Wikipedia

Talk:Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors/Archive 1

< Talk:Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Olivia comet in topic doll case
Archive 1Archive 2

Reason for the split

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article started off as a split from Lolicon on February 1, 2009. There were multiple reasons for the split, including the article length of the original article, a good deal of undue weight, and that the legal section was not limited to just the legal status of lolicon, but all pornographic cartoons depicting minors. --Farix (Talk) 05:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, the reasons are detailed here. I'm still not entirely comfortable with the title, since 'depiction' which is usually used in law can cover things that people may not describe as cartoons, such as that case with the art gallery owner in Australia recently, or in Canada a long time ago. Plus as mentioned previously, 'pornography' is sometimes a loaded word with negative inferences for things which depict nudity or sexuality. As mentioned though, I can't think of anything better, but nevertheless it would be good to describe this in terms of what the legal status is specifically referring to and how the article title only begins to address it. Make sure to check the full archives lolicon for all edits related to this preceding its creation. Tyciol (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In case of deletion

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe it is inevitable that a critic will attempt to delete this article, citing it for notability or something silly like that. In this case, I think there should definately be a delay for the ongoing editors to speak up. Seeing as how this originally split off, rather than deleting this in the future, I think it would be appropriate that deletion be vetoed in favour of remerging it in with the article, or in with the 'legal status of cartoons' article or something. This data should definately not be deleted, that has to be barred from happening. Tyciol (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wordiness

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"or the material is deemed to be obscene. For more information see the article on obscenity." Since obscene directs there anyway, anyone mind if the last sentence is killed? Tyciol (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind.Nope01 (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whorley

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found a couple more sources here if they're not already included, couldn't find them. Xbiz and UK Cyberlaw. Neither seem notable or first hand, but if anyone finds them useful. See Talk:Lolicon/Archive_13#Whorley_data also. Tyciol (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

United States

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

"To summarize, cartoon pornography involving fictional minors is protected speech, unless offered as if real children were involved or the material is deemed to be obscene." <-- This line isn't cited but to say it contradicts the references is incorrect. It simply sums up exactly what is said in the Section. (Some anonymous editor put this line into question...)

As far as citations, I don't care enough to bother citing stuff which is already summarized in the article on obscenity. If someone else please would... Nope01 (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The only times I ever edit anon are by accident when I don't realize my cookie expired, at which point I quickly re-edit so people know who did it. I recall about that sentence that I simply wanted 'United States' to be specified because it is the final country on the list so it could be perceived to apply to all countries and not solely the United States. While there are clear heading beginnings, there are not clear heading endings, that is why. It says US now, so I got no issue with it, though I did feel the disclaimer you dispute next is important. Tyciol (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is quite so accurate, "which has occured several times, so in recent times the speech has not been very well protected. Obscenity is a simple way of removing speech's protection through giving legal weight to people's disgust.". So far it has only happened once in the U.S., with Whorley specifically, and he was accessing the materials in a public place along with real child pornography. Williams wasn't an obscenity thing but rather the fact he was offering it as if it were real child pornography. The Handley case is the important one to watch, and I still think it is completely up in the air until the Supreme Court hears/denies any appeals, assuming he is even convicted.Nope01 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I may have been under the impression that Handley had already been convicted in writing that... if that's not the case then 'several' may not be appropriate, you're right (though we probably haven't collected all cases here, just publicized ones). The thing about Williams is, I would be interested in reading more about how it indicates he is offering it as real (maybe it's easy to twist words/implicatiosn there). This is going off-topic a bit, but can you be arrested for selling sugar while saying it is heroine? Seems like a good comparison. I need to read more but I wonder if someone could be convicted for 'selling as if real' if they say 'girl' or something without specifying that they are illustrations, or even if they do, without specifying that the illustrations aren't based on anything real? Tyciol (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The Williams case actually had nothing to do with cartoon pornography at all; as the case docket states, the only portion of the PROTECT ACT he was being charged with was pandering and solicitation since he told the agent that he had hardcore pictures of his 3 year old daughter and actually didn't, the only other charges he was faced with was pornography involving real children. So really Williams has nothing to do with this section and the paragragh should be removed...everbody ok with that? Bisna (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol, I understand your concerns about making people aware of the possible legal repercussions of this in the U.S., but what exactly is obscene in the context of cartoon pornography hasn't been fully established yet. I believe when the Supreme Court ruled it to be protected speech, they meant it should be handled like any other pornography, and is likely bound by the same precedents that have been made as far as "normal" pornography goes. For example, nudity is probably protected, but the male ejaculatory process may or may not be. (See the JM Productions case mentioned in the article on obscenity -- Keep in mind one can buy pornography with such content on American PPV tv services and DVD/VHS even though a jury found the material to be obscene in one jurisdiction, but even after a jury found the materials obscene the prosecution dropped the charges for fear that the male ejaculatory process might be deemed "non-obscene" on appeal.) The problem is, by overstating things you are kind of undoing the point of the third test of the vagueness doctrine which basically states that the law should not steer people away from speech that isn't illegal. What is and isn't obscene as far as cartoon pornography goes has not yet been tightly enough defined. Also, the Handley case could be an excellent candidate for a Supreme Court appeal if he is convicted. I believe this for the following reasons: 1) The mandatory minimums set by the PROTECT Act are absurd and are currently being challenged by the ACLU who has generally been successful when it comes to these sorts of things, 2) I don't believe harm to the community by "injury through obscenity" can be defined in the Handley case like it can in the Whorley case, 3) the Handley case exemplifies how obscenity laws do violate the vagueness doctrine and can only be used in a arbitrary and discriminatory fashion. (Whether or not the Supreme Court will recognize any of this is unknown, but the argument certainly is there.) Handley has been discriminated against because he might be a pedophile. Considering he is not charged with any crimes for where he was hurting children and harm to the community cannot be defined, I believe this is the perfect case to challenge the constitutionality of such laws. However, even if he is convicted and all appeals denied it STILL doesn't necessarily mean the material deemed to be obscene in Iowa is necessarily obscene anywhere else, but it would set a horrible precedent. Also, maybe we should move our previous discussions about this to this section as well, and possibly even delete some of them as some are redundant.Nope01 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason to focus here is that real pornography contains characters (and actors) who are all above 18. This is not considered to be widely controversial except by those who hate sex/porn period. Loli stuff not only enflames those people, but the additional group who are specifically offended by its depictions. This lack of public favour and culture (there are many rich porn industries with advocates) is what makes it more vulnerable than standard form, and why it would be a more likely target for ongoing prosecutions under obscenity so long as there is inadequate defense. Even though this is being built by the Handley case, it would take a while before it is in place. Also, you see willing to writ off Whorley here, but I'm not. Accessing things in a public case is a separate issue, all that explains is why they could search without a warrant. What he was charged for was their importation and their possession, this is something that can be done in private homes. The only difference is the need to acquire a warrant. As we can see with Handley, this is done easily enough via the post office. If it is done through electronic format, the police can still get a warrant via online monitoring. That Whorley accessed it with real CP is also immaterial: they were separate charges. The charge for loli was not dependant upon his possessing of CP, he would have still been charged if it were only loli. I also see no inclination to think that Handley is going to get off on the case, based on the Whorley case precident it makes sense to assume that he would be convicted for the same reasons unless his defense team pulls off a good job defeating obscenity, in which case it'd probably be precidential grounds to re-open Whorley or something. Tyciol (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it is that no reasonable person cares period, and most of those who might care a little wouldn't be interested in pushing an obscenity case over the issue. Looking at such material while at the unemployment office(Whorley) seems like proper use of obscenity laws, while interstate commerce clause abuse in the Handley case is an entirely different story. It is pretty pointless to talk about this further until the Handley case fully plays out anyways.Nope01 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unfortunately, I have to fail this article due to criteria 1 (prose) and 3 (coverage). The article's prose is chopped up by short, one-sentence paragraphs and doesn't follow MOS much. I'll list some of the issues I spotted immediately:

  • MOS:BOLD – the names in the prose should be either wiki-linked in case they're notable or not
  • I've seen "AUD $9,000", "$3000 Aus", etc. The correct form is the linked ISO shortening preceding the number, such as "AUD 9,000" or "USD 78,900"
  • A Japanese website appears in the references. Its title should, beside the original, contain a romanization
  • There are numerous external links throughout the prose. These should be all converted to inline citations.

You should subject the article to a peer review to fix the prose issues. However, the main issue here is the coverage of the article. The article simply describes an incomplete list of the status of cartoon pornography depicting minors by country (for one, it lacks Japan, which is probably the most productive country regarding this matter). There's no separate mention of the history of the legal status or its tendencies. If you're going to continue this article by amplifying the list, you should move it to "Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors by country" and aim for a featured list status. Else, I suggest you to concentrate on things that can be written about the legal status from a global point of view. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Boldface usage in the heading of articles helps to single them out when these alternate terms are redirected to them. The names in question are redirected to the appropriate place in the article where they are mentioned. They are not the 'main topic' of the article but are main topics of the article's sections (potential articles in and of themself if enough data is collected). I don't know anything about listing money, but that seems to be a very simple change you can make yourself :) I take it you mean reference #3, I just used google here, I will add the translation in there.
I don't think that's what 'Romaji' is though... but a translation I can do. I will go hunting for external links to ref tag, I have been doing that on an ongoing basis but they don't always stand out. As for Japan, I was under the impression it was legal in all cases there (in spite of UN efforts for change). So far I think the idea is to list countries where there are laws against it, and to not list countries where there are no known laws against it. I understand your point, there should be more of a unifying aspect to this article (right now the broad-speak is more of a brief introduction to a world list). Even so, I don't think a 'by country' would be appropriate up until such a broad sweep has been developed, especially since the list can help in composing that. Tyciol (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Due to initial uncertainty of what to name this splitoff article, I think it's appropriate to have a section for ongoing discussion of the terminology in the article's title and any problems there might be with it so people can propose alternative terms for a possible future move. To break it down:

  • "Cartoon" may be too specific because this addresses laws that also cover media or depictions which may not be considered a cartoon, nor is that the word used in legal documents.
  • "Pornography" may also be too specific as these laws also cover media or depiction which may not be considered pornography (something with the prime/sole intent of creating sexual arousal versus broader definition of anything depicting sex or sexuality).
  • "Minors" may also be too specific because that is a legal term referring to real human beings with rights, whereas this addresses laws which also outlaw the depicting of fictional characters who are not minors due to not being real.

If anyone has any other terminology in the title and/or body it would be appropriate to introduce it here. Tyciol (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to look at things from the perspective of U.S. law, the best title for this article would simply be "Legal status of virtual child pornography". It might sound ugly, but it is the most correct term.Nope01 (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
That's be appropriate if we split it off into different countries, but since it covers all of them I don't want to have it based to US terminology. Redirecting that here might be a good idea though. Tyciol (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"Minor" is definitely preferable to "Child", since these laws typically cover depictions up to the age of 18. We should also avoid calling it child pornography (even with the qualifier "virtual"), because these laws do not match up with the definition we give there (we define it as inherently being a "visual record of child sexual abuse", which obviously does not apply here). Mdwh (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Law categories

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In regard to Eastlaw's change here, I am in agreemtn this belongs in obscenity law category since it pertains the US laws (where obscenity is what illegalizes it). Even so, I am not sure it should also not be included under the broader 'law' category because laws besides obscenity govern this in other countries like Canada. For example, it could also fall under Category:Pornography law which like Category:Obscenity law is a subcategory of Category:Sex laws. Just Law may have been too broad but we need to also look for other things like this which could also encapsulate the article, so I'll add that too, if there's any objection please note it here. Tyciol (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Handley again

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just found out he pled guilty on the advice of Chase, the CBLDF's appointed lawyer, added a ref and statement. If anyone else has any other news articles referencing this it would be good to add further citing. Tyciol (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm linking a copy of the Department of Justice press release.[1] 209.222.133.181 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A request was put on the lolicon page (former home of this spinoff) by an IP to flesh out these laws. I was previously under the impression Ireland was part of the UK but the map shows only the northern tip is, so I guess covering their laws would be useful. If anyone has any information please make a section. Tyciol (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Extensive changes made - new articles created

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Extensive changes were made to this article by ADM [2], moving material to more specific newly created articles. I appreciate the intent, but there's a big problem. This article is about "cartoon pornography depicting minors", whilst the new articles are all "Child pornography" laws in general. This has several problems:

  • This article was intended to create an article for this information, separate to articles covering child porn in general.
  • There are POV issues in associating cartoons with child pornography, especially as Wikipedia defines them to be "a visual record of child sexual abuse", which does not of course in general apply for cartoons.

As far as I can tell, the new articles only contain information copied from here, so I propose changing them to "Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors in XXX". Comments? Mdwh (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the new articles are:

Mdwh (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It also looks like changes were made to Child pornography, [3], so this is more complex, as some of the articles mix simulations with child pornography laws (in which case I disagree with moving content from here to there, as this is the more appropriate article, as I explain above). In some cases, I feel the mix is quite confusing - e.g., Child pornography laws in the United Kingdom, which has the lead and the article talking entirely about the non-realistic images law, and then further down has a section about the IWF copied from the child pornography article. Furthermore, the information left here appears to be arbitrary, rather than an accurate summary - e.g., the United Kingdom simply has the first paragraph, with the rest cut, leaving the reader to believe that there are no plans to criminalise such images - in fact, the very opposite is true, and only by reading the new article would a reader see the full context!

So a simple name change won't fix - I propose that the cartoon information be returned to this article for now, with those articles made specifically about child pornography laws in those countries (which in general will be a more notable topic than the cartoon laws). We can then debate whether the "main" location for cartoon laws should be this article, or a sub-section in each of the country-specific articles.

As I say, the whole point of this article was to create a specific place to discuss laws on non-realistic images - if this is going to be moved to country specific articles for child pornography, then this article becomes nothing more than a summary with a set of links. Given the major change, I think that needs discussion for a consensus. Mdwh (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand this could get rather tricky seeing as how 'realistic' is often a matter of opinion in terms of both visual depiction and character construction. Tyciol (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
In the UK at least, this is well defined by the laws ("realistic" is in the sense that it is indistinguishable from an actual photograph). They are also covered by separate laws - the Protection of Children Act 1978, and the new Coroners and Justice Bill currently being debated. So I think for the UK at least, we can have a clear separation, and I believe separate articles is better. Perhaps it may be different for other artices (e.g., I see that in the United States, it is less clear). Another point is that the new articles seemed to only contain content from here, and Child pornography, missing out articles that may have contained more detailed information - e.g., the Protection of Children Act 1978. I don't know if this may have happened for other countries? Mdwh (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed up the article for the United Kingdom. I believe that such an article is redundant - child porn law is covered under Protection of Children Act 1978, and we also have an article for the Internet Watch Foundation. And as I say above, I believe that the cartoon porn law should be covered here (well, I have no problem if we split it out into a UK specific article, but it should be an article specific to this new law, and not simply all "child pornography" - but until we have a consensus on a new name, I'm reverting to what we had before). For now, I've left the article as a summary/stub leading to the various different articles - I don't think it is useful to duplicate information, otherwise we simply have to main.

I also noted several other problems with the way this had been done - e.g., the bit about publication/supply was after the IWF section, when it should have been part of the proposed cartoon law. Also, the IWF section referred to content "that is potentially illegal under this law", which since this followed the section on the cartoon law, would have implied that the IWF are concerned with the proposed cartoon law, when obviously they deal with suspected actual child porn, rather than the new law that hasn't even passed yet. Hopefully these issues are fixed now.

I have less experience with things in other countries - can someone who knows more look over those sections, as similar mistakes may have been made by this split? Mdwh (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Map legend

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see a legend 'legal or not data'.
This carry the assumption that no data = legal, which is false.
The source of the document says 'wikipedia'. I assume that this is refering to this article, where I see a source for the red / orange but not to differenciate the legal / no data.
Mixing the two seems abusive to me, I fixed the legend on the image some times ago. Any comment about how to fix it here? esby (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy discussion at Wikimedia Commons - your input can help

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's been discussion of a policy Commons:Commons:sexual content, which seeks (among other things) to better address the possibility that child pornography might be uploaded to the site. But the situation is more complicated than one would think. For example, a naked child usually isn't child pornography yet a clothed child can be, and some isolated prosecutions have even been made for things like "sexting" and making diary entries. Where this group is concerned, there is apparently quite widespread availability of various Japanese cartoons that are prohibited in the U.S., if they are "obscene", which is difficult to predict. Wikimedia Commons actually has a few such "lolicon" cartoons, and a current discussion on Wikimedia Review is encouraging their members to report such drawings to NCMEC,[4] so this is an issue of immediate relevance. It is difficult to discern where sporadic prosecution ends and one-of-a-kind injustices begin. Those familiar with these issues may provide very useful input. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Japan: the new date is set for June

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

June was 2 months ago. What happened? Worromp Warg (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have deleted this line, but there was a line there that stated that virtual child pornography is legal for private use in canada. However, the cited article for the source of that information is not a reliable source. Furthermore, the criminal code of canada section 163-165 do not have any indication as far as I can tell that possession is legal. In fact the only thing I could find about possession was 163.1 (4), that mentions that possession is also illegal [(2) and (3) mention possession with intent of distribution etc, but (4) is specifically for possession only]. 206.248.131.15 (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resource parking

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Essay that incorporates an interview with Jim Peters, prosecutor in the Kutzner case. Site is probably not RS for this topic, but quotes/comments from Peters should be usable. - JRBrown (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

duplication of information

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus reached. The result of this discussion was not to merge 68.90.225.210 (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

After making a couple edits to Cartoon Pornography I noticed that nearly the entire article is a duplication of information on this (Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors) page. I believe that the little information in Cartoon Pornography, not pertaining to minors and the law might be incorporated elsewhere, perhaps in fan art and adult comics and the page can be deleted. Otherwise the Cartoon Pornography page needs a lot more information in order to be useful and prevent this kind of duplication in the future. 68.89.170.6 (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that is a merger is to be made (and given the amount on duplicate information, I can see why), then this page should be merged into Cartoon Pornography and not the other way around.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
An interesting take, looking at the history of this page it appears it originally was a split from lolicon. As this list grew it hurt the style and format of the lolicon page and was removed. It would be ironic that it be split from there only to end up absorbed by cartoon porn. My thoughts are that there is not enough information in cartoon porn to justify its existence aside from this particular topic on minors. And putting this information under cartoon pornography would especially dwarf any contributions regarding regular run of the mill cartoon porn. My thoughts are that if someone is interested in the topic of cartoon porn beyond the scope of minors depicted in it then that article would not be of much use to them.68.89.170.6 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Argentina

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The translation of article 128 of the penal code doesn't convey the real meaning of the law and gives the impression that cartoon pornography involving children is illegal. The article refers to a representation of actual children and was reformed with the purpose of including child pornography on the internet, it doesn't talk about cartoon pornography.

The map is obviously wrong for the stated reasons, loli is legal in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.136.104 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted that map, as I think it's entirely misleading. You're almost as likely to get killed by Islamic terrorists for what you draw as prosecuted for obscenity in the U.S. Meanwhile, the map makes it look like the Middle East has no objections, when I know they have laws against pornography altogether. It just isn't useful. Wnt (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 190.139.136.104 . This article is about cartoon pornography, and the article 128 of the penal code refers to use of minors in pornography, which has nothing to do with it. Same confusion as "minor" means actual human beings. I think legislations differs in concepts in each country so summarizing them altogether is misleading and fallacious. Plus there is a lot of ambiguity on this subject (cartoons and "virtual" child pornography -in the sense of images of real adults digitally modified to look younger-) may have different interpretation in each country yet we are packing them together under the same title. Plus, the Argentine one is the only with bold and italic on the word "representation" to induce that it includes cartoon pornography (a POV intention?), when the bold should be in "minors", excluding it totally (also the latter, I find it really hard to imagine how cartoons can participate in live spectacles). I'm quite sure cartoon pornography depicting minors is completely legal in Argentina (actually you can buy it on any import shop, with the titles recorded on a receipt completely legally). I think it should be removed since that law does not cover at all the case of cartoon pornography. 186.56.208.90 (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section as I agree it doesn't seem to be relevant to cartoon pornography. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, completely inaccurate

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The section on Australia states flat out falsehoods, directly contradicted by Federal and other state laws, in relation to child cartoon pornography. The two examples cited as specifically ONLY in those states and were over two completely different situations, the NSW one regarding already existing child pornography and being upheld because the prosecution piled all charges into a single basket, meaning the man would have been released on actual child pornography possession charges if the supreme court found the charge over cartoon porn ridiculous. The ban is not nation-wide or enforced Federally. Ive edited the section specifically spell out the difference. 58.7.254.99 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

There was a Commonwealth law at issue in the NSW Supreme Court judgement; the Criminal Code Act 1995 indeed defines in section 473.1 that "material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person, who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who: is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); or is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity; and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive" is "child pornography material"; while the possession of child pornography is not a Commonwealth offence, it is a Commonwealth offence to send or request such material via post or a carrier service (sections 471.16 and 474.19; McEwen was fined under the latter). The text of McEwen v. Simmons & Anor makes no reference to non-cartoon pornography; the matter at issue was solely the pornographic depiction of characters from The Simpsons. I will revert the relevant part of the edit in a week due to its apparent falsehood if no objections are raised before then; I am not a lawyer but the text of the law and the judgement seems clear. Magic9mushroom (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
More than a week has elapsed, so I reverted the part about the NSW law. I did not revert the part about South Australia because I haven't read up on it and don't know whether it's true or not. Magic9mushroom (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

USA again

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Congress has since enacted 18 U.S.C. 1466A, which specifically criminalizes the possession and distribution of virtual and comic images of apparent children if they are engaged in sexually explicit conduct that is "obscene" under the Miller standard as directly suggested in the Ashcroft ruling and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." So does this ban all comic images of children in sexual explicit acts (which qualify as "obscene"; and what is this miller standard) for supposedly lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? Could we get a better wording if not? (the cited source is down right now)

Isn't that like, a violation of freedom of speech? Does the Supreme Court approve?


Oh wait, this actually reads like it's still legal as long there's literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. What exactly is a not artistic comic? one made to masturbate over?

All of this pretty vague. 79.239.168.243 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. How exactly does one determine the "age" of a comic book character? If the character is is part of a comic series, then there may be implicit or explicit clues as to age, but from a single drawing there's a world of ambiguity. The general style of anime is to use childish features, like large eyes, disproportianly large heads etc. Obscenity convictions based on adult depictions are rare in recent years, mostly from "extreme pornography" such as JM Productions and Max Hardcore. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Since obscenity law is fundamentally based upon moral disapproval, U.S. obscenity laws in general (and the PROTECT act in particular) are considered constitutionally questionable, due to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that moral disapproval is not a legitimate rationale for laws which interfere with the free exercise of Constitutional rights. 73.205.190.185 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Dwight Whorley was not convicted of "child porn" involving "several cutouts from clothing magazines depicting human female children in swimwear"

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reworded the statement about Whorley having been convicted for actual child porn involving real people. I could find nothing to support that the "child porn" in question involved "cutouts from clothing magazines depicting human female children in swimwear." The few articles I looked at said they real child porn involved depictions of sexual acts involving children. I know of no child porn law state or federal that says that cutouts from clothing magazines depicting human female children in swimwear is in and of itself illegal. While it is possible for erotic pictures children in swimwear to be illegal (if they pass the Knox test), I pretty certain that photos from mainstream children's swimwear catalogs would never qualify as such. --2601:644:400:8D:0:0:0:2 (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bee

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Monett case section says Christian but I noticed https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/project-safe-childhood-24 spells it Christjan. Which is correct? Ranze (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

US Military restrictions?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://militaryjusticeblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/charging-child-pornography.html

Is it worth adding a note about this? Hcobb (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Only if there is a reliable source, blogspot isn't. Ranze (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

USA Virginia case

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed a section that has long been touted as to be circular in the internet on numerous wikis and mirrors, discussions and otherwise. The original link is 404 and has been for some time it seems. This reference "Man pleads guilty to possession of child porn." The Roanoke Times (Roanoke, VA). McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. 2006. Is viewable on HighBeam Research here The opening line states the charge. Stephen Painter, the subject, was viewing lolicon material at the library and a tip was put into the police. The police got a warrant, searched the apartment and found real images and according to the source was convicted on the real images. So the law for 18 USC 1466 did not come into play and that is why I have stricken it. Ars Technica did a story on this matter today and referred to this article, might as well make sure it is accurate. [5] Please do not replace the Virginia case, I will provide the relevant text if you cannot see the Highbeam source. Just message my talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Even though it is not directly the cause if conviction it could be relevant to mention its legal role in justifying a search warrant. Ranze (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Drawn" or "Cartoon"?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've noticed that this page has been moved from "Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors" to "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors", without apparent discussion here. The reason given in the edit summary was:

"Cartoon" refers to animation, and this article is about drawn and animated pornography.

However, the WP page for "cartoon" says that "a cartoon is a type of two-dimensional illustration" and follows its history through mediaeval sketches and political cartoons in newspapers. The WP page for "cartoon pornography" says that it is "is the portrayal of illustrated or animated fictional cartoon characters in erotic or sexual situations". There is no WP page for "drawn pornography". A Google search for "cartoon pornography" elicits nearly 100,000 responses, while a similar search for "drawn pornography" elicits just over 3,000. Furthermore, "drawn pornography" is so specific that it would exclude, for example, "painted pornography".

There appears to have been no attempt to edit the text of the article to take account of the new title. In some places the text presents drawings as separate from animation, which given the new title would imply that this article is not about animation. Even the definition in the first line does not match the new title. Clearly the article needs significant editing to define terms according to the new title.

I would suggest that the new name for this page is problematic, and that the simplest course of action is to return to the previous title. I propose that we do so.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Cartoon" is an English term that refers mostly to children's animation. "Animation" is a better term to use than "cartoon". But this article deals with both animation and drawn, and "drawn" can mean both. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate aspect of English that cartoon has three overlapping meanings (covered in that article). This varied uasge makes the term unclear, and it's best avoided whenever possible. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: TBD. Redundant. See Talk:Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms#Requested_move_8_June_2017 В²C ☎ 18:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors → Legality of drawn pornography depicting minors – Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canadian example

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One of the listed Canadian examples, "3.2 2015 Nova Scotia case" cites someone who was charged for having images of child pornography that were "largely anime." However this same claim clearly says that some of the images weren't drawn which seems to make this reference useless and misleading. There's no debate that in this case the person broke the law by having images that were clearly of real underaged women. I don't want to immediately remove this if someone can make a point on its validity, but this seems to be a poor example of someone being punished **for** drawn child pornography.

--Daskies (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes in the Netherlands?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An small handful of sites are claiming that pornographic site Exhentai is closing down "in a few hours" in a few hours due to recent major changes in Netherland's laws, but I haven't found much info on the matter. Is it just mass hysteria or is the Netherlands section actually outdated? 78.30.21.199 (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Tutelary's statements, and a bit else about the page

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First of all, the Supreme Court never struck down the PROTECT Act of 2003. It went before the Supreme Court and was upheld (in the Whoreley case, and his issue with the law was dismissed without comment).

In regards to the distinction regarding simulated child pornography and drawn child pornography, the first is illegal in the United States in any case where it depicts a simulated minor that is indistinguishable from a real minor. That said, both categories (simulated and drawn) are illegal when, as Section 1466A of Title 18 states, ".... it is illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene." This remains in the US government's obscenity law handbook as of its most recent update. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

The current line; "until District Judge struck down this section via United_States_v._Handley in 2008..." is misleading as it implies the law was invalidated, when it in fact was not. This decision conflicts with the Supreme Court decision which upheld the law, and because the Supreme Court is the higher court, they are what is deferred to in regards to the validity of the law.

Also, I agree with Gagwef that the line "This argument has been disputed as having a lack of scientific basis for that alleged connection pending future studies." should be removed as it's over 20 years outdated and from a non-scientific source. I continue to hold that these arguments regarding the nature of the laws should not be in the header of the page, as they are inherently non-objective. People come to the page to understand the legal status of the laws, not immediately hear arguments about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs)

At this point I'm a bit more concerned about whether or not this article will remain in its current state. The merge of content to Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors_in_the_United_States specifically, given the new title change, making the content and the title absolutely incompatible, nor do I believe the proposed new title would be better. As far as the specific accusations, where are the sources? Specifically for It went before the Supreme Court and was upheld (in the Whoreley case, and his issue with the law was dismissed without comment). I was not able to find sources for that specifically, and I do not trust the primary source of the US government's obscenity law book. They have a special interest in keeping this specific law active. This decision conflicts with the Supreme Court decision which upheld the law, and because the Supreme Court is the higher court, they are what is deferred to in regards to the validity of the law. I don't disagree with the fact that the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land and that their decisions are final. As far as the last line, 20 year old studies don't become invalid just because they are old. Ideally, there should be another source that supersedes, or another study that has proven a direct connection. I will do some more research in the coming days finding sources for positions and the status of this specific issue. Tutelary (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Supreme Court dismissed Dwight Whoreley's challenge to the PROTECT Act on January 11, 2010. https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6521.htm They sided siding with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals who also denied his challenge to the law. https://www.foxnews.com/story/court-of-appeals-affirms-cartoons-of-child-porn-are-illegal These two cases, combined with the government's statements on the matter, allow us to definitively use their most recently updated handbook as the source for what the law is. To reject the government's words and use third party sources makes very little sense - especially since non-government sources are even more subject to bias.
As for the 20 year old line issue, it wasn't even a study, it was a comment by the court. I agree with Gagwef's issue, its use here is a mistake. Especially, as I said, in the opening of the article where people aren't even trying to solicit opinions on the issue but simply inform themselves on the legal status. Signed, Edit5001

