Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    My question involves criminal law for the state of: Tennessee

    Are such drawings or renders legal in every US state? How about nudist sites? There are some sites with lots of members displaying the 3d and toon art and have a lot of members and have not been shut down.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_pornography


    As of the PROTECT Act of 2003, the legal status of cartoon pornography with minors has been more thoroughly addressed and refined than it was before under the previous law of the United States. From her summary and analysis of the Act by privacy lawyer Parry Aftab, it would seem that the new legislation affects cartoon pornography which is both "graphic" and "indistinguishable." Both of these words were clearly defined by legislators in the act. Simplified definitions referred to content which was visually viewable and which could not be readily distinguished by viewers as not containing depiction of real children. In addition, much of the presented material, when translated for the United States market, had removed scenes of children being depicted, or stated that the outwardly childlike appearance did not reflect the actual age of the character (a much more common trait in hentai material in particular). This change is rapidly affecting sources such as the Internet as well as adult bookstores which would readily have it available.

    The new act seemed to be primarily and rather specifically aimed at addressing realistic appearing computer generated depictions of minors in sexual situation or engaging in sexual act. The definition by law makers went on to state quite clearly: "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults", U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2256 [1].


    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...tion_2256.html

    (9) "identifiable minor" -
    (A) means a person -
    (i)(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was
    created, adapted, or modified; or
    (II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting,
    or modifying the visual depiction; and
    (ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the
    person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing
    characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other
    recognizable feature; and

    (B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual
    identity of the identifiable minor.

    (10) "graphic", when used with respect to a depiction of
    sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any
    part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or
    animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit
    conduct is being depicted; and
    (11) the term "indistinguishable" used with respect to a
    depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the
    depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction
    would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged
    in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to
    depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings
    depicting minors or adults.

    So after looking at that link I can't understand if 3d generated images of children (by normal 3d art programs) are similar to real children.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,653

    Default Re: Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    I would tread carefully. See, e.g., 18 USC 1446A and this news story.
    Quote Quoting 18 USC 1446A
    (a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
    (1)
    (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

    (B) is obscene; or
    (2)
    (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

    (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
    or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
    I don't know if, when or how the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the issue, but you can be pretty certain that there will always be politicians who are seeking to outlaw such drawings, and prosecutors willing to charge people for creating or possessing them.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27,911

    Default Re: Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    i'm still trying to figure out what an underage cartoon looks like? can you ask for ID?

    how can you tell if they are "barely legal"?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=06-694


    Fifth, the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" (the visual depiction of which, engaged in by an actual minor, is covered by the Act's pandering and soliciting prohibition even when it is not obscene) is very similar to the definition of "sexual conduct" in the New York statute we upheld against an overbreadth challenge in Ferber. That defined "sexual conduct" as " 'actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.' " 458 U. S., at 751. Congress used essentially the same constitutionally approved definition in the present Act. If anything, the fact that the defined term here is "sexually explicit conduct," rather than (as in Ferber) merely "sexual conduct," renders the definition more immune from facial constitutional attack. "[S]imulated sexual intercourse" (a phrase found in the Ferber definition as well) is even less susceptible here of application to the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies--which suggest that intercourse is taking place without explicitly depicting it, and without causing viewers to believe that the actors are actually engaging in intercourse. "Sexually explicit conduct" connotes actual depiction of the sex act rather than merely the suggestion that it is occurring. And "simulated" sexual intercourse is not sexual intercourse that is merely suggested, but rather sexual intercourse that is explicitly portrayed, even though (through camera tricks or otherwise) it may not actually have occurred. The portrayal must cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the actors actually engaged in that conduct on camera. Critically, unlike in Free Speech Coalition, 2252A(a)(3)(B)(ii)'s requirement of a "visual depiction of an actual minor" makes clear that, although the sexual intercourse may be simulated, it must involve actual children (unless it is obscene). This change eliminates any possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term "simulated sexual intercourse."

    Finally, the dissent accuses us of silently overruling our prior decisions in Ferber and Free Speech Coalition. See post, at 12. According to the dissent, Congress has made an end-run around the First Amendment's protection of virtual child pornography by prohibiting proposals to transact in such images rather than prohibiting the images themselves. But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means "a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed," post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography. The dissent would require an exception from the statute's prohibition when, unbeknownst to one or both of the parties to the proposal, the completed transaction would not have been unlawful because it is (we have said) protected by the First Amendment. We fail to see what First Amendment interest would be served by drawing a distinction between two defendants who attempt to acquire contraband, one of whom happens to be mistaken about the contraband nature of what he would acquire. Is Congress forbidden from punishing those who attempt to acquire what they believe to be national-security documents, but which are actually fakes? To ask is to answer. There is no First Amendment exception from the general principle of criminal law that a person attempting to commit a crime need not be exonerated because he has a mistaken view of the facts.
    English translation:

    Virtual child porn is not illegal unless it's offered as real pornography. Of course the guy in Virginia is still behind bars for looking at lolicon (underage Hentai)

    If people prosecute just bring up the Supreme Court decision. Do people listen to the supeme court?

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

    The problem with that case is that the porn is virtual. The only way they could lock that man up is if he was promoting the stuff as "child pornography".

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,653

    Default Re: Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    Read the statute I cited. Then decide if you want to be the one who is litigating this to the Supreme Court.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    The manga dealer and the guy in Virginia SHOULD NOT be in prison. The Williams case ruled in their favor. Apparently, lower courts don't listen to the Supreme court. The court stated virtual child pornography is not a crime unless it's being advertized as child porn.

    Of course not saying if virtual child porn is good or not. But I am saying that 10 or 15 year sentences (or even a few weeks) for virtual porn is as ridiculous as the US prohibition against cannibas.

    It's all a bunch of self righteous right wing groups who want to make an example of people. So they can prove how tough they are on crime.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Are Underage 3D and Cartoon Drawings Legal

    http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13488.html


    Partial Victory in Handley Case Ruling
    PROTECT Act Weakened
    Published: 10/10/2008, Last Updated: 10/13/2008 03:48am
    The United Defense Group scored a partial victory in the Handley manga obscenity case (see "CBLDF in Manga Obscenity Case") in a ruling last summer as the court ruled that sections of the PROTECT Act 1466 a(2) and b(2) are infirm because they “do not require that the material be deemed obscene” by a jury, but instead substitute standards set by Congress as to what is per se or patently obscene. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the Smith case to argue that “appeals to ‘prurient interest’ and ‘patent offensiveness’ are standards that cannot be defined legislatively and instead are questions of fact for the jury to resolve” (using the Miller criteria).



    The three criteria that must be met in order to judge material obscene that are set forth in the Miller case are: (1) would the average person find that the material appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the material depicts, in patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
    So if a jury finds it obscene which probably they will then your convicted. But congress cannot set the standard of obscenity.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Patents: Supporting a Patent Application With Computer-Generated Drawings
    By propainter in forum Intellectual Property
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-18-2011, 06:06 PM
  2. Copyright Law: Fair Use or Defamation of Cartoon and Artist
    By pointedpen in forum Intellectual Property
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-02-2009, 06:54 AM
  3. Consumer Law Issues: Contest And Drawings Law
    By Allen_J in forum Consumer Law
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 08:06 AM
  4. Sex Offenses: Is Non-Nude Underage Content Legal In the USA
    By yemito in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-17-2007, 12:26 PM
  5. Minors: Legal Changes for Underage Spouse
    By Noona in forum Marriage and Civil Unions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-03-2007, 06:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 
Forum Sponsor
Criminal Defense Attorney
Protect your freedom. Consult a criminal defense lawyer for free.




Untitled Document