Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn

Posted by timothy on from the in-a-perfect-world-the-topic-would-not-arise dept.

BenFenner writes "Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"

1 of 933 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Uhh, yes it does... by E++99 · · Score: 1, Troll

    I don't suppose you noticed that are in fact no victims in this case. No actual children where involved. Otherwise I agree with you.

    There are victims. The victims are the people who end up looking at that crap and being affected by it. Secondary victims would be people, especially children, who subsequently interact with the primary victims. The tertiary victim is the psychological, mental, and, yes, moral, state of the culture as a whole. Should we have laws that put limits on the moral content of our culture? ABSOLUTELY. When I see the human scum that are the product of lax Western culture, it's no mystery why Islamists see us as the incarnation of evil.