Animated child pornography = yes or no?

[Red7227]

Saints row 4 has been refused classification in Australia. Once I get past the "why the fuck do we even need a censorship board" it begs the question, what shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to play or watch? Clearly depicting rape and murder aren't a problem for any one that has seen a TV program or movie recently. Dexter is a popular series about a serial killer.

At this point everyone will say "child pornography" and naturally I agree that children should not be used in the making of porn. My question is, what about animated child porn? We have all kinds of Manga and Henti involving very young looking girls and tentacles/aliens/rape/sodomy/etc which people either like or write off as "each to their own" Do pedophiles deserve the same consideration, or are they too depraved as a class of humanity to be allowed any outlet for their addiction/fetish/perversion?

 

[Shaun__]

Drawn child pornography is illegal in the United States and many other countries as well.

 

[BlueViolet]

I think it's ridiculous to censor ANIMATED/DRAWN porn in which no child is being physically hurt. I think censoring art is absolutely ridiculous.

The laws are actually really vague when referring to animated/cartoon child porn in the United States. Most laws allow it as long as it isn't realistic CG. The thing that bothers me is that the concept of "porn" is also vague and censors drawn story telling. Scenes that are vital to a story have to be censored to not be classified as porn, even if it isn't a porn based scene. And it's also very hard to tell what age a cartoon character is drawn at.

I have characters who might have the body of a teenager but are of a different race/species. They can be upwards to 800 years old. Technically all those characters are over 18, because an 18-year-old would be a small child in that universe. But I'm afraid that even with big, "ALL CHARACTERS ARE OVER 18 YEARS OLD", that people might claim it's child pornography or something.

I have a friend who is 26-years-old who has the exact body type of one of my characters who looks like a teenager, she's maybe a little smaller. Obviously, I don't agree with child pornography, but I am afraid that my style of art will cause someone to cry child porn and try to get me in legal trouble because fictional drawn porn is illegal.

There are lots of books that graphically detail child rape or young teenage incest but are legal because they are fiction, why is drawn art any different?

 

[LadyLuna]

I'm one of those weird people. Stuff that in real life makes me cringe or feel like murdering the monsters who created this pain, I love (and get turned on by) the fantasy of it. Despite never ever ever wanting any child to be exposed to such things, I heartily enjoy imagining myself to be a 6-year-old in certain fantasies (note, I'm the child in those...) Despite wanting to break out in tears any time I see someone in pain for real, seeing animated/drawn gore and vore is a huge turn-on for me. If I know it's fake, I like it. If I suspect it's real, I hate it.

So, I would say, why not? As long as all the voice-actors are adults, I see no problem with it.

 

[Crumb]

Neil Gaiman said it best
fair warning, the following link is a lengthy blog post but worth a read.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/w ... peech.html

it may not be animated that he's talking about, but it still applies.

 

[Jupiter551]

I think it's ridiculous to censor ANIMATED/DRAWN porn in which no child is being physically hurt. I think censoring art is absolutely ridiculous.

The laws are actually really vague when referring to animated/cartoon child porn in the United States. Most laws allow it as long as it isn't realistic CG. The thing that bothers me is that the concept of "porn" is also vague and censors drawn story telling. Scenes that are vital to a story have to be censored to not be classified as porn, even if it isn't a porn based scene. And it's also very hard to tell what age a cartoon character is drawn at.

I have characters who might have the body of a teenager but are of a different race/species. They can be upwards to 800 years old. Technically all those characters are over 18, because an 18-year-old would be a small child in that universe. But I'm afraid that even with big, "ALL CHARACTERS ARE OVER 18 YEARS OLD", that people might claim it's child pornography or something.

I have a friend who is 26-years-old who has the exact body type of one of my characters who looks like a teenager, she's maybe a little smaller. Obviously, I don't agree with child pornography, but I am afraid that my style of art will cause someone to cry child porn and try to get me in legal trouble because fictional drawn porn is illegal.

There are lots of books that graphically detail child rape or young teenage incest but are legal because they are fiction, why is drawn art any different?

