fchan

>>248

@ law reference.

Again, same law, same crap, same answer.
Law is aimed to defend existing minors, therefore of Human nature, which implies that no form of depiction, accurate or even barely tangent (ie: human child non-existant in reality, but, depiction still portrays a human child) of a human child is allowed under the said obscene circumstances.

2 people, speaking with lawyers, already mentioned how this exact law is bullcrap when it comes in the depiction of non-human looking creatures regardless of apparent age (potential exception to the Kemonomimi case, due to the still major human appearance).

It's a law aimed at Humans, to protect Human children, which is done via prohibiting the sexual depiction of human children.

Unless you have some law that prohibits artists clearly that they shall not produce any and whatsoever depiction of young aged completely fictitious characters (non-related to human children) in sexual circumstances, you cannot borrow other law to do the job it's not implied for.


@ "Not mod bias."

Surely you jest, or are blind, as the ruling states how Tails doesn't fall on the category of the banned art for .... some odd reason? It -looks- like a child when drawn in its canonical form! I don't need someone to tell me if it is a child, or has "official evidence" that it is. It -LOOKS- like a child.

... now... the possibility of drawing him (or any other character) on a 18+ aspect is not off the book, but, that's not what the ruling says. It's clearly authorizing Tails as is in his canonical form, therefore, breaching the own rule that tries to set him as an exception.