[Fred Londi]

Hey, all. I’m the one who responded to Lorekeep’s call for legal advice on this subject. After going through this thread, I feel the need to elaborate on a few things.

Before I get into this, let me say that I am not yet a lawyer, but I am in an ABA-accredited law school where I have just recently completed a rigorous course in criminal law. I have access to 2008 edition law books on U.S. Federal and State law with which I can confirm the following statements. I am not yet trained in finding recent case law on the subject, so there is a possibility, albiet slight, that some of this has changed.

gribs’ second quotation in post #14 correctly quotes part, but not all, of the Federal Law regarding child pornography. What’s missing in his quotation is that the child depicted in the AP or AR comic/cartoon/etc. does NOT have to be a real person; it is still child pornography even if the character is imaginary. Call it “big brother” or whatever you wish, but the law spells this out in no uncertain terms:

“(c) Nonrequired element of offense.—It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.”

It is also a crime to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with an intent to distribute child pornography. This means that it’s illegal if you know the cartoon/comic/etc. depicts a child engaging in a sexual activity. Since AP and AR images are geared towards a particular fetish, it can likely be argued that AP and AR fetishists are aware of the character’s youth and that the character is engaging in a sexual activity. This is because people with a particular fetish are likely to seek images and the like to satisfy their desire.

The phrase “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” may be viewed as a defense, but in the context of the law, it seems like a trap to snare fetishists. I’m just as much of a Process fan as the rest of you, but I just don’t see a winning argument for an age-reverted adult having sex having “serious artistic value.” I can only say that fetish art has “serious erotic value,” in that the art has value in its ability to arouse us, to make us hard, wet, and ready for a sexual release. Unfortunately, “erotic value” is not the same as “artistic value;” after all, someone can get a boner to his poster of the “Mona Lisa” and not get charged because the work has such “artistic value” independent of any "erotic value" to much of the rest of the world. Since “erotic value” is also not covered in the law, AR or AP work might not be defensible.

One interesting defense to the U.S. Federal Law is that it is NOT illegal if you have less than 3 depictions of a minor participating in any sexual activity. A “depiction,” according to the law, is one single image, or in the case of a computer image, one file. It is unclear from the law if it is a defense to have several pornographic pictures on one massive digital image. I don’t know if that’ll stick as a defense, but that’s the closest thing I could come up with.

Now, the question was raised as to if AP or AR can be legal if it doesn’t have any nudity or sex. The answer is ambiguous, but the wording of the law doesn’t seem to favor AP or AR fetishists, either. The law does require child pornography to include some class of sexually-explicit conduct by the minor depicted, but again, I think this might be a trap. The case can likely be made by a prosecutor that an AP or AR sequence qualifies as “sadistic abuse,” one of the definitions of “sexually-explicit conduct” in the Federal Law. The issue could be raised that such abuse occurred because the AP or AR took place against the character’s will or that the AP’d or AR’d character was left helpless at the hands of another character. It’s a stretch, but that’s the nature of the law and you just can’t count on the court supporting one of us Process fans.

In some cases, state law is even more strict. For example, when California courts determine whether something is child pornography or not, they take into consideration if the artwork is “designed for clearly-defined deviant sexual groups.” If the AP or AR work was created by an AP or AR fan and/or was made for AP or AR fans who are sexually aroused by such works, the California courts might be quick to find a verdict. However, there is the defense that the art has to be “designed” for people to be sexually aroused by them, so an AP or AR work without nudity or sex that still arouses AP or AR fetishists might not be illegal. This is, however, just California’s interpretation.

I hope some of this has cleared up the “murk” about the child pornography laws. As a fellow Process fan, I do not mean to demean or damn anyone’s AP or AR fetish; remember that these are the law’s words, not mine. And also remember that, again, I am only a law student, not yet a card-carrying lawyer, but I am studied in criminal law. You are all certainly entitled to a second, more-informed opinion.