Lot of grey areas here and this is a topic that has come up on the forum before, but essentially there's a concern - not unfounded - that people who are prone to a particular fetish (pedophilia is a fetish, albeit an illegal and extremely harmful one) may not fully develop those fetishes without the opportunity to explore their fantasies. Clearly in some cases the pedophiles would offend regardless of seeing images that stimulated them, but in other cases people who would otherwise perhaps not have had a particular fetish, or had suppressed it, are sometimes being encouraged to have fantasies that may not have occurred at all if something hadn't (deliberately) triggered it.

People develop, explore, and discover new fetishes on MFC (and all over the world) constantly - there are for sure hundreds or thousands of people who have fetishes they didn't have before (or perhaps didn't know they had) until they saw something on the internet that planted an idea.

Now look, I'm not saying that animated etc depictions like this are on the same level quite as the real thing - but obviously it's being produced for those who want to engage in such activities (whether they work themselves up to doing it or not) and if the viewer one night while drunk molests his daughter like he'd been fantasising about well...the blame is the offender's, but the producers of such porn are in all honesty enablers.

Please note though, Im talking about deliberately produced material - not banning 'The Little Mermaid' cos some weirdo jacks off over it, or your art because of people's perceptions of your model's body.

 

[Sevrin]

are they too depraved as a class of humanity to be allowed any outlet for their addiction/fetish/perversion?

Yes.

 

[southsamurai]

im well known for being rather violent in my views on on child abuse of any kind. that being said a cartoon/anime/drawing is not real. so it doesnt bother me at all. matter of fact as a creative product it should be protected by the first amendment here in the states. i've seen some straight up pornographic anime over the years and yeah if the same scenes were real i would flip out there is a basic disconnect when its a toon, even a really well drawn or rendered toon.

though something miss luna said made me think (go figure! me thinking along the same lines as miss luna lol. only happens every third post).
now back when i was a kid some of my fantasies were rather..... odd for the age. at 9 i had fantasies of being kidnapped and made the sex toy of a tribe of amazons. bondage, light torture, the whole deal, in real life that would just make me very angry. angry enough to maim and kill really, im not a submissive in any way and what with the ptsd and all i over react to triggers of that nature.

but even as an adult that fantasy can still get me going. so can memories from that age. remembering some of the real events from back then carries some serious erotic weight. those early experiences are so charged with the sense of newness and wonder and exploration that even though they were fairly innocent they resound powerfully in the psyche decades later. and in those fantasies/memories its the me i was then, at the age it happened, not an adult reliving them.

point being that the line can get blurry sometimes. there is certainly a line, and one that should never be crossed, but that line is nowhere close to fantasy and drawing/toons. on the reals even hardcore animated porn is not the same thing at all.

 

[Kokoro]

I'm not sure how I feel about it. In one anime that I started watching forever ago, Elfen Lied, a 14 year old girl was shown getting naked for her stepdad and having to bend over. They don't show any detail below the belt, though. I get kind of a weird feeling about it.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Drawn child pornography is illegal in the United States and many other countries as well.

Oh no it is not in the US. Drawn or virtual child porn is legal in the US and prosecutions of it also involve the person possessing real child porn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

The important case is Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition from 2002 which struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) by a 6-3 decision.

The courts summary is worth reading.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," and imposing a criminal sanction on protected speech is a "stark example of speech suppression." At the same time, sexual abuse of children "is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people." "Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has." The great difficulty with the two provisions of the CPPA at issue in this case was that they included categories of speech other than obscenity and child pornography, and thus were overbroad.

The Court concluded that the "CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers engaged in sexual activity, a "fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages." Such depictions include performances of Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare; the 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann; and the Academy Award winning movies Traffic and American Beauty. "If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work's redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene."

Thus, the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA "records no crime and creates no victims by its production." Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.

 

[sweetiebatman]

no no no and no a little bit more

Child Porn, or any kind of depiction of child porn in ANY media is in my opinion wrong and to be honest sick. makes me angry even thinking about it

And did I just read, In a summation from a court of law that "Child porn is not without value"?!

