>> |
Anonymous
>>892472 Incorrect. While technically it could be interpreted that way, the Supreme Court case law precedents (which overrides specific interpretations of any given established law, see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition) have consistently fallen the other way. If the content fails an obscenity test (Miller test IIRC) it is illegal, otherwise it's 100% legal. The entire purpose of child porn being illegal is because it is a direct product created through the sexual abuse of a child; however, there are no victims in the creation and distribution of "virtual child pornography." The argument is made that "it can be used to convince children to engage in sexual activity" but by that standard we'd have to make a lot more things illegal than just real child pornography, such as ALL pornography, or even some of the more provocative presentations of teen celebrities in the media, as they can all be used to convince children in one way or another that it's okay to do things that it's really not.
tl;dr: it's legal unless real people are involved.
However, it's theoretically loli that's not in /b/ so it's against the rules here, though the girl is fully clothed and there's a lot that's blacked out, so it's open to interpretation. The mods' interpretation is the only one that matters.
|