For now, I'm commenting on Article 13 (no, not the horrible copyright law, ugh, I hate that) of this proposed treaty.
"include written or audio content"
Once again, this is a very bad idea. If someone writes a story about anything that happened to themselves, that would fall under that. If they talk about it, that would fall under the "audio" term (although, for the purposes of discussion, this post will mainly refer to the "written" term).
I suspect this might refer to that one case where someone admitted to their crimes in their diary (in which case, it should be possible to prosecute *those* crimes without this clause...). This passage is extremely abusable and seems to serve no legitimate purpose. It seems to solve for a "problem" which doesn't seem to exist.
This is so-called "real person" bloat where someone thinks they can justify clearly suspicious (and abusable) terms by tossing a bone in later (and still encouraging countries to not adopt the bone, or to otherwise engage in state harassment).
This also still risks sweeping up fantasies, particularly private fantasies, and could even constitute a threat to the use of telehealth services. Could you *please* stop to think about these terms before throwing them in for the sake of "completeness"? It's not going to be used for anything "good", it's very likely going to be primarily used in scenarios where it is clearly and plainly ridiculous.
"A State Party may require that the material identified in paragraph 2 be limited to material that 3. (a) Depicts, describes or represents a real child"
I'd add an element of intent here, these terms seem rather vague to me. This clause should be mandatory (as well as deleting "describes"), otherwise it still encourages countries to do something harmful.
Article 53 3.(h)
"as well as making efforts to guarantee the immediate removal of child sexual abuse and exploitation material"
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but intermediary liability / hasty removal can be problematic for free expression.
