> I can see an argument maybe for the law criminalising non-photographic images so someone can't argue images were computer generated when they are in reality p

> I can see an argument maybe for the law criminalising non-photographic images so someone can't argue images were computer generated when they are in reality probably real. There are so many obvious ways to close that loophole that don't involve criminalizing provably-fake images (such as making an exception for when the images are obviously fake, or can be irrefutably proven as such), that I'm forced to conclude that criminalizing cartoons was the lawmakers intention.