# Child pornography is illegal, but what about in cartoons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 6, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-pornography-is-illegal-but-what-about-in-cartoons/273424 "2004-11-06T23:52:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SmHodge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@SmHodge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmHodge)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-pornography-is-illegal-but-what-about-in-cartoons/273424/21 "2004-11-08T00:16:35Z")
Hmm… interesting. In a lot of hentai there are obviously underaged characters drawn, but in American released it’s always plastered on the box “ALL CHARACTERS ARE OVER 18.” although most viewers have said that the statement is most usually bull. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-pornography-is-illegal-but-what-about-in-cartoons/273424/22 "2004-11-08T02:13:02Z")
In one particularly celebrated case, a DA in Oklahoma in the mid-90s set out to impound all copies of the award-winning film _The Tin Drum_ on account of “simulated portrayal of a minor”. This boneheadedness only made the courts’ job shooting down the law all the easier. As to the “potential gateway” argument, most courts have held that _“maybe, perhaps, in the worst case scenario, it could happen, ya know”_ is not a good enough basis for statuting a crime. CP laws already exist for the protection of children. The individual is responsible for his actions, and if he knows what’s good for him he’ll remember it’s a crime to reenact “Lolita” with the neighbor’s niece. As mentioned with the Mike Diana case, there is a difference if you can prove to a court the material is _obscene_ as per the legal definition thereof. Then the First Amendment does not protect it any more. Now, yes, technology to create “virtual CP” exists. At _professional_ grade, AND it would look sort of like the Final Fantasy movie. For some reason CG has a heap of trouble animating a real-looking person. Tragic to say this, but to the real perv out there, it’s still far cheaper to just get some actual child before his camcorder for his raw material. As late as this last summer there were big busts of CP sites and sources (Eastern Europe), and what was found was _real photos_. _Recent_ real photos. Gigabyte after gigabyte thereof. Meanwhile the cartoon-porn folks are too busy trying to bittorrent scanned Japanese comic books featuring the Digimon girls naked. Hardly a threat. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-pornography-is-illegal-but-what-about-in-cartoons/273424/23 "2004-11-08T02:25:31Z")
> [@](#): > > As to the “potential gateway” argument, most courts have held that “maybe, perhaps, in the worst case scenario, it could happen, ya know” is not a good enough basis for statuting a crime. IIRC, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument in the _Ashcroft_ case. They declared that this reasoning is too speculative to base a law upon. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-pornography-is-illegal-but-what-about-in-cartoons/273424/24 "2004-11-08T02:32:10Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > The logical end of such a point of view is that people who watch fictional serial-killer movies will seek to become serial killers themselves, which is obviously absurd. But of course, when it comes to the abuse of children, very few people are able to remain cool and rational when thinking about it, which explains why we (and I include myself here) tend to overreact. The problem with this kind of assumption is that people are much more driven sexually than they are by the desire to commit violence, and I think almost anyone who has had an opportunity to view both (I’m speaking primarily of males here; women seem to be less influenced by pornography) will say it piques their sexual urge much more than a violent movie spurs them to want to engage in violence. For this reason I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to presume the logical extension of each results in an equal response to the stimulus. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Llama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@The\_Llama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Llama)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-pornography-is-illegal-but-what-about-in-cartoons/273424/25 "2004-11-08T02:54:46Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > The logical end of such a point of view is that people who watch fictional serial-killer movies will seek to become serial killers themselves, which is obviously absurd. But of course, when it comes to the abuse of children, very few people are able to remain cool and rational when thinking about it, which explains why we (and I include myself here) tend to overreact. Actually the logical end in your analogy is that it will fuel the fire to watch actual killing on tape, not do the killings themselves. Either way, the point stands. Gateway movies are like gateway drugs… they don’t exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-pornography-is-illegal-but-what-about-in-cartoons/273424.md?page=1)