child-abuse-isnt-sexy: hiccop: child-abuse-i…

child-abuse-isnt-sexy:

hiccop:

child-abuse-isnt-sexy:

Here, have some child pornography laws!

Pro-child porn advocates on here will often cite the first bunch of laws, saying that the part that matters is “[pictures that are] indistinguishable from that of a minor” – that unless a digital image is 100% lifelike and real-looking, it can’t be child pornography.

Guess what! NCMEC is here to tell you that you’re wrong.

“Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A(a)) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, depicting:
A minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene, or
An image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital or oral-anal, whether between people of the same or opposite sex that lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

So, that’s that. Explicit drawings and cartoons of children are ILLEGAL, even if they are clearly drawn and NOT indistinguishable from an actual child.

Enjoy prison, motherfuckers.

“An image that is, or appears to be, of a minor…”

Hope you don’t mind my adding on, but I wanted to draw more attention to the phrase “APPEARS TO BE” as well

Lotta people draw kiddie porn then try to turn around and say “it’s fine! She’s actually a 300 year old demon who just LOOKS 12”

It’s not fine, it’s abhorrent, and is also specifically covered by those three words.

Wonderful addition, thank you!!