Jusus H Christ..

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

no no no and no a little bit more

Child Porn, or any kind of depiction of child porn in ANY media is in my opinion wrong and to be honest sick. makes me angry even thinking about it

And did I just read, In a summation from a court of law that "Child porn is not without value"?!

Jusus H Christ..

You might want to read Lolilta and then tell me it has no value. Ah but Lolita is a book that deals with incest and sex with a 12 or 13 year old, so that isn't child porn. Although historically Lolita got banned in a a ton of places. Now since lots of people don't read books, an anime of Lolita might prove to popular. IMO it would be more impactful to have the anime portray Lolita as a real child, rather than having a 17 year old actress, pretend to be a 12 year old girl, like happens in the films of Lolita.

The Supreme court got it right. Once we start and try and make judgements about what does and doesn't have value we end up with, some prudes in Podunk, deciding that camgirls DPing themselves has no value and should be banned. Do you really want to go there?

Actually since I see you are Brit, I'd argue that current British government is well on that path.

 

[Shaun__]

Drawn child pornography is illegal in the United States and many other countries as well.

Oh no it is not in the US. Drawn or virtual child porn is legal in the US and prosecutions of it also involve the person possessing real child porn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

The important case is Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition from 2002 which struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) by a 6-3 decision.

The courts summary is worth reading.

I stand corrected, I did not know it was changed.

 

[JickyJuly]

There's no reason a child body should be sexualized for adult consumption. Period. If we start saying it's okay AS LONG AS it's animated etc, it will normalize pedophilia. That's all our little hell handbasket needs.

no no no and no a little bit more

Child Porn, or any kind of depiction of child porn in ANY media is in my opinion wrong and to be honest sick. makes me angry even thinking about it

And did I just read, In a summation from a court of law that "Child porn is not without value"?!

Jusus H Christ..

Once we start and try and make judgements about what does and doesn't have value we end up with, some prudes in Podunk, deciding that camgirls DPing themselves has no value and should be banned. Do you really want to go there?

Actually since I see you are Brit, I'd argue that current British government is well on that path.

Making laws to protect children from adults is far different than making laws to legislate what adults can do to themselves. Stop grasping at straws.

 

[Sevrin]

The Supreme court got it right. Once we start and try and make judgements about what does and doesn't have value we end up with, some prudes in Podunk, deciding that camgirls DPing themselves has no value and should be banned. Do you really want to go there?

Sure, let's.

Those camgirls DPing themselves are consenting adults. Visitors of camsites are presumed to be consenting adults. MFC does not actually verify that visitors are adults and has lolrules in place, but that is the site's problem. Obscenity laws in Western are not written for the benefit of prudes, but in order to protect those who are incapable of consent. Prudes are really unhappy with current obscenity laws, by the way.

Oh, and about the SCOTUS, you might have kept reading that Wikipedia article. History did not end in 2002.

In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by then president George W. Bush.[58] The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. And mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the internet, or transported across state lines.[59] There is also an affirmative defense made for possession of no more than two images with "reasonable steps to destroy" the images or reporting and turning over the images to law enforcement.[60]

Criticism of the law has been levied on its wording. Lawrence Stanley noted that, "The moral slippage in the law is palpable in the way it conflates images of actual minors with fictional representations: it refers to "depictions of minors," and, by reference to the other provisions in the law, defines acts engaged in by "persons," but how is a cartoon character a person?"[61] The argument drawing on the definitions of 18 USC § 2256, which defines a minor as "any person under the age of eighteen years."[62]

In 2008, the law was tested in the courts. Parts of the law, such as the criminalization of a "visual depiction of any kind" were rendered unconstitutional by the judge in the Christopher Handley case. However, in the Dwight Whorley case, the conviction was been upheld on appeal to the 4th Circuit. The court noted that the minors depicted in obscene material need not exist. The Supreme Court would later refuse to review the Whorley case.

