4 ms·
"Child porn laws and the variable obscenity standard are meant to protect the majority of children." That may have been the original goal, but in today's world
by betterunix 13y ago
"Child porn laws and the variable obscenity standard are meant to protect the majority of children."
That may have been the original goal, but in today's world I think we have observed a shift. Rather than protecting children, the purpose of the law seems to be punishing adults. What other explanation can there be for including cartoons in the definition of child pornography? What children were harmed in the making of a cartoon?
We have not entirely emerged from the insanity of the 1980s, when thousands of innocent men and women across America were imprisoned for crimes that never happened.
- sp332 13y agoIt's basically impossible to enforce a ban on "real" images but not fake ones. You could just claim all of the images are fake and unless they find the pictures on your camera, they would have a hard time prosecuting anybody.
- betterunix 13y agoThat is utterly and completely false: 1. It is obvious that manga or imagery of the Simpsons having sex are not photographs nor are they depictions of real people. 2. We have forensics experts who can examine photographs and determine if they are real, altered, or fake. We can even determine when two photographs were taken with the same camera. If it came down to it, there would be no difficulty in prosecuting someone; an expert could be called in to testify.
- dsuth 13y agoNot to mention, it's incredibly difficult and time consuming to create a realistic fake of a photo, so this fails the basic common sense test - child pornographers would simply not waste the time creating fakes which were indistinguishable from real photos under any kind of serious inspection.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- LowKarmaAccount 13y agoThe cartoon ban might be an attempt to make rotoscoped film pornography illegal.