Again, you're pretty much answering yourself. What an interesting twist of events!

you're asking if that's porn? a photo of a naked person for me does not fit the criteria of porn but I guess that's a very subjective distinction.

for me to consider something porn it needs to contain a person or people in sexual contact, so from your barebones description, no I wouldn't even consider that porn.

it would seem to me that you're trying to ask something more than this, that's why I wanted some clarification on what the question was more specifically. perhaps then I could answer in a more specific way

You don't consider nude photos as porn? Are they porn if it's in a sexualized pose?

Anyway, the specifics aren't that important, so imagine (Well don't *imagine* it...) that same girl filming herself masturbating, and uploading the video to the internet. That has to be considered as porn, right? And because this is ahypothetical underage girl, that means it is child porn. However, no one forced her, no one asked here, and making the video didn't hurt anyone. Yet watching that video would still be illegal. Do you agree that it should be illegal?

now that's a much better question, thank you for expanding.

1- yeah i would consider it porn.

2- underage by whose criteria? if she's of legal age to consent of making such video the the place she lives obviously she shouldn't have any issues with it. If the person watching the video was in a country whose legal age of consent was the same or below of said girl it would be perfectly fine.

3- a person living in a country whose laws mandate the legal age of consent should be above the one of said girl should be barred from freely viewing the video.

4- would i personally care what person X or Y is viewing? not at all, it's that person's business what they do in their free time and 0 fucks were given by me as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

that's about as muddled as the topic can get honestly and different views are perfectly valid to hold.

now, when talking about virtual characters, drawings, works of fiction all bets are off as far as i'm concerned. go crazy and be as gory and dirty as you want with that drawing lol

My point, john, is exactly as you're demonstrating. Simple switch out lolicon with a different subject and place yourself in a different part of the world.

With your argument about how lolicon basically makes pedos believe that it's ok, you're giving the same support to the groups who believe that video games cause violence, or that movies depicting violence in an idolized way, like "drive", promote murder if in your mind you have a good reason.

You're also giving credence to the people who believe that they can kill people because a "gods" law is broken. (Picturing mohammed) because it's in a book, it gives these people the idea that it's ok..

You are aware, I assume, that the rest of the world sees things differently on a cultural basis right? Laws involving 13 year olds sexual activity or drug use or drinking are simply different. Some countries have an age of consent of 13, because those countries have done so since they began. It simply made sense that a female capable of bearing children would do so. Given that extended life is a very recent change in the world, it was expected that people bred at a young age. Case in point the book series game of thrones. You know that all the main characters are like 13 years old, right?

What's funny is how ethnocentric westerners, especially Americans are, when it comes to things like this. You act like your moral compass is the correct one. Meanwhile America is a hypocrite. Some of the highest levels of violence, child sex trafficking, drug use, corruption in the entirety of the democratize nations. There was an account once told by a rescued sex slave worker. She was 11. You know what she said the biggest day of the year was? You know what she said was Christmas for sex trade involving minors? Superbowl sunday. She said her and hundreds others would travel to the city and we're forced to have sex with grown men up to and over 25 times per day.

The most American thing you can think of, superbowl sunday. Tied to something your own country pretends to hate. Americans truely, make me sick.

Edit: to round off my point:

Fiction is fiction. Fact is fact. I believe an artist should be able to draw or write whatever they desire in the name of free speech. Just, if you prescribe to that belief, then you cannot draw a line. Unfortunately, a lot of the world believes as you do, that they know best and some things simply go too far. The problem with the world is that people think they know everything, and have the means to change it. 

Fun fact, my dad has bipolar. He's super religious. He once accounted to me as a kid, that if he had to, he would sacrifice me Abraham and Isaac style. I was a fucking child and he told me that. Can you imagine what it feels like, to KNOW that your psychotic relative would literally kill you because he believes the voices in his head are from a fictional book? So don't sit there and talk to me about what's ok and what's not.

Well, I did say this hypothetical girl was 10 (though we could say 12 or whatever). The important part is that she's underage (I mean, I would've said she was 14, but afaik the age of consent some places is 13, so that wouldn't work.

The point I was trying to get across is that it's not *only* about wether or not someone was hurt in the making of the content. In some way or another, it's also a matter of principle.

fair enough, I can have my own preferences, but I can't dictate my taste preferences on other people's fantasies. since the beggining the discussion was from an artistic censure standpoint, so i'm talking about drawings, videogames, works of fiction. I don't really know why people get this uptight whenever it comes to sex and their entire reasoning and logic goes out the window when it comes to it.

i'm sure most of the people here have killed thousands of virtual characters, decapitated them, cut off limbs, exploded entire cities and performed the biggest atrocities ever. if any of us would have done in real life what we've done in videogames, we'd be in the history books next to the likes of stalin or hitler.

but hey, if you play a videogame where 2 virtual characters are having sex... oh oh oh........... now that's a bridge too far.

killing is cool, sex... what's wrong with you? :)

If we're talking about art, "truth" is most likely subjective opinion.

If I can't "handle" something, I don't try to censor it; I either walk away entirely, or I try to offer a rebuttal. That's basically what I think people should do; instead of telling people to shut up, offer counter-arguments and alternatives.

The only basis of censorship is time and place, not the speech or expression itself.

What I mean is you have the right to say things, you don't have the right to come into my office and disrupt my work. This is commonly defined in private versus public arenas. You cannot keep people from attending an event you dislike, but you can picket and protest a distance from the entrance.

We also have time restrictions so someone cannot monopolize a space with their speech. May have a town square that you request a time slot for your speech as to not conflict with another person who has reserved the square.

One I think is complex is speech in open areas you have to traverse. My example is when I attended university there were political groups that used these areas for specific causes. Now, there was no way for many students to avoid these displays and speeches, you had to walk past them to get to class. One particular display was from a religious group that depicted aborted fetuses in large photographs. It was disturbing, and some females students stated that seeing such images and hearing anti-abortion speech brought up really horrible memories of their own abortion and caused them to have panic attacks and mental anguish. They asked that the display be moved and not be so loud and visible every day due to this. The university denied this seemingly taking a principled stance. A year later a display was put out that was very critical of Israel and had some stereotypical displays of Jewish people. Once again people complained about this and called it anti-Semitic and hate speech. This time the University did move the display to an interior area and put warning signs up for people entering the display area.

Which is better and which is the right way is actually hard for me to answer here. I get the artist or protester, I get the reaction, and honestly I see some merit in both ways the University handled it. The line between one's rights and another's can be difficult to define.

Intresting scenario. If she posted it on facebook or some similar site, she violated the terms of use. The police would be contacted and the girl would be arrested. So the law, which was made to protect her would be used against her.