I was under the impression that even clearly drawn it’s already illegal, though it’s a grey area since they can say “lol it’s a 1000 year old demon that just looks like a child.” Is that not the case?
Clearly drawn is hard to prosecute (and one might argue shouldn’t be prosecuted, since obscenity laws are just… weird). However, the stuff that is photorealistic can be treated, legally, like the real thing.
That’s interesting and led me down a wikipedia rabbit hole. So the law in the US says that fictional child pornography (i.e., where it is drawn and this is not “indistinguishable” from a minor) is illegal if it is “obscene.” And the definition of “obscene” essentially comes down to “would the average member of the community find it offensive.”
Fun fact it’s already illegal. If it’s indistinguishable from the real thing it’s a crime.
I was under the impression that even clearly drawn it’s already illegal, though it’s a grey area since they can say “lol it’s a 1000 year old demon that just looks like a child.” Is that not the case?
Clearly drawn is hard to prosecute (and one might argue shouldn’t be prosecuted, since obscenity laws are just… weird). However, the stuff that is photorealistic can be treated, legally, like the real thing.
That’s interesting and led me down a wikipedia rabbit hole. So the law in the US says that fictional child pornography (i.e., where it is drawn and this is not “indistinguishable” from a minor) is illegal if it is “obscene.” And the definition of “obscene” essentially comes down to “would the average member of the community find it offensive.”
That takes “grey area” to a whole new level.