Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelli58
Well this makes me think about Max Hardcore's case and the age-old question, if she's not real, is it illegal?
https://adultindustry.news/if-its-no...ality-in-porn/
2257 is to prove the person in the video/photo is over 18. If the girl isn't real, she doesn't have an id.
So it wouldn't really fall under those laws. So that leads you down the obscenity rabbit hole.
is a fake girl obscene? Under the legal definition of "obscene" that is.
But it's a good question and I for one hope not the be the test case to find out :P |
The US Supreme Court has already touched on the subject of virtual child porn in 2002 under 2256... Free Speech Coalition filed a challenge to the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-795
The Court struck down the law but left open the possibility that they would uphold a more narrowly tailored law in the future.
"Finally, the Government says that the possibility of producing images by using computer imaging makes it very difficult for it to prosecute those who produce pornography by using real children. Experts, we are told, may have difficulty in saying whether the pictures were made by using real children or by using computer imaging. The necessary solution, the argument runs, is to prohibit both kinds of images. The argument, in essence, is that protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This analysis turns the First Amendment upside down."