As opposed to the illustration of the article, one needs to note that child pornography includes a photo, a drawing or a 3D CGI representing anyone below 18 years old. Given the recipient rarely has the ID card on file, it's hard to prove it to the judge, even if the porn model was 22. Not even talking about age fabrication, which turns unsuspecting viewers into felons.
I wonder how well the distinction is applied, or far this can be pushed by the FBI to take down a someone.
On the other hand, needless to say that actual child porn is disgusting.
The law [0] seems to provided an affirmative defense if "the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors."
This defense does not apply if (emphasis added) "such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
My reading of this is that it is legal to have a pornagraphic drawing of a child character . It only become illegal when the drawing is of an actual minor.
I wonder how well the distinction is applied, or far this can be pushed by the FBI to take down a someone.
On the other hand, needless to say that actual child porn is disgusting.