Abstract
Child pornography whether on the internet or by physical transmission is tackled as a crime in all jurisdictions which have recognized it as crime. Whilst child pornography entails engaging children or portraying them in sexual activities and documenting same in some permanent form that can be recalled after the act, negligence on the other hand is a tort that makes a wrong doer liable under civil law to the claimant/plaintiff whom he has wronged. The tort is dynamic and keeps pace with modern realities owing to the opening established in the most celebrated Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 HL when Lord Macmillian declared that “the categories of negligence are never closed.” It is this newly recognized duty of care by the United States as recognized in Paroline v United States (2014) 134 SCt 1710 that this work seeks to analyse and proffer for Nigerian courts as well. The basis for this analysis is hinged on the fact that the law is always interested in providing remedy for any wrong done as buttressed in the equitable maxim of Ubi jus ibi remedium and so the Law of Torts which is the channel by which persons are compensated is utilized to ensure the victim of child pornography beyond strict criminal prosecution is compensated to mitigate
the extent of damage suffered as a result of the harm caused by the pornographic content. The work utilizes legal analysis of the basic elements of negligence and recommends that Nigerian courts should recognize tortious claims that could arise from victims and their families against the perpetrators/offenders of internet child pornography under the tort of negligence. The import of this is to offer compensation to victims with focus however on the principles of apportionment with producers and distributors bearing the larger brunt than possessors of child pornographic content.
Keywords: Internet, Child, Pornography, Negligence, Duty of Care