@Putin: You ask what is the purpose of this work? I'm not claiming it's art. It's pornography, plain and simple. We all know what the purpose of pornography is. I will also continue to maintain that cartoon CP is not, in and of itself, promoting actual violence. If a woman likes her porn a bit rapey, does that mean she must want to be raped? No. It's fantasy.

Charitable engagement? Right off the bat we get claims that such a ban would logically lead to bans of everything under the sun, coupled with nonsense about how asking why something should be legal is entirely contradictory antithetical to freedom as a whole. We get shit about 'thought police' and 'mind control' and 'censoring the imagination' and blah, blah, blah. What was charitable here?

The arguments provided here are repetitive and inconsistent, and really not going to lead anywhere because every argument with you guys on these issues comes down to the same point. It's always some kind of fantastic outrage that anything outrageous is ever remotely regulated. I'm arguing the point for the same reason you and everybody else is. Once again you fly off the handle and act like your motives are purer or something. I didn't think anything I said was particularly "uncharitable". But skin sure has thinned lately.

"Right off the bat we get claims that such a ban would logically lead to bans of everything under the sun"

There is nothing uncharitable about that argument. By the logic the judge gave, it is entirely reasonable that one could ban a number of other works of fiction. It would be uncharitable if I said that because you agreed with the ruling, you support banning everything under the sun. Instead, I argued how I thought it would lead to bans on a number of things, and then left it to you to refute. I did not make any aspersions about your character or your position, simply made the argument itself.

"coupled with nonsense about how asking why something should be legal is entirely contradictory antithetical to freedom as a whole"

See? You're not even being charitable in summarizing what I said! I said that your position implied that something's unregulated existence needed to be justified, and I said that that is antithetical to freedom. If you disagree with my reading into your statement to that implication, then you could have refuted it; but instead you started mocking me and treating me like I only care about things being freely accessible, and forget whatever else. If you feel that was uncharitable then I apologize, but I don't see how it is; it seemed rather clearly to follow from your statement, and as no one else spoke up to argue my point I had no way of seeing how it wasn't.

"We get shit about 'thought police' and 'mind control' and 'censoring the imagination' and blah, blah, blah. What was charitable here?"

I didn't say any of that. Why do you always have to paint people in collective terms and then pin the worst things someone says on them? Why can't you treat me as an equal and an individual, instead of some inferior component of a collective to be sneered at? I'm a person, not some faceless part of a group that opposes you. Fucking treat me like one, dammit. I treat you like one.

"I'm arguing the point for the same reason you and everybody else is. Once again you fly off the handle and act like your motives are purer or something. I didn't think anything I said was particularly "uncharitable". But skin sure has thinned lately."

Your first fucking post insinuated that I was a pedophile because I disagreed with the ruling. You've been doing it the whole time. If you can't see how that's uncharitable then I can't help you.

And yeah, I do think my motives here are purer, judging by the difference in how we've argued the point. Not once have I disrespected you for your arguments or made any unfair assumptions about your character from your posts. Not once have you extended the same courtesy. I think it's entirely fair to act like my motives are purer, because I know that if you were looking for genuine and fair discussion you wouldn't be acting the way you are.

And there was no "fantastic outrage" on my part until I finally had enough of you being a condescending douchebag, and that was because of the pervasive character attacks, ridiculous mischaracterizations and flagrant lack of interest in a genuine conversation or even showing respect for me as another person discussing the issue with you fairly. My anger at you right now has nothing to do with your position and everything to do with you being a colossal asshole to me for no reason.

You make me ashamed that I ever stood up for you when other people treated you unfairly. This hurts.

"I will also continue to maintain that cartoon CP is not, in and of itself, promoting actual violence. If a woman likes her porn a bit rapey, does that mean she must want to be raped? No. It's fantasy."

It's not as if this subject hasn't been studied. Violent porn promotes sexual violence.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

I thought to commit a crime there needs to be a victim.
in the Uk the age of sexual consent is 16, in Spain it is 13.
Do the cartoon pictures look like a 13 year old, a 14 year old, a six year old?
In Spain if the child looks 15 all is good but others may say she looks 12, who can say how old cartoon characters are?
Kids go to school until they are 18 so you can have an 18 year old girl in a school uniform.
Nobody supports or advocates violence against a child, sexual or otherwise.
I'm not convinced cartoons of girls in school uniforms having sex encourages real life paedophilia, which seems to have been around way before computers and cartoon characters. In some ways it may satisfy/assuage a paedophilic craving so maybe these kinds of images are making society safer.
I don't think we can start prosecuting people because in our minds we think they are more statistically likely to break the law, that is a slippery slope to go down.

TrPrado,

Yes. I didn't say otherwise. However, perhaps my post would have been less ambiguous if I had used "everything" instead of "anything."

