Pan from DBGT

[nessonite1]

grahh...and I just read about that a few days ago. Wish I could remember now where it was.

 

[Kalamos]

* nudge *

Ask Val...

 

[nessonite1]

LOL That'd be too easy. XD

 

[Kalamos]

Easy is good.
Yield to the dark side, young jedi.

 

[cyclypse]

Just to add a little tid bit, Pan during the GT series is around the age of 13-14, which in Japan is considered "legal age". Seeing as how the artist is in fact Japanese, he drew it within the boundaries of Japanese "law".

Granted, our laws are different, but I think since this is nothing more than tickling art it should be allowed. It's just a cartoon XD

 

[Kalamos]

Please, do not mistake *my* feelings with what law might say.

I'm well aware it is just a drawing.
We're not taking a poll to decide whether it is offending or not.
I'm saying that we shouldn't assume it is safe just because it seems harmless to us.

For example, it would be bordeline-illegal under European/Italian law, and out-right illegal under Canadian.
Why should I expect American law to be any more lenient?

😉

 

[Relent<]

I suppose there aren't but it just seems so "petipheliac" to me.
I watch the show, and I think she was like 11-13 last i checked.

 

[U.N.Owen]

American law defines child porn in terms of "explicit sexual content." Tickling without nudity doesn't qualify as porn. Furthermore, so far the courts have refused to consider drawings as regulated porn at all.

The question, then, is not the law, but the views of the internet host, and the site administrator.

I entirely agree with the mods about keeping pics of real minors off the site -- even though they aren't illegal in themselves, they don't belong on a site which hosts adult images also.

But with drawings, I really don't see much of an issue, as long as they stay clean. We're talking an imagined view of a fictional character, not engaged in sexual activity. I agree with the mods that this just isn't a big deal.

 

[Kalamos]

I see no big deal myself.
I'm just being cautious.

Over-cautious? Maybe.
That particular drawing does show *some* nudity.
I'm not saying that it is not clean.
I'm saying that some laws state otherwise - and we are not talking about backwater places, with archaic laws.

 

[Mr.giggles]

This is the way I see it, if its just good ol' innocent tickling...sound. I do however draw the line at Child Porn, that is sick and depraved. So if its tickling...cool, if its actual child porn....sick. Tickling is the most innocent form of contact. So Thats the way I see it....... :weird: I agree with anime316, its probably legal over there. Im just going to shut up now as I have probably said too much.... :wooha:

 

[nessonite1]

For example, it would be bordeline-illegal under European/Italian law, and out-right illegal under Canadian.
Why should I expect American law to be any more lenient?

I am as sure that it is legal as I can be without having the actual documents saying so right infront of me. It's the same sort of exception that makes those child "modling" sites legal (and those are from all over the world I think). As long as there is no depiction of actual sexual acts being performed by actual people under 18 so it is legal. And, in America at least, it doesn't matter how perverse or graphic it is. It's legal as long as it's just an illustration.
Case in point...at Otakon (the anime convention I went to in August) you could buy doujins ranging from perfectly innocent to downright pornographic featuring characters of ANY age. If this were illegal they wouldn't be allowed to sell them there. You can also buy them on ebay, and their rules tend to be rather strict and are definately within US law.

I really must track down something that says this with some authority. I'm 99.9% sure I'm right but I'd like to be able to back it up with something.

 

[Kalamos]

No prob, Ness.
I just stated my point.

I'm sure you'll react promptly should problems arise.

🙂

 

[Hungarian21]

😀 This thread got popular!

 

[MistressValerie1]

Nothing in this post should be considered as legal advice, but these are the publicly available, relevant definitons and terms about underage content and US law. The laws of other countries may differ significantly.

According to ASACP, a private US child-protection organisation affiliated with the FBI:

What content isn`t child pornography?
- Text describing child pornography or explicit sexual behavior of/with children is not illegal.
- Child modeling sites, (i.e. childsupermodel.com) are not illegal. ASACP does not accept child-modeling sites as Sponsors or Approved Members, but these sites are legal.
- At this time animations, drawings and cartoons are legal.
- Child nudity does not always equal child pornography. The determining factor with child pornography is not whether the child is nude, partially nude, or fully clothed. The determining factor is what the child is doing and/or having done to him/her is.

http://www.asacp.org/faq.php

The relevant parts of our hosting company's AUP are as follows:

Internet Etiquette

... The Customer is not permitted to post any material that ... indecently depicts children ...

Child Pornography

Company will cooperate fully with any criminal investigation into a Customer's violation of the Child Protection Act of 1984 concerning child pornography. Customers are ultimately responsible for the actions of their clients over Company network, and will be liable for illegal material posted by their clients.

According to the Child Protection Act, child pornography includes photographs, films, video or any other type of visual presentation that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years or any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years.

US law defines explicit sexual activity as follows (18 USC 2256):

"sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated--
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

"Sadistic or masochistic abuse" could include tickling if it occurs in the context of sexual gratification or abuse as understood by the material's target audience (e.g., ticklephiles).

I hope this is of help.

 

[Hungarian21]

Have no fear; MistressValerie is here! 😛

 

[nessonite1]

She knows everything. XD