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 kind of an answer is that? If someone asks you what character is on a movie poster do you say "that is a fictional character"? Of course not, you would say either the characters name or the kind of thing the subject is depicting.
You are jumping through hoops to avoid answering a simple question.
Also I finally looked at the article and it is hilarious that they chose the absolutely most innocuous image show how bad the laws is and not the awful degenerate filth that the law would actually be applied to.
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 kind of an answer is that? If someone asks you what character is on a movie poster do you say "that is a fictional character"? Of course not, you would say either the characters name or the kind of thing the subject is depicting.
You are jumping through hoops to avoid answering a simