fchan

>>270
( A constant mis-recall of my end, and my crippled cookies aren't helping. )

Now, the >>253 point you made with the link at >>268.
On that article, it reads how someone in possession of Lolicon art was charged.

What I meant on my post concerning that was how I had already mentioned (through the brief information I had acquired from a lawyer) was how one could protest against an accusation of having/making child pornography if the evidence material were the said cubs. In court, as the accuser you could not claim (and pay proof) that such a sort of picture was a twisted (fail to find a more proper word) depiction of a human child, therefore, you were not in violation of children rights. That's where seemingly the defense party of an artist or holder of such art would take base on. There are no visual human traits on such a character, despite fact that it may be walking on 2 feet or whatever.

BUT, Lolicon and whatnot is another case. While one can claim that it is purely fictional (Even if it is), the fact remains that most of the time such characters retain a great human looking aspect, which already goes against the said law.
The law prohibits not only the real cases where children are involved on pornography, but also these realistic depictions of human children in any format... such pictures, with human children even if drawn out of someone's head, violate this law due to aspect and how it can affect the relation with an existing human child (or non-existent, as a point of the law marks it)

This was the way I perceived it, and makes quite the sense IMO.

The "appears to be", was the part where I was told how you take the base on whom the law aims to protect. It's a human oriented law, made to protect human children, that humans must abide for.. to not breach the child's rights (privacy, etc) which is done by not depicting a potentially existing child (even if right then it doesn't exist). An image where you see a fully furred creature can't be compared to any existing or imaginable non-existing child.
I think the "appears to be" part in actual context of the law is an added measure to try and prevent people to base off some model off existing children, and then altering them (aging slightly to barely legal or something) and passing them as something else. But this is already speculation of mine, of which I have no real idea.