Maybe so, but allowing this is saying that it is ok to create a picture of a child engaging in sexual activity, the very thing that the Child Pornography Act protects against.
The prosecutor in this case is 100% on target. If you allow this as a form of "expression" or "art," where do you draw the line? In an age where computer graphics can generate near-perfect images, what's to keep a CRIMINAL from taking a (clothed) picture of your son or daughter and modifying it as they please?
Furthermore, what's to keep someone from running an exploitive picture of your child through a photoshop filter and calling it "art?"
ref.
Slashdot Mirror
We know that, stupid
Maybe so, but allowing this is saying that it is ok to create a picture of a child engaging in sexual activity, the very thing that the Child Pornography Act protects against.
Ref.
The prosecutor in this case is 100% on target. If you allow this as a form of "expression" or "art," where do you draw the line? In an age where computer graphics can generate near-perfect images, what's to keep a CRIMINAL from taking a (clothed) picture of your son or daughter and modifying it as they please? Furthermore, what's to keep someone from running an exploitive picture of your child through a photoshop filter and calling it "art?" ref.