31 Dec 2008
The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn

This isn't a slippery slope - it's a mountainside covered in grease.

How old was Helen of Troy when she was married? Is the depection of that by Homer now to be considered "kiddie porn"? How about Shakespeare's two most famous lovers? They were both "underage"! How about all the paintings by the masters of Cupids trying to induce mythological lovers to make the bacon? Nude children! By this court's interpretation of the law, two stick figures in a sexual pose labelled "16 years old" would be child pornography.

I'm no fan of anime, but one of my daughters has quite the collection, and a lot of it is sexually charged (to say he least) and involves what appear to be very young people (with really big eyes). Is this offensive? To some folks, you bet! Is it "obscene"? Depends on the definition. Is it "pornography"? I beleive that any reasonable person would have to say almost certainly not, irrespective of the definition. They're freaking (or freakish) cartoons!

I can't believe that this will survive it's inevitable challenge to the Supreme Court - but on the other hand, the courts do lots of things I can't believe these days. Very disturbing.

Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."

(link) [Slashdot]

07:31 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link