Well, in the Virginia case, the "CP" was cutouts of magazine type images (girls in swimsuits cribbed from clothing catalogues). But they were construe to be CP for the purposes of the case, which was mainly against the cartoon stuff. Basically the used the photo images as the justification of the obscenity charge.
I've mentioned it because I wanted to point out how much of a grey area this is. It's not like there's a line and things are clearly CP on this side, and non-CP on the other side. Non-CP things can be legally construed to
be CP, based on the context. Like if you had a video of one of those horrid child beauty pageants, they could construe that as CP, in the same sense as a clothing catalogue is CP.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/child-pornography-and-selfies--what-you-need-to-know.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/21/n-c-just-prosecuted-a-teenage-couple-for-making-child-porn-of-themselves/North Carolina: two 16 year olds charged with distributing CP for swapping nude pics. Ironically, in NC you're considered an adult at 16 for being charged with a crime, but a minor in terms of the photo's contents. So they've both been charged with multiple citations of "sexual exploitation of a minor", and in most of the charges, the "minor" is themselves. A survey revealed that 28% of U.S. minors have sent explicit photos of themselves to others. That's distributing child porn according to the law. Almost 1 in 3 people have done it.
Author
Topic: I like anime, do you like anime? (Read 3122442 times)