So, Whorley stands. What was Whorley?

Dwight Whorley was convicted of (1) knowingly receiving
on a computer 20 obscene Japanese anime cartoons depicting
minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §
1462; (2) knowingly receiving, as a person previ-
ously convicted of receiving depictions of minors engaging in
sexually explicit conduct, the same 20 anime cartoons, in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C. §
1466A(a)(1); (3) knowingly receiving,
as a person previously convicted of receiving depictions of
minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 14 digital pho-
tographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit con-
duct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2252(a)(2); and (4)
knowingly sending or receiving 20 obscene e-mails, in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. §
1462.

One of the appeals judges dissented, but the decision, nevertheless stands. It still remains for the SCOTUS to render a definitive opinion. You can read more about the Whorley case with less legalese on Ars Technica.

 

[sweetiebatman]

no no no and no a little bit more

Child Porn, or any kind of depiction of child porn in ANY media is in my opinion wrong and to be honest sick. makes me angry even thinking about it

And did I just read, In a summation from a court of law that "Child porn is not without value"?!

Jusus H Christ..

You might want to read Lolilta and then tell me it has no value. Ah but Lolita is a book that deals with incest and sex with a 12 or 13 year old, so that isn't child porn. Although historically Lolita got banned in a a ton of places. Now since lots of people don't read books, an anime of Lolita might prove to popular. IMO it would be more impactful to have the anime portray Lolita as a real child, rather than having a 17 year old actress, pretend to be a 12 year old girl, like happens in the films of Lolita.

The Supreme court got it right. Once we start and try and make judgements about what does and doesn't have value we end up with, some prudes in Podunk, deciding that camgirls DPing themselves has no value and should be banned. Do you really want to go there?

Actually since I see you are Brit, I'd argue that current British government is well on that path.

Maybe i should have been a little more clear, as Lolita does not strictly deal with JUST child porn but i take your point that some literary work can include this when there is a bigger theme. If we take Lolita, it is in no way an erotic novel, it is a wry sideways look at American culture, full of irony and sarcasm. To stand this next to Anime is quite frankly insulting to Vladimir Nabokov, its author

 

[Shaun__]

The Supreme court got it right. Once we start and try and make judgements about what does and doesn't have value we end up with, some prudes in Podunk, deciding that camgirls DPing themselves has no value and should be banned. Do you really want to go there?

Sure, let's.

Those camgirls DPing themselves are consenting adults. Visitors of camsites are presumed to be consenting adults. MFC does not actually verify that visitors are adults and has lolrules in place, but that is the site's problem. Obscenity laws in Western are not written for the benefit of prudes, but in order to protect those who are incapable of consent. Prudes are really unhappy with current obscenity laws, by the way.

Oh, and about the SCOTUS, you might have kept reading that Wikipedia article. History did not end in 2002.

So, Whorley stands. What was Whorley?


One of the appeals judges dissented, but the decision, nevertheless stands. It still remains for the SCOTUS to render a definitive opinion. You can read more about the Whorley case with less legalese on Ars Technica.

I guess I stand corrected about my standing corrected.

 

[BlueViolet]

no no no and no a little bit more

Child Porn, or any kind of depiction of child porn in ANY media is in my opinion wrong and to be honest sick. makes me angry even thinking about it

And did I just read, In a summation from a court of law that "Child porn is not without value"?!

Jusus H Christ..

You might want to read Lolilta and then tell me it has no value. Ah but Lolita is a book that deals with incest and sex with a 12 or 13 year old, so that isn't child porn. Although historically Lolita got banned in a a ton of places. Now since lots of people don't read books, an anime of Lolita might prove to popular. IMO it would be more impactful to have the anime portray Lolita as a real child, rather than having a 17 year old actress, pretend to be a 12 year old girl, like happens in the films of Lolita.

The Supreme court got it right. Once we start and try and make judgements about what does and doesn't have value we end up with, some prudes in Podunk, deciding that camgirls DPing themselves has no value and should be banned. Do you really want to go there?