WP:POVSPLIT and oversimplification of USA laws

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Knowledgekid recent moved a large chunk of content from this article to the POV split article Simulated_child_pornography_in_the_United_States, where they make a bold assumption not supported by source or statute that said content is 100% illegal, and this is an oversimplification. I disagree with this move for several reasons. It is, at best, in a legal grey area, with specific cases being outliers and no one way consensus among the courts, given the Supreme Court's striking down of the PROTECT act in 2003. Knowledgekid's article split plainly asserts that all simulated child pornography, including drawn pornography depicting minors was illegal, when this is not the case. Although the content was otherwise unchanged when it was moved to Simulated_child_pornography_in_the_United_States, this left a false impression in this article and as such I have reverted. We should not be making our own conclusions about the state of the law, or engaging in original research to state things in the article that are not backed up by sources. This also has issues because "drawn pornography depicting minors" is NOT the same as "simulated child pornography". One of them explicitly refers to drawn pornography (the former), and one refers to photo realistic child pornography that isn't real. They are two different distinct topics, and trying to jam in drawn pornography depicting minors as simulated child pornography is original research. Tutelary (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tutelary: Why not just rename the split off article then, or work together to create one? My last intention was to throw WP:OR or provide a WP:POV, I split off the info as it was growing big for a section. Its a good topic that has plenty to expand upon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the best content creator, but I am very happy to see that you are very willing to change things to fit my concerns. It was getting a little bit big for this article, but again, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Simulated child pornography that is indistinguishable from real child pornography is illegal, and that can be stated boldly. However, I view "legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" as a fundamentally different topic, even though they are in the same class, but not the same legality. . Such a distinction should be very clear in the article. It's also affecting the format and realism of the split article. Taking content relating to "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" and slotting it under "simulated child pornography" is what I'm talking about in reference to original research, since the article claims that it's illegal--when it is a legal grey area. It also gives the impression to the reader that they are talking about photorealistic simulated child pornography, when it's entirely drawn. I'm not sure of a title change that will fix this without being overly convoluted. I also took issue with the way it was summarized on this article, given that it was blatantly false that it was illegal, when it was a legal grey area. Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Forget the other content then, if the content here were to be split off under its own article I would propose these titles:
No additional information would be added, and the lead for the new article would be consensual? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Although it's the longest, I feel like the 2nd option is the most clear. Tutelary (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It sounds good to me, rather than throw this BABY out I would rather see something good made of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead with the move, feel free to remove or add things! The bulk of the article is essentially a copy/paste of what is at Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors#United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
As seen here, I reverted the move. In that diff, I stated that the Simulated child pornography in the United States article includes a lot of material on simulated child pornography. This 2013 "Pornography and The Criminal Justice System" source, from CRC Press, page 185, is clear about what simulated child pornography is. It doesn't mention drawn pornography as part of the definition. So why should that article be called "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States"? If anything, all of the simulated child pornography material in that article should be removed or the article should be tiled "Simulated and drawn child pornography in the United States" or "Drawn and simulated child pornography in the United States." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Correction (since cartoons may be drawn): The source also says "Simulations may include cartoon obscenity." But it still doesn't focus on drawn pornography. I'll start a move discussion at that article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I kind of feel like that was an overreaction unless a large majority of the content is sourced to that specific source. It shouldn't have been automatically removed just because someone synthesized the resulting source to content where it was not reported. Which numbered cite are you referring to? I was unable to find the cite that references "Pornography and the Criminal Justice System". Wouldn't a better solution have been to remove that source? As of now, if the title is going to remain "Simulated child pornography in the United States", then my complaints about original research among other things is going to remain valid. I also don't believe that said title "Simulated and drawn child pornography in the United States" is better either, because I don't want the two very separate things to be conflated in the same article, nor would I trust editors to be able to signify and differentiate the two topic sufficiently enough that a merge page like that would be acceptable. If the title is not changed back, then I prefer content being moved back into this article, rather than simply leaving the summary style in place. Perhaps we could take your suggestion of "simulated child pornography" and take that down to a stub and what is directly in line with reliable sources, taking out things related to drawn pornography depicting minors. Tutelary (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "overreaction." All I did was move the Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States article back to its previous title (Simulated child pornography in the United States), and with good reason. Like I stated over at Talk:Simulated child pornography in the United States#Requested move 21 September 2019, "simulated pornography" and "drawn pornography" are not automatically the same thing (as you also noted above). It's why this section in the Simulated child pornography in the United States article states, "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults." "Simulated child pornography" is the broader term, as it goes beyond drawn pornography, and it's what the "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article is primarily about. That article should either keep the current tile, for accuracy, or be moved so that it includes "drawings" in its title. It should not be moved to "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States." I don't know what you mean regarding this aforementioned reference I pointed to. All I did was use it on these two talk page to provide a sourced definition of simulated child pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have reverted this split in the article, given that it is not an uncontested split. I conditionally removed the content from this article, in favor of Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States after discussing concerns with Knowledgekid, where my justification came from a shift in the article name. Now that that shift has been reverted, the content in that article no longer suits it because of no original research, due to the recent rename to Simulated child pornography in the United States in that the article content on this page concerns drawn pornography depicting minors, not simulated child pornography, which is a vastly different topic. In the same realm, but different nonetheless. Nor do I believe that the suggested name change will fix things. As a result, to preserve article content, ensure discussions are clear, and to hopefully encourage a properly filed split request, I have reverted the split. I hope this does not cause edit warring as this is simply returning the article to its previous state from 3 days ago, reverting my own edit. Indeed, having this as a simple summary style is confusing editors on Talk:Simulated child pornography in the United States for the move request. In addition, this section is only 16 kb, where the "rule of thumb" says that 40 kb and below are still okay not to be split, depending on topic. The name on the other page needs to be reconciled before we consider a split request. Tutelary (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not necessarily confusing anyone at Talk:Simulated child pornography in the United States. It's just that the Simulated child pornography in the United States article is currently covering both (simulated child pornography and drawn pornography). It can be cut so that it only covers simulated child pornography, and the move request could be withdrawn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted the attempt to re-instate this split. This is a contested split. Per WP:PROSPLIT Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion or a bold split that was contested, usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted;... Knowledgekid's split was the bold part, and I have reverted. The process on that page should ensue if Edit5001, or Knowledgekid want to pursue in splitting this article's United States section into Simulated_child_pornography_in_the_United_States, or whatever other name it takes into. But there is not two R's in In the bold, revert, discuss cycle, a longstanding, popular essay that is described by many as a way to proceed on controversial pages, to eventually gain consensus. Flyer 22, if you wish to do that, that could be advisable at this point in time. Or User:Knowledgekid87. Tutelary (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The topics are not dissimilar as they are both covered by the same law (PROTECT Act) in the United States. The existing law at the federal level in the US currently operates as follows: Both drawings and virtual child pornography fall under the umbrella of simulated child pornography. The law then codifies that any simulated sexual depiction of a minor that is indistinguishable from a real minor is illegal outright, without any regards to the material being obscene or not. Less realistic forms of artificial child sex (drawings, non-realistic virtual depictions) are illegal when they are obscene. Thus I think the articles being the way they were prior to Tutelary's changes were superior, and the way it currently is only causes the same information be repeated. Because again, both issues are covered by the PROTECT Act. To be clear, my position is that having a short History section under the US section and linking to the main page of Simulated Child Pornography in the United States (or legal status of drawn pornography in the United States, either name is suitable) is the superior route here. Signed, Edit 5001.
Thus I think the articles being the way they were prior to Tutelary's changes were superior, It's of note that I did not make the initial change to this article. The article was quite thorough and stable through the consensus of having only a larger USA section, due to the intricacies of different laws and statutes and history regarding this specific issue. Knowledgekid merged out the section 5 days ago, and I reverted, then agreed once the above exchange happened (scroll up), changing the title to Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States since that's an accurate summation. However, the title was changed to Simulated child pornography in the United States, making the content split from this article original research in that article due to being about two distinct topics. So I undid the split, and so a split discussion should ensue. The fact that you agree that the two different subjects, although similar, have different legalities makes it quite clear in my mind that they should be two separate topics on two separate pages, rather than being combined on a singular page. One is a grey area, and the other is blatantly illegal. Conflating the two as equal or similar enough to elaborate in a single article is at worst original research, and at best, a distorted way of looking at it. Like I said in the other page, one refers to a nude character of the Simpsons, and the other refers to digital images that are designed to look like real child pornography. You can also add four tildes ~~~~ to the end of your post to sign. Tutelary (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The simulated child pornography material in the article

