The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn

BenFenner writes "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.'"

Re:Disclaimer

[Sabz5150]

(non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side)

Companion cube, indeed.

Re:Disclaimer

[onion2k]

Ok, so if I draw a picture of a person having sex with a sentient machine (non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side) and that machine is only 10 years old according to the crappy fan-fic I write about it, does that make it child pornography?

I find your ideas eroti..err.. intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

He would still be convicted for the obscene e-mail

[Fjan11]

TFA states that he was also convicted for obscene e-mails describing sex acts with children. Anybody else find this even more worrying than the pictures?

I guess this means you can commit a felony by posting a few choice lines on slashdot?

(Posting anon since I don't want to be associated with this subject, however remotely)

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m

[MightyYar]

(Posting anon since I don't want to be associated with this subject, however remotely)

Now THAT'S funny.

Re:Disclaimer

[WiglyWorm]

Companion cube, indeed.

This was a triumph!

Re:Am I in trouble?

[Simon Brooke]

No you need to see a therapist ...

Where is Lucy van Pelt [wikipedia.org] when you need her [base-hill.com]?

Re:Disclaimer

[Sabz5150]

"What is before you is an Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle. I do not recommend utilizing the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... for the results could be... unpredictable. Oh... I see that you are ignoring me and using the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle anyway. Fine. But will the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... love you as I do?"

You're all on report.

[This name in use]

I'm reporting this thread immediately to the DOJ. You are all clearly trying to find loopholes around this important legislation that is vital to protect our cartoons and adults dressed as children.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This shit is gonna get sticky fast

Poor choice of words.

Re:SCOTUS and drawn CP as actual CP

[bersl2]

Rule 34 on the Supreme Court.

Next up...

[Organic Brain Damage]

...thinking about having sex with Children. And then writing about thinking about having sex with Children. Ooops. I'm in trouble.

Re:At what level of detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Madness... This is COPA!

Re:Uhh, yes it does...

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the two year old wearing?

If depiction = real

[the_pimaster]

cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States

So if pictures can depict real things...
Does this mean we can just pay off any fines by drawing large sums of money (or just sacks with $$'s on them, would be easier).
Finally, we'll be able to pay all of those software people and musicians the 'lost' money they are owed by those pirates!

End the economic crisis.
End world hunger.
It's all in our reach!!

Easy fix.

[Blice]

I'm now declaring that every child character in any cartoon series is actually an adult with a rare disease that keeps them in a child state. They're all over 18.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

Re:Next up...

[mc900ftjesus]

Won't someone think of the imaginary children?!?

Re:And the point of these laws is?

[rdwulfe]

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/gimages/rule34portal.jpg [boingboing.net] You know. It depresses me on some level that I managed to find that within 5 seconds of starting to search. But it had to be done.

Re:Uhh, yes it does...

[Anonymous Coward]

How could this concept not be a two way street? If you ask someone and they represent themselves as over 18, use a fake ID to appear to be of age, or simply meet in a place (such as a 19+ bar) where they, simply by being there, should be of age, do they not then appear to be of age which, if appearances are all that matter, should suffice?

Re:It _should_ be

[Opportunist]

Think of the (nonexistant) children!

But that's exactly what those people looking at those pics are doing! :)

Re:Gary Coleman?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does this prevent Gary Coleman from doing porn, because he looks underage?

No it does not. However, we should find some other excuse to prevent Gary Coleman from doing porn.

Re:Uhh, yes it does...

[jambox]

Didn't he mean that the character itself is 20 years old? Obviously the in-joke with the Simpsons is that none of the children ever get any older. So it's more like having sex with a midget that looks like a 10-year old but isn't. Isn't it?

Re:Gary Coleman?

[tgd]

Thanks, that was the single most horrid vision I've ever had on Slashdot.

And I was around during the goatse phase ten years ago.

Re:Not first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you Seinfeld?

Re:Next up...

[Surt]

I think the whole point of this prosecution was to STOP people from thinking of the imaginary children.

Re:Uhh, yes it does...

[alrj]

beyond a certain time it goes bad...
Just like pornography, actually.