> I wonder if this could help pedophile people since generated porn wouldn't imply abuse of children. In some jurisdiction even "virtual" child porn is still t

> I wonder if this could help pedophile people since generated porn wouldn't imply abuse of children. In some jurisdiction even "virtual" child porn is still treated as criminal: > A sufficient reason, on basis on which Canadian Parliament was warranted to prohibit not only production and distribution (which were not direct question in that case) but also purely private possession of child pornography - even, if it has nothing to do with use of actual children in its production - was, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion "reasoned apprehension of harm" which may flow from exposing some people to such a materials. * http://bartlomiejkozlowski.pl/virtualchildporn.htm http://bartlomiejkozlowski.pl/virtualchildporn.htm