Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Oni
But drawings aren't illegal on the internet. Certain photographs can be illegal because that's considered child abuse; they involve actual children being harmed. Drawings with child images, even if they were sexually nasty and explicit (Check out a good chunk of the Japanese AR/AP material. How often does AR link with loli anyway? Yeesh.) are still legal.
This isn't about legality, this is about a business getting paranoid and laying out very broad limits to protect it's image. Nothing wrong with that, just sad that it covers a great deal of unrelated more innocent work as well.
|
This may or may not be true. It's becoming less clear. In a discussion about a recent court case:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/29/0140251
we have the following text (which might or might not actually be legal fact; I haven't tried myself to read and interpret the legal findings, and even if I had, I'm not a lawyer):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by some guy on another forum
That's not true - two of the three charges were child pornography charges, including one of the two in respect of the drawn images. Under current US law, drawn images are treated exactly the same as real child pornography (but only if they're either obscene or "depict an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" - anything which isn't has 1st amendment protection). Note that there is no requirement of obscenity under the second criterion; I doubt this is generally in issue, but it's possible there are circumstances under which it could be.
|
It's a bogeyman which is IMO being applied way too broadly. I'm very against thought police, even in regards to things I find personally distasteful. But the actual legal realities are becoming increasingly murky.
It might actually be the case that any image featuring a real or drawn child, regardless of what's otherwise being depicted in the image, can be the basis for a child porn conviction if the prosecutor can only convince the jury that you've got it for some 'dirty reason'. If that's not currently the case, it sure feels like that's the way things are going.