Actually since I see you are Brit, I'd argue that current British government is well on that path.

Maybe i should have been a little more clear, as Lolita does not strictly deal with JUST child porn but i take your point that some literary work can include this when there is a bigger theme. If we take Lolita, it is in no way an erotic novel, it is a wry sideways look at American culture, full of irony and sarcasm. To stand this next to Anime is quite frankly insulting to Vladimir Nabokov, its author

Whether it is insulting or not, if there is a blanket law that encompasses everything, then it will ruin a lot of literary works that depict it as part of the overall plot and theme of the story. And as I said my problem is how can you tell the age of an animated or drawn character anyway?

There are lots of models who look underage, a lot of women who are under 5 ft tall with young faces. If you accuse all characters drawn that way as being underage, then you are forcing creative artists to not be able to create what they need to for the story, and saying that those types of people don't exist.

I get accused of looking "underage" all the time anyway by a lot of people, so if I were to depict me having sex with my girlfriend, would that be considered underage?

I have a particular story in which a sub race of people were created to look younger, but some have obvious older personalities. A lot of them are under 5 ft tall and that race naturally doesn't have body hair, even the other races may be 7 ft tall and have no body hair. And even in the story, people are creeped out at the fact that another group of people force created these people to look like children/teenagers. There are scenes involving a particular character of that sub race having consensual (and non-consensual) sex relevant to the plot of the story.

If depictions of drawn or animated underage sex was outlawed, then that whole arc of the story would be irrelevant and a the rest of the story wouldn't make sense. Even though it's not underage at all, even the characters in the story have to be of a certain age and that age is usually much older than 18. But other people might see it and assume these characters are younger if they don't see the bold "All characters are over the age of 18 in this story."

That's what scares me about those blanket laws is that it will inhibit creative works. And there IS so much older literature involving actual underage people anyway that it would be silly to censor history.

 

[Jupiter551]

There are some things, like Lolita and the movie Hard Candy among lots of others I can't think of that either deal with or are about pedophilia in some way - that doesn't make them porn. They don't glorify it either, which I believe is a key point.

 

[BlueViolet]

There are some things, like Lolita and the movie Hard Candy among lots of others I can't think of that either deal with or are about pedophilia in some way - that doesn't make them porn. They don't glorify it either, which I believe is a key point.

My story is very sexual in nature and it would be considered porn even with a strong plot and serious character development. It's mostly a social commentary comparing their ridiculous society with our laws and society standards/norms, and pointing out the flaws in ours.

And it definitely isn't pedophilia, but the characters might appear to be underage to some people. I just don't understand how the law would determine what is drawn/animated child pornography and what is not. Would it be their height? Their face shape? Lack of body hair? What if it explicitly states that the characters are overage?

What exactly would determine what is and isn't animated/drawn child pornography?

 

[sweetiebatman]

I think we can ll deal with a grey area, we see it all the time on TV, in music vids etc.. popular culture deals with teenage sex all the time, what I am on about, and if you read back to the OPs original post is actual CHILD PORN. To depict child porn is to admit or infer they are children in the first place like some of this sick Hentai schoolgirl stuff, and if you are into this kind of shit, in any media you deserve to be torn apart by dogs

 

[Sevrin]

There are some things, like Lolita and the movie Hard Candy among lots of others I can't think of that either deal with or are about pedophilia in some way - that doesn't make them porn. They don't glorify it either, which I believe is a key point.

My story is very sexual in nature and it would be considered porn even with a strong plot and serious character development. It's mostly a social commentary comparing their ridiculous society with our laws and society standards/norms, and pointing out the flaws in ours.

And it definitely isn't pedophilia, but the characters might appear to be underage to some people. I just don't understand how the law would determine what is drawn/animated child pornography and what is not. Would it be their height? Their face shape? Lack of body hair? What if it explicitly states that the characters are overage?

What exactly would determine what is and isn't animated/drawn child pornography?

A better question might be whether society is better served by erring on the side of caution with respect to the depiction of sexual acts involving those whose personalities and sexualities have not matured, or by being offered social commentary that relies on titillation to attract attention to itself.

