LCEN – law no. 2004-575 of June 21, 2004 .

Article 6.I.2 of the LCEN requires hosting providers to:

"to act promptly to remove manifestly illegal data as soon as they become aware of it."

Child pornography is clearly illegal by nature . There is no legal gray area.

👉 From the moment a hosting provider is informed, inaction becomes a fault.

In certain cases, this inaction may be considered complicity , within the meaning of Articles 121-6 and 121-7 of the Penal Code , when the service provider:

• knowingly leaves the content accessible

• facilitates its dissemination

• or knowingly provides the technical means.

7. Knowledge = responsibility

The key concept is that of effective knowledge .

It can result in:

• of a formal report,

• from an internal report,

• of a judicial or administrative notification,

• from a bailiff's report,

• or even of obvious obviousness.

Case law regularly reiterates that willful ignorance is not a defense . Refusing to see, refusing to verify, refusing to act, does not protect one from harm.

👉 Closing your eyes implies responsibility.

8. The role of platforms and infrastructures

Large platforms cannot claim to ignore these issues. French law, reinforced by European law, imposes obligations to cooperate.

Operators must:

• to put in place reporting mechanisms,

• remove the content immediately.

• preserve the evidence,

• cooperate with the authorities.

Failure to comply with these obligations may result in:

• criminal liability,

• civil liability,

• and administrative sanctions.

9. Dissemination and action: a link recognized by law

Diffusion et passage à l’acte

The legislator did not rely on abstract hypotheses. The texts are based on criminological findings .

Judicial and police reports show that:

• Regular consultation trivializes the act.

• Dissemination strengthens communities.

• Easy access lowers psychological barriers.

This is why French criminal law treats broadcasting as an indirect endangerment of minors .

It is not just about repressing after the fact, but about breaking the chain before a child is assaulted .

10. The obligation to report: a collective responsibility

The Penal Code also provides for an obligation to report.

Article 434-3 of the Penal Code penalizes the failure to report crimes or mistreatment of minors, when it is possible to do so without danger.

For professionals, service providers, and platform managers, this obligation takes on a particular dimension. Knowing and remaining silent is not neutral.

11. A law designed to protect, not to stigmatize

The fight against online pedophilia is not a matter of opinion or morality. It is a criminal policy aimed at protecting the most vulnerable .

French law takes a clear position:

• Dissemination fuels crime.

• Compliant hosting facilitates abuse.

• Deliberate inaction is a serious fault.

It breaks with the idea that technology is external to human responsibility.

The internet is not a screen between the law and reality.

Online child pornography is not virtual. Its consequences are very real, lasting, and often irreversible. French law has made a clear choice: to hold the entire chain accountable , from the producer to the distributor, from the consumer to the technical service provider.

In this matter, neutrality is impossible. To see, to know, and to do nothing is to participate.

The law does not seek to punish blindly. It seeks to protect children before a crime is committed . And it reminds us of an essential truth: on the internet as elsewhere, responsibility begins where we choose to act… or not to act.