Artwork, ficticious charaters etc [including most lolicon(1), shotacon(2) and some yaoi(3)] are protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech and therefore cannot be regulated by the government.
Basically, the only illegal forms of CGI/and or artwork based porn relate to "if" a real person was used in creation of such depictions. The old entertainment disclaimer regarding people/characters within this presentation were ficticious. any similarities to those of any real persons is coincidental and non-intetional etcetc (can't be bothered findin exact wording) makes any form of shotacon, lolicon or yaoi legal. (See "basic english definitions of the three genres under the umbrella of anime sub-culture.)
The fun part - definitions.
1.) Lolicon: features the female form engaging in sexual depictions, usually at ages of 8 through to 16 years of age. Mostly these sexual situations are solo or with other fictional characters of the same age range and sex. Lolicon also deals with hetero sexuality within those age groups. Some may even contain characters that are ficticious where a "lolicon character" engages in some form of sexual depiction with an adult.
2.) Shotacon: features the male form engaging in sexual depictions, usually at ages of 8 through to 16 years of age. Mostly these sexual situations are solo or with other fictional characters of the same age range and sex. Shotacon is the "female" love of two boys engaging in love and sexual situations. This is a japanese genre and its artist merit has been hotly debated since western worlds first taste of it. Most shotacon artists are female. Shotacon is typically a homosexual based situation and is never depicted in heterosexual situations. Shotacon (in some instances) depicts a "shotacon character" with a character whom is in appearance an adult.
3) Yaoi: Yaoi is also as above in shotacon, however age ranges are generally higher. Prominent yaoi spans an age range of late preteen to early twenties and is always depicted as a homosexual genre.
Any cartoon, CGI or simulated sexual depiction can take on any form the artist wished.
ART IS PERSONAL TASTE, RELIGIOUS BELIEF or MORAL BASED.
If you are small minded enough to think that a cartoon can "make one run out an mollest or hurt a child" then surely Warner Bros. must be brought to justice for inciting murders with cartoons aired through out the animated production history".
I do not support child porn or the production or distribution - it sickens me.
Now before everyone even begins their reply (if anyone does) think about what you write - i run a yaoi website and am a producer of yaoi images an animaitions. I know the law (see below for a case example) and I challenge anyone to prove these above mentioned genres are "illegal".
If someone posts childporn - get the feds in. (lock the bastards up)
If someone posts anyform of artwork on a site "allowing" this form of artwork then removing it from a public posting is a breach in law and freedom.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
==========================================================
In 2002, the United States Supreme Court considered
the constitutionality of the CPPA in Ashcroft v. Free
Speech Coalition [2]. In their 6-3 ruling, the Court found
5
that portions of the CPPA, being overly broad and restrictive,
violated First Amendment rights. Of particular
importance was the Courts ruling on the different
forms of “virtual porn” as described above. With respect
to §2256(8)(
the Court wrote, in part:
Virtual child pornography is not “intrinsically
related” to the sexual abuse of children.
While the Government asserts that
the images can lead to actual instances of
child abuse, the causal link is contingent
and indirect. The harm does not necessarily
follow fromthe speech, but depends upon
someunquantified potential for subsequent
criminal acts.
and went on to strike down this provision. With respect
to §2256(8)(C) the Court wrote, in part:
Although morphed images may fall within
the definition of virtual child pornography,
they implicate the interests of real children
and are in that sense closer to the images in
Ferber 1 Respondents do not challenge this
provision, and we do not consider it.
Basically - IF YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT LOOK AT IT. I am gay and personally find the constant depictions of lude heterosexuality to be in bad taste - i dont have a whinge and cry about it though, i accept it as part of life, a way to live.
How about you all go back to your boring lives as to sit on the internet complainging about a cartoon image is clearly an overreaction by a bunch of people who wish for freedom of speach / thinking to be limited by governments and law.
Do you really want the government telling you what you can think of or fantasise about?
In all cases i am sure the answer would be no. Unless you have been brainwashed by any group.
Enjoy life...
