Posted: Mar 14, 2010 2:45 am
Shaker wrote:Is this art? You might not like it, I don't particularly, but it is generally considered to be art. Is it paedophilic? Well, the image is of two fantasy creatures - cherubs - not humans. What if they were trying to make baby cherubs, doggy style? It would be pornographic more than art, but as they are fantasy creatures, would it be paedophilia?
Well ... let's call it art but bloody bad art
As to whether cherub sex would be considered paedophile porn, not by me it wouldn't, but in the eyes of the law it just might be. There was a case not many weeks back - I'll try and dig up the link, unless somebody beats me to it - where a man was arrested, prosecuted, tried and convicted of possessing so-called "child pornography" which, IIRC, consisted of cartoons or computer-generated images. They weren't photographs: they weren't images of any real children at all. Yet he was convicted of child porn offences all the same. That's how insane the law has become.
Towards the end of RDF it was a very hot and heavy thread
Iowa man sentenced to 6 months for "obcene" manga that ultimately got locked. It is now a crime in the UK is it not of having drawings of bestiality? Another man was convicted for cutting out the faces of underage subjects in pics and gluing them over the faces of adults in porn. Where the fuck does this madness stop?
I started another thread called "Thought crime-is it ever OK? This quickly devolved to a continuation of the other thread, I had hoped it wouldn't, I wanted it to stay on thought crime, which is what this is. The person on the insane, cartoons are harmful side, came out and said plainly that it is OK to jail someone for their thoughts. Scary scary scary.