3 ms·
> but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person
by rg111 5y ago
> but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person?
If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal?
The pixels are just the conduit, just as the the adult actress depicting a minor in a sexual act.
So it should be.
But whether it is moral- I don't know. I don't know enough psychology, public policy, etc. to express an informed opinion.
But my personal choice? Yes. It should be illegal. Hypothetically, if it ever comes to a vote, I would vote against child porn even when there is no real human involved.
That's why child porn in animations is banned as well.
- bitwize 5y ago> If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal? Due to that pesky First Amendment, this is not illegal in the USA. The USA bans child pornography under the rubric that producing or even viewing it implicates the perpetrator in the abuse of a child. If no actual child abuse is taking place, they can't ban it. Cartoon images and the like may be banned if they depict an actual minor.