 

[BlueViolet]

There are some things, like Lolita and the movie Hard Candy among lots of others I can't think of that either deal with or are about pedophilia in some way - that doesn't make them porn. They don't glorify it either, which I believe is a key point.

My story is very sexual in nature and it would be considered porn even with a strong plot and serious character development. It's mostly a social commentary comparing their ridiculous society with our laws and society standards/norms, and pointing out the flaws in ours.

And it definitely isn't pedophilia, but the characters might appear to be underage to some people. I just don't understand how the law would determine what is drawn/animated child pornography and what is not. Would it be their height? Their face shape? Lack of body hair? What if it explicitly states that the characters are overage?

What exactly would determine what is and isn't animated/drawn child pornography?

A better question might be whether society is better served by erring on the side of caution with respect to the depiction of sexual acts involving those whose personalities and sexualities have not matured, or by being offered social commentary that relies on titillation to attract attention to itself.

My work isn't solely a social commentary, but rather a work of entertainment with the theme of social corruption mirroring our society and calling attention to certain issues. It's not being offered as a social commentary although it has those elements.

All the characters in my particular story are certainly of age, but a small amount of characters might face the same issue as someone in their mid twenties being carded and then told it must be fake because they don't look legal. A person can be legal but not look it and in works of art, there is no ID to prove it other than what the author states. In a fantasy world, those characters could be hundreds of years old, I just hope no one goes by what "looks" underage because non-human, immortal characters don't always follow the same rules of aging.

and if you read back to the OPs original post is actual CHILD PORN

Many people consider anything under 18 to be child porn. To Catch a Predator has episodes in which they have referred to 20-year-olds talking to 17-year-olds as pedophiles. That's why I included characters that may have a "teen" look to them.

 

[Jupiter551]

What exactly would determine what is and isn't animated/drawn child pornography?

Well I don't know, obviously that's something that would need discussion, appeal procedure etc.

To me though, the more important point than determining who decides and how they decide, is that there be some one(s) who are determining where the line IS drawn.

I'm not in favour of censorship, except when it hurts others or appears to advocate behaviour that hurts others. I consider that less censorship than simply proactive crime prevention - in the same way a tv program showing the best way to break into cars might be banned.

 

[BlueViolet]

What exactly would determine what is and isn't animated/drawn child pornography?

Well I don't know, obviously that's something that would need discussion, appeal procedure etc.

To me though, the more important point than determining who decides and how they decide, is that there be some one(s) who are determining where the line IS drawn.

I'm not in favour of censorship, except when it hurts others or appears to advocate behaviour that hurts others. I consider that less censorship than simply proactive crime prevention - in the same way a tv program showing the best way to break into cars might be banned.

If we are going that route, then all depictions of violence in entertainment should be banned as well because it advocates behavior that hurts or appears to hurt others. There are very graphic depictions of step-by-step instructions on how a criminal or even protagonist murdered someone, shows focusing on rape and child abuse, etc.

There are many shows and movies that glorify murder and violence with so much gore that are perfectly legal for even minors over the age of 13 to watch, or run on daytime television. Entertainment in which the "hero" has to kill a number of people to win, or fight and seriously harm others. Banning it will be good proactive crime prevention for any future murder or rape that will happen from those people who discover a new taste for violence after watching some gory movies.

 

[Aella]

If it's not hurting anybody, it's fine.

Drawn images hurt nobody. Just because we disagree does not mean we should control other people's behavior.

 

[SummerSnow69]

As the mother of a child myself,i would have to say no.Children are innocent and should be kept innocent for as long as possible.There are children out there and adults as well that have been scarred(for lack of a better term)by pedophiles.Sure,there are some people that enjoy this kind of thing but i'm conflicted on the subject,to say the least.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

One of the appeals judges dissented, but the decision, nevertheless stands. It still remains for the SCOTUS to render a definitive opinion. You can read more about the Whorley case with less legalese on Ars Technica.

