Yeah... That's Australia. (amongst other places).Fappy said:Can't you still get charged with possession of loli porn as long as the character's ages are explicit somewhere in the story? I remember reading about someone getting arrested for that in the US a couple years ago. I personally think loli is gross, but if it's not harming real life children I don't see how it could be considered the same crime.LostGryphon said:Speculation at this point.
For all we know, it's just loli.
And there ain't nothin' wrong with some loli.
[small]The author wishes it to be known that he as no sexual inclinations toward loli and, in fact, only finds those characters to be ridiculously cute.
The author also wishes it to be known that he hasn't eaten Subway in nearly three years, but likely would if offered some.
The author would like to be offered some Subway.[/small]
The laws on child pornography here are worded like this:
Any pornographic material that appears to depict someone under the age of 18, (regardless of if it's a real person, CGI a drawing, or whatever) can be classed as 'child pornography'.
The definition of 'appears to be' is down to the whims of a judge, and, there's no way around it.
The actual age of the character/person involved is irrelevant.
There's cases of images of a porn star in her early 20's (who happens to be relatively small, has A cup or smaller breasts, and was being depicted with things like stuffed toys) being classed as 'child pornography' even after it was proven conclusively this person was over 18...
Didn't matter.
Technically a definition like that puts all anime porn at risk in Australia, given that by 'subjective opinion of a judge' can easily claim that even some 30-40 year old anime characters look 'child-like', because of the nature of the art style.
Ugh. It's a good way to get completely stressed out, for sure. XD