In your annual report 2025 published this Monday 17 November, you consider access to online pornography to be a priority risk for children today, why?
Charel Schmit. - “From a very early age, children are exposed to online pornography and have direct, unfiltered, unregulated access to it, which means they are not protected. In particular, they can access the most harmful content, and this is a scourge. There is a clear correlation between exposure to pornography and the explosion in sexual violence between children. Early access to pornography and the ‘pornification of society’ also contribute to a hypersexualisation of children and a normalisation of sexual violence.
There is also a certain sense of powerlessness both on the part of parents and the government?
“Yes, there is a great deal of unease and a feeling of powerlessness among the players and political decision-makers. Among parents too, because numerous studies show that people have no mastery of parental control for their own children. They try for a few weeks, a few months and then gradually give up. Parents need to take responsibility, but that’s not enough.
What does that mean?
“It is the State that must, in a philosophy of children’s rights, take its responsibilities to protect children.
The State cannot hold a double discourse: on the one hand saying that it protects children, and on the other enjoying revenues from an industry that violates children’s rights.
You explain in the report that the online pornography industry generates around 100 billion dollars a year and that a significant part of this industry is concentrated in Luxembourg, which “is home to a veritable empire operating the world’s largest adult content portals - including the parent company of Pornhub, Aylo (formerly MindGeek), Docler Holding and others - posting spectacular net profits”. What’s your stance on revenue from this industry, which “violates children’s rights” in your words?
“As part of the discussions on the European Union’s due diligence directive (Corporate Sustainability Duty Directive, or CSDD, ed.), we made some general recommendations, such as recognising the pornographic industry as a high-risk sector, examining the entire production chain (verification of age and consent, identity documents, filming and distribution conditions) and monitoring companies based in Luxembourg.
Has the government turned a blind eye to the establishment of the pornography industry in the country?
“Our position is that the State cannot hold a double discourse: on the one hand saying it is protecting children, and on the other enjoying revenues from an industry that violates children’s rights. Protecting children is a legal obligation and a moral duty that must take precedence.
What do you think of the in-depth reform of the law on electronic media?
“There are currently too many loopholes in the protection system as far as digital is concerned, there are a multitude of players active in this area, but for the protection of children’s rights online, in particular, we need a coordinated policy with a clear action plan, complementarity of players and a more automated exchange of information. It is very important to have this reform to reorganise responsibilities, competences, to be able to intervene better to achieve a logic of ‘technological neutrality’ (whether sexual abuse is as serious virtually as it is in real terms, editor’s note).
The media bill is a step forward, but it does not guarantee strong enough protection, according to our recommendations.
Will it protect children enough from the internet?
“The Media Bill is a step forward, but it does not guarantee strong enough protection, according to our recommendations. We advocate an approach that places the best interests of the child at the heart of digital policies, a ban on exposure to screens before the age of three, a minimum age of 15 for the first independent possession of a smartphone or connected device, as well as for independent access to social networks, and systematic adult supervision before this age. We should also encourage ‘safephone’ devices suitable for children, without internet or social networks.
Does it have any positive points?
“Yes, such as the fact that it will cover all media services, for greater clarity and fairness, the extended powers of Alia (Independent Luxembourg Audiovisual Authority, editor’s note) which will become Alim (Independent Luxembourg Media Authority). Content creators on social networks (influencers, podcasts, web radio) will also be defined and supervised.
The Digital Services Act (DSA) also came fully into force on 17 February 2024 for all digital players in the European Union, while the very large platforms and search engines had already been subject to its obligations since 25 August 2023. Are these regulations binding enough?
“Specifically, it requires them to put in place appropriate and proportionate measures that guarantee a high level of protection for the privacy, security and safety of minors. The reality shows unregulated access and increasing risks.
How can these regulations be enforced?
“At the beginning of August, an exchange with the Autorité de la concurrence, in its capacity as digital services coordinator, led to the identification of two major European initiatives: the mapping of pornographic platforms and the implementation of robust age-compliant verification systems, at the heart of which the European digital identity will play a central role by the end of 2026. These collaborations reinforce Luxembourg’s stated desire to pool initiatives (BeeSecure, police, Alia, etc.). European regulations (DSA and RGPD) require major platforms to comply with national legislation on the protection of minors if they offer their services in the EU, on pain of administrative sanctions or restricted access. The interoperability of age verification systems makes it possible to impose common standards, even outside the EU.
Could the country turn this regulatory constraint into an economic opportunity, for example by becoming a hub for technologies to protect minors?
“It’s an economic opportunity, because it would be a big step forward in preventing violence. Violence against children represents a significant cost: according to Dr Najat M’jid, Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on Violence against Children, ‘the direct and indirect economic costs of violence against children can be as high as 11% of national GDP’. And a large proportion of violence is digital violence (cyberstalking, CSAM, happy slapping, sextortion, etc.).”
