And even if it hadn’t, that’s no excuse not to start.
It would be a reasonable legal argument to say that the image isn’t a photo of anyone. It doesn’t depict reality, so it can’t depict anyone.
It depicts a real child and was distributed intentionally because of who it depicts. Find me then legal definition of pornography that demands that pornography be a “depiction of reality”. Where do you draw the line with such a qualifier?
I think at best you can argue it’s a form of photo manipulation, and the intent is to create a false impression about someone.
It is by definition “photo manipulation”, but the intent is to sexually exploit a child against her will. If you want to argue that this counts as a legal form of free speech (as libel is, FYI), you can fuck right on off with that.
A form of image based libel, but I don’t think that’s currently a legal concept.
Maybe actually know something about the law before you do all this “thinking”.
It’s also a concept where you would have to protect works of fiction otherwise you’ve just made the visual effects industry illegal if you’re not careful.
Oh no, not the sLiPpErY sLoPe!!!
We do not allow animals to be abused, but we allow images of animal abuse in films as long as they are faked.
Little girls are the same as animals, excellent take. /s
Children are often in horror films, and creating the images we see is very strictly managed so that the child actor is not exposed to anything that could distress them.
What kind of horror films are you watching that has naked children in sexual situations?
What’s the line here?
Don’t sexually exploit children.
Parental consent?
What the living fuck? Parental consent to make porn of their kids? This is insane.
I say all of this, not because I want to defend anyone, but because I think we’re about to set some really bad legal precidents if we’re not careful.
The bad legal precedent of banning the creation and distribution of child pornography depicting identifiable minors?
Personally, I don’t think the concept of any image, or any other piece of data, being illegal holds water.
It has and it continues to be.
And even if it hadn’t, that’s no excuse not to start.
It depicts a real child and was distributed intentionally because of who it depicts. Find me then legal definition of pornography that demands that pornography be a “depiction of reality”. Where do you draw the line with such a qualifier?
It is by definition “photo manipulation”, but the intent is to sexually exploit a child against her will. If you want to argue that this counts as a legal form of free speech (as libel is, FYI), you can fuck right on off with that.
Maybe actually know something about the law before you do all this “thinking”.
Oh no, not the sLiPpErY sLoPe!!!
Little girls are the same as animals, excellent take. /s
What kind of horror films are you watching that has naked children in sexual situations?
Don’t sexually exploit children.
What the living fuck? Parental consent to make porn of their kids? This is insane.
The bad legal precedent of banning the creation and distribution of child pornography depicting identifiable minors?
Somebody check this guy’s hard drive…