noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:
Actually, Noname is right... but possible wrong.
Wikipedia I know
In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by then president George W. Bush.[32] The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "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 ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
|
That's actually the reason I put settled in quotation marks. However, remember that Congress and other legislative bodies have a long history of trying to get around Court decisions by retreading familiar ground with slightly-changed wording (see, e.g., violent videogame legislation). I'm pretty sure that part of the law would be stricken down, since it's so similar to the ruling in Ashcroft. My only qualm with that is that the Court later decided a case where a guy was soliciting kiddy porn which was not, in fact, kiddy porn at all, and he was still convicted.
|
Well, they did seem to mention cases under which cartoon kid porn was successfully prosecuted under it later on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States
Dunno if they were cases like that where they were getting someone who had real porn too or what.
I'm guessing the "not pornography" is the thing that says
"It doesn't need to show genitals to be porn." ruling?
Which is all kinds of funny since things CAN show genitals and not be porn... and there are plenty of movies with sex scenes... making it all kinds of a weird double standard.
