| 269Report |
at 12 Mar 2008: 07:36
>>268
I had already mentioned how human looking art was still very prone to this, which included kemonomimi examples.
I never said absolutely anything against that (actually stated from the very start the opposite because that was how I was briefed about the case potential defense), because such kind of art can still be closely under the resemblance to human children, etc etc etc, and therefore it's not tolerated due to the human minor potential reference.
Nothing, absolutely -NOTHING- that depicts a human child in sexual situations, and all that crap, in whatever format it is made (drawn, written) is illegal by default.
But a bloody underaged animal cannot be compared with a human child. No one probably makes those kind of charges in actual court because most likely they can be pushed back by the defense.
|