Actually the Whorley case stands is only true for areas in the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit (Mid-Atlantic). The other potential test cases plead out.
More importantly you left a really important fact Mr. Whorley was also convicted of possess real child porn. The Supreme court rarely hear moot cases, and so regardless of how SCOTUS ultimate rules on the virtual child porn aspects of the Amber Alert Law, Mr Whorley is going to spend a long time in jail for being a pedophiles. I suspect when somebody is convicted solely of possessing of virtual child porn, then we will see SCOTUS rule.

In the meantime here is how the US law stands. A blanket prohibition of all animated child sex is unconstitutional. This means that something like my Anime version of Lolita even with explicit sex scene is allowed, my guess is so would Blue Violet's work, and Saint Row 4 is going to be on sale in the US with no legal challenges. If you live in Virginia, MD, SC, or NC and you want to make a pure child porn animation, or buy it, you could face jail time. In the rest of the US who knows.

In countries without a written bill of rights the government, like the UK or Australia, generally it is illegal.

But forgetting the law what is the right thing to do?

I've got a strong libertarian streak, so I argue virtual kids can't be abuse so no one is harmed. Therefore let it be.

On practical grounds, I can see a pro and con argument for allowing it or making it illegal.

On the con side, it is possible that having virtual child porn being legal encourages pedophiles to watch more. Gradually the fake stuff isn't good enough
and they start demanding the real thing. This is increases the demand for genuine child porn which is a really bad thing. But this feels like the marijuana is gateway drug argument. Once you try that first reefer, you'll graduate to crack and heroin in search of better high.

On the pro side. The availability of legal virtual child porn acts as substitute for the real thing. If you are basically a law abiding pedophile, virtual child porn is good enough. It gets you off. The rational side of your brain kicks it and you say, it ain't worth ruining my life to get my hands on the real stuff. This would reduce the demand for real child porn which is a good thing.

To me it is like any other things that is not good for you, but popular. Make it legal but regulate the hell of out to make sure it hurts as few people as possible. In this case especially the children.

 

[Red7227]

As the mother of a child myself,i would have to say no.Children are innocent and should be kept innocent for as long as possible.

With access to the internet the way it is that is about the age of 9.


Pedophilia is potentially damaging fetish, but is allowing it an outlet a bad thing? Any gay or lesbian activist will tell you that a person is more than just their sexual preference. We expect our gay friends to not hump our legs uncontrollably, why can't extend the same courtesy to other fetishes. Most of the pedophiles we know about are monsters that have been caught in criminal acts, but not every pedophile acts out on their fetish. Is granting them an outlet in the privacy of their own home wrong? There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that suggests porn promotes violence, quite the opposite in fact, so there is no downside, there is just the stigma attached to it. 30 years ago finding someone into the BDSM lifestyle was pretty rare, now people have handcuffs hanging off their rear vision mirrors where will be be in another 30 years.

 

[JickyJuly]

As the mother of a child myself,i would have to say no.Children are innocent and should be kept innocent for as long as possible.

With access to the internet the way it is that is about the age of 9.


Pedophilia is potentially damaging fetish, but is allowing it an outlet a bad thing? Any gay or lesbian activist will tell you that a person is more than just their sexual preference. We expect our gay friends to not hump our legs uncontrollably, why can't extend the same courtesy to other fetishes. Most of the pedophiles we know about are monsters that have been caught in criminal acts, but not every pedophile acts out on their fetish. Is granting them an outlet in the privacy of their own home wrong? There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that suggests porn promotes violence, quite the opposite in fact, so there is no downside, there is just the stigma attached to it. 30 years ago finding someone into the BDSM lifestyle was pretty rare, now people have handcuffs hanging off their rear vision mirrors where will be be in another 30 years.

Being gay isn't a fetish. It's an innate sexual preference that occurs naturally in most species. Pedophilia isn't a fetish. It's a mental illness which often leads to criminal behavior. Offering someone with a mental illness an "outlet" instead of help is exploitative and will lead to more crimes.