undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbetterunix13y ago0 comments

"Child porn laws and the variable obscenity standard are meant to protect the majority of children."

That may have been the original goal, but in today's world I think we have observed a shift. Rather than protecting children, the purpose of the law seems to be punishing adults. What other explanation can there be for including cartoons in the definition of child pornography? What children were harmed in the making of a cartoon?

We have not entirely emerged from the insanity of the 1980s, when thousands of innocent men and women across America were imprisoned for crimes that never happened.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

sp33213y ago· 2 in thread

It's basically impossible to enforce a ban on "real" images but not fake ones. You could just claim all of the images are fake and unless they find the pictures on your camera, they would have a hard time prosecuting anybody.

betterunixOP13y ago

That is utterly and completely false:

1. It is obvious that manga or imagery of the Simpsons having sex are not photographs nor are they depictions of real people.

2. We have forensics experts who can examine photographs and determine if they are real, altered, or fake. We can even determine when two photographs were taken with the same camera. If it came down to it, there would be no difficulty in prosecuting someone; an expert could be called in to testify.

dsuth13y ago

Not to mention, it's incredibly difficult and time consuming to create a realistic fake of a photo, so this fails the basic common sense test - child pornographers would simply not waste the time creating fakes which were indistinguishable from real photos under any kind of serious inspection.

LowKarmaAccount13y ago

The cartoon ban might be an attempt to make rotoscoped film pornography illegal.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse