fchan

>>174

Been there, and after a brief conversation ('cause time for a lawyer is money, so I prefer not to be a constant nuisance or else my pocket would burn) I got a quite reassuring answer.

The laws are made with a given target to protect (so to say in this case) and they are only applicable against those that somehow affect the said target that's being protected.
In this law's case, the target being protected are Human children (because these are the laws aimed towards Humans, as you have other specific laws that are made to protect animals to an extent), which prohibits the depiction of human children in sexual situations, yadda yadda, on any possible format due to the possibility of being references (even if tangent) about real children.

Now, how do you take the idea of a human children when you make a drawing/write a story/whatever where you depict a young aged creature covered with fur/scales from head to feet.. paws and tail(s). You simply cannot associate that with any human child by the longest shot, thus, it is not a threat in consideration with the law that is to protect the children's rights on that end.

If it looks like an animal, it's not under the cover of such a law (vague in portraying anything more than real children due to the law's nature), and since there is no animal protecting law that prohibits such kind of fictional work....
The only seeming exception is those characters which are in its most of human appearance and have cat/bunny/(etc) ears and are indeed under aged looking, since it could conflict with the child protecting law under the the pretext that some simple ears or tail were nothing but accessories attached to the depicted image of a real child.