| 258Report |
at 12 Mar 2008: 06:52
>>254
The ruling exposed by >>253 would be also right, if you want to consider 1466A as related to cub art.
If you are vouching that 1466A pertains to include cub art, then it's also affiliated with the 2252A in relation to the constitution of the said pornographic child art.
I can see the accusing party right now.
"... your honor; it is quite clear that this pedo-fag artist has abused of the rights of this children. He forced this 5 year old anthropomorphic puppy to pose naked for the completion of the drawing, therefore, violating any defense possibility of the point a, of section c of the law 2252A."
|