Quote:
Originally Posted by gribs
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):
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. |
Obscenity is an exception to the First Amendment and one can be arrested for having obscene material even if it is drawn, HOWEVER, proving a drawing on the internet is obscene by the definition the Supreme Court has laid out is next to impossible.
For more detail on this:
http://www.ararchive.com/index.php?o...&limitstart=60
Now I'm not sure about any decisions in the last year but I do know about a year ago the Court ruled that a photograph of an adult modified with a computer program to look like a child having sex was not a violation of the First Amendment. Given that decision and how conservative the current court is I doubt that anything that has shown up in AR/AP comics would be considered obscene either.
Furthermore, nothing Lorekeep has posted for sale has fallen into the catagory of what was in that case, which is in appeals. Still, a very chilling ruling for those of us not fond of thoughtcrimes being prosecuted.