What child got hurt by a drawing? IF you used real life references like shadman did a while ago that is 100% woodchipper worthy though. Honestly wtf was he thinking... Otherwise though? Aka stuff that ISN'T using humans as reference? It's not even real, same as any drawing.
Again, that's actually a huge part of the problem. It's in the "eye of the beholder."
It's fucking art. It doesn't have an age. If it's something you or I would look at and think "adult," but the author or artist has said is a seventeen year old, are you really saying that's pedophilia?
Look, there's plenty of disgusting art out there. For the sake of argument, lets even say maybe some of it even should be illegal. This law still blows chunks. It's imprecise, which is the hallmark of a bad law.
Adult-presenting art where the writer has said the character is perhaps slightly younger than eighteen is not pedophilia , or even pedophile-adjacent. You can think it's distasteful, but this isn't even an "anti-loli" law, because it goes so far beyond that.
For example, anime has plenty of "waifus," many are technically (in universe) underage, but you wouldn't know that looking at their art. It's insane to say that just because a character may be stated to be a seventeen year old, or even a fifteen year old, but you'd think they were and adult with how they were drawn, that possessing an image of them is equivalent to child porn. That's insane, that's bad law. Drawings don't have age of consent, and getting vague and "eye of the beholder" stuff just makes it worse.
What child got hurt by a drawing? IF you used real life references like shadman did a while ago that is 100% woodchipper worthy though. Honestly wtf was he thinking... Otherwise though? Aka stuff that ISN'T using humans as reference? It's not even real, same as any drawing.
What is it a drawing of?
Again, that's actually a huge part of the problem. It's in the "eye of the beholder."
It's fucking art. It doesn't have an age. If it's something you or I would look at and think "adult," but the author or artist has said is a seventeen year old, are you really saying that's pedophilia?
Look, there's plenty of disgusting art out there. For the sake of argument, lets even say maybe some of it even should be illegal. This law still blows chunks. It's imprecise, which is the hallmark of a bad law.
Adult-presenting art where the writer has said the character is perhaps slightly younger than eighteen is not pedophilia , or even pedophile-adjacent. You can think it's distasteful, but this isn't even an "anti-loli" law, because it goes so far beyond that.
For example, anime has plenty of "waifus," many are technically (in universe) underage, but you wouldn't know that looking at their art. It's insane to say that just because a character may be stated to be a seventeen year old, or even a fifteen year old, but you'd think they were and adult with how they were drawn, that possessing an image of them is equivalent to child porn. That's insane, that's bad law. Drawings don't have age of consent, and getting vague and "eye of the beholder" stuff just makes it worse.
coughmarinkitagawacough
All of those words and you didn't answer the question.
Is it a drawing of a flower? A puppy? A car?
A fictional character from the artist's imagination.
What drawing are you talking about? The shadman one? He drew iirc keemstars daughter, very messed up.