The problem with your 13-yr-old replicant is that most of the basis for k-p's illegality lies in the harm caused by the associated images. Even if you take some photo'd 100 years ago by some Victorian skeeze it's still illegal to show it in the US, despite the fact that any harm done to the subject was done a long, long time ago. Same reason why you can't circulate pornographically suggestive pictures that don't actually feature the child doing anything harmful. Yes, it's the same line of logic that allows your local Bible-Thumpers to try and keep art-with-naked-people out of your local library, but you have to admit, the idea holds some water. A 13-yr-old replica would foster ideas of under-age sex being okay and acceptable, and that's something that society (or the law, or whatever you want to call it) has decided to be very, very bad.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with your 13-yr-old replicant is that most of the basis for k-p's illegality lies in the harm caused by the associated images. Even if you take some photo'd 100 years ago by some Victorian skeeze it's still illegal to show it in the US, despite the fact that any harm done to the subject was done a long, long time ago. Same reason why you can't circulate pornographically suggestive pictures that don't actually feature the child doing anything harmful. Yes, it's the same line of logic that allows your local Bible-Thumpers to try and keep art-with-naked-people out of your local library, but you have to admit, the idea holds some water. A 13-yr-old replica would foster ideas of under-age sex being okay and acceptable, and that's something that society (or the law, or whatever you want to call it) has decided to be very, very bad.