A man in Britain has been convicted for his fantasies.
____ ____, 39, was found guilty of downloading “prohibited images” of cartoon girls, some in school uniforms, doing dirty deeds. The fact that these manga drawings are available on legitimate sites did not sway the judge. Nor did the fact that—oh yeah—there were no actual humans in the pictures. Full Opinion Piece
More censorship and the attempt to control thoughts of individuals who have done nothing to anyone else. Waste of time and money by a stupid government (any government actually) trying to intimidate and control through intimidation.
Maybe if the artist also drew a cartoon birth certificate on the side of the image, showing the cartoon figure was over 18 cartoon years of age, would it then be legal?
And what if an artist intended the figure to be 18 years of age but the drawing came out looking like it was 17? Is there an easy way to establish a cartoon figure is obviously 18 versus 17?
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
For that matter (and as a test case) why not draw extremely crude stick figures with arrows pointing to them from descriptive legends such as “This is a naked twelve year old boy” or “this is a nude 10 year old girl”. Pop it in the mail and send to the Met, and see what happens. After all, if it is the viewer’s conception of images as nude children which seem to matter most, and no actual children need be involved, then this should, by extension from the manga precedent, meet the requirements for child pornography.
We should have fun with it, rather like drawing Mohammed as if he were wearing a bear costume.