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Per what is stated here, either all of the simulated child pornography material should be removed from this article and the article should stay titled "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors," or it should be renamed to indicate that it includes both simulated and drawn child pornography material if it's to include both. I'm fine with the article staying titled "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" if the simulated child pornography material is included for context and is not excessive. But something like "and concerns simulated pornography" (which is currently in the lead) either needs to be sourced or removed.

Tutelary noted not liking the two (simulated pornography and drawn pornography) being conflated. This article already includes both. All a title change would be doing is indicating that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would definitely argue that currently, it's only mentioned in context, and not overly so. As I said previously, the topics are related, but they are not the same. Ultimately, it's currently only used as a juxtaposition in favor of stating the legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. I'm fine with the lead being edited, and instances of "simulated" being changed to be "drawn pornography depicting minors" if it wouldn't qualify as original research. It's a lot like delving into the legal status of embezzlement, you might have to mention petty theft crimes and lesser theft crimes in order to build a proper juxtaposition to then discuss embezzlement. I believe this article does that just fine currently. Tutelary (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
We definitely shouldn't change "simulated" to "drawn" if the source is about "simulated" and not "drawn." This article covers simulated pornography where it's not needed. The "United States" section currently relays, "The legal treatment of simulated child pornography in the United States requires an understanding of the components of that phrase: pornography, child, and simulated. United States law treats these as separate concepts." And that section clearly covers simulated pornography. Is all of what it states on simulated pornography necessary in this article? That is something we should ask ourselves. As for "and concerns simulated pornography" in the lead, thinking on this some more, it's fine when sources are talking about cases of drawn pornography that have been combined with simulated pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you on not changing the word "simulated" to "Drawn" if it's going to conflict with WP:NOR. The United States section states the word "simulated" twice, one in the sentence you just mentioned, and another below. By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. I believe the 2nd sentence (the one I just quoted) could be changed to "drawn" to avoid confusion, and without violating WP:NOR. The first one should be kept for juxtaposition. Tutelary (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

doll case

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this story be covered under examples? Despite 1st paragraph saying dolls, 3rd paragraph sounds like it was the box art that prompted the charges. Olivia comet (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors/Archive_1&oldid=1214399428"