4 ms·
I think the line is sightly fussier in the United States. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography https://www.just
by Forge36 8y ago
I think the line is sightly fussier in the United States.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-fede...
>Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor
I am not a lawyer, but given that language it gives the impression that even art may fall under the scope of U.S. law.
Am I correct? Possibly not, however that ambiguity will cause many to avoid crossing the implied law to ensure they don't break the actual law.
- throwaway37585 8y agoIANAL, does the term “actual minor” here refer to depicting a specific real-world person, or to “realism”?
- vertexFarm 8y ago"...depict an identifiable, actual minor." So this doesn't apply to cartoons of the fictional character Mitsuki, a tiny blue-haired girl in a school uniform who is totally 21 years old and not 9 according to the dating simulator's lore. So this would probably be legal in the US. See, this guy isn't even right about that. He lies about the idea that it's totally non-controversial and accepted as ethical in Japanese culture, and he lies that it's universally illegal in western culture. This whole thing is a big pile of straw men invented by an otaku who thinks he's an ambassador of an entire culture for some reason.
- erik_seaberg 8y agoMeanwhile video indistinguishable from decapitation does big numbers on HBO, complete with behind-the-scenes closeups.