OK, Putin, I accept that point.

Nigee: Age of consent is irrelevant here. In several countries, the age of consent is somewhere below 18 years of age, but there is mass consensus that any pornography including someone below 18 years of age is child pornography. That's how it is for most of the US where about half of the states have an age consent at 16, with other states at 17. Moreover, if the cartoons clearly are intended to depict someone under the proper age, then they may well be seen as a minor by the person partaking in that pornography.

You are nuts..... I should be jailed for my thoughts about Jessica Rabbit.

How old do you think Jessica Rabbit is supposed to look?

Because you're definitely missing the point.

What's *your* point, TrPrado? You said,

"Moreover, if the cartoons clearly are intended to depict someone under the proper age, then they may well be seen as a minor by the person partaking in that pornography. "

This may be true, but there's no legal claim here. Was there supposed to be?

Not legal, no. I meant "Moreover" to be a transition from legal commentary.

"Moreover, if the cartoons clearly are intended to depict someone under the proper age, then they may well be seen as a minor by the person partaking in that pornography. "

This is making a huge assumption that cartoons are people. Cartoons are not people. They're drawings. They're not depictions of real people either. So how on earth do they violate the law? A guy went to jail over Simpsons porn. Please don't tell me you believe that the Simpsons are intended to be descriptions of real people

Yes, a cartoon is definitively a depiction of a person. Not, say, if they are anthropomorphic animals, but ones where they appear to be human in any way are, in fact, depictions of people. Drawings depict things.

The Simpsons are certainly intended to be caricatures of real people.

But yeah, in response to the OP, this is going a bit too far IMO. A lot too far even. The legal system could much more usefully be applied prosecuting people that actually abuse children.

Kids seem to understand the difference between cartoons and the real world, apparently adults can't ..... I'm not buying that bullshit !!

Okay then, I'll grant you that a cartoon is intended to depict a person. But I will contend that they depict a fictional person. Moreover, a depiction of a person is not granted the rights of a real person, correct?

Correct. You cannot abuse a cartoon character. You can abuse a real person wearing a cartoon character outfit though, if that's your thing and you don't mind the jail time.

oscar: I posted a link to UK law that very much makes what the man had illegal. It's Part 2 Chapter 2 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. He definitely broke the law.

goldfinger: Rights? Is it as straight and narrow as rights in your opinion? Underage sexting that is consensual by the sending and receiving persons is legally considered the production and distribution of child porn. But whose rights are violated in that scenario?

If it is between two minors, then no it isn't, TrPrado. If it is between an adult and a minor, then yes

Because an underage person is not legally able to give consent. Cartoons don't have age because they aren't real.

And yes, it is as straight an narrow as rights because a guy who whacks off to cartoon porn, distasteful as it is, has the right to do so.

"Because an underage person is not legally able to give consent." Still not as straight and narrow as that actually. Even at the age of consent, which in the US is generally 16 years, it would still be considered child pornography.

Perhaps, but if this were a cartoon image of a 16 year old, nobody would be up in arms about it - most likely because it's fictional and difficult to put an age on. In this case we're talking 8-12 range probably - before the secondary sex organs start to be obvious, and certainly of an age where consent is not an option.

Its not generally 16, TrPrado. Most of the population lives in states that have it at 17 or 18 (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia)

You're ignoring the larger argument that cartoons are not people. Child pornography laws exist to prevent the exploitation of children for sexual purposes. No child is exploited. This isn't exactly the evidence I was looking for, but there is a line that artificially produced cp could be beneficial.

http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html

So I would claim that these drawings do not harm children, and may even prevent their exploitation.

The other claim for their illegality is obscenity. I would say it fails the second standard - patently offensive to the viewing public. The key here is viewing public. The viewing public does not mean everyone on the internet. It means those who - within reason - would see those images (I think).

@TrPrado

"oscar: I posted a link to UK law that very much makes what the man had illegal. It's Part 2 Chapter 2 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. He definitely broke the law."

Yeah, I noticed that. My point implies that I think that law is wrong. Did you know that it's also illegal in the UK to be drunk in any public, even pubs? (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/35-36/94).

Such silly laws should be changed and, until they have been changed, not enforced in any way.

goldfinger: The Miller test does not include "to the viewing public." In fact, here is a couple definitions the Chief Justice of the case that established the Miller test defines patently offensive:
1) Representations or descriptions of ultimate sex acts normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
2) Representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibitions of the genitals.

oscar: Public intoxication laws exist in the US as well. They're state laws, and they aren't silly. Public intoxication is generally considered a misdemeanor.

goldfinger: Also, if they're 17, it's still child porn legally. Texas, Illinois, and New York, which have substantial populations, ages of consent are therefore irrelevant.