Do Cartoons Count As Child Porn?

The Joker said:
it's not ABOUT whether the Cartoon Children are violated, that is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

It is ILLEGAL to View or create porn with characters portrayed as minors. Animated, Real, Fictional.
Click to expand...

Is that a law? Or is it illegal to have a porn containing minors, I'm not sure about the whole 'portrayed as' minors thing is.

And secondly, who cares if CARTOONS are violated!? They aren't real people. They don't have feelings and they don't care, so why should we?
 
Dunno about outside the US, but I found this:

What Is Child Pornography?
Under federal law, child pornography1 is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it
  • depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
  • depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.2
Sexually explicit conduct includes various forms of sexual activity such as intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals.3 It is illegal to possess, distribute, or manufacture these images.

*big snip*

End Notes
1As stated by Janis Wolak, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor in Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003, page vii), “The term ‘child pornography,’ because it implies simply conventional pornography with child subjects, is an inappropriate term to describe the true nature and extent of sexually exploitive images of child victims. Use of this term should not be taken to imply that children ‘consented’ to the sexual acts depicted in these photographs; however, it is the term most readily recognized by the public, at this point in time, to describe this form of child sexual exploitation. It is used in this [document] to refer to illegal pictorial material involving children under the standards developed by statute, case law, and law-enforcement-agency protocols. It is hoped a more accurate term will be recognized, understood, and accepted for use in the near future.”
218 U.S.C. § 1466A and 18 U.S.C. § 2256.

​
 
Accountable said:
Dunno about outside the US, but I found this:
What Is Child Pornography?
Under federal law, child pornography1 is defined as a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, photograph, film, video, or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where it
  • depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
  • depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.2
Sexually explicit conduct includes various forms of sexual activity such as intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals.3 It is illegal to possess, distribute, or manufacture these images.

*big snip*

End Notes
1As stated by Janis Wolak, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor in Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003, page vii), “The term ‘child pornography,’ because it implies simply conventional pornography with child subjects, is an inappropriate term to describe the true nature and extent of sexually exploitive images of child victims. Use of this term should not be taken to imply that children ‘consented’ to the sexual acts depicted in these photographs; however, it is the term most readily recognized by the public, at this point in time, to describe this form of child sexual exploitation. It is used in this [document] to refer to illegal pictorial material involving children under the standards developed by statute, case law, and law-enforcement-agency protocols. It is hoped a more accurate term will be recognized, understood, and accepted for use in the near future.”
218 U.S.C. § 1466A and 18 U.S.C. § 2256.

​
Click to expand...

There are far too many loopholes in that! Someone did a rather shit job writing it up. Remember, a smart alec lawyer can get someone off for anything if it isn't crystal black or white.
 
AbriannaPeto said:
How do we know he wasn't just using the drawings as jokes? What makes him have to be using them as porn?
Click to expand...
Even if they were made as jokes. Some people still wank at these kinds of stuff. And some people still find it sick

AbriannaPeto said:
And it's better to have him sexually aroused by drawings of children rather then pictures of them.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is better they're arroused by drawings of children than real children. I still find it sick, though.
 
It's not about the fact that people wank over strange shit, or whether cartoons cant be offended, ALL of that is completely irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it is ILLEGAL to display minors performing sexually explicit acts in ANY porn movie, in this case, an animated one.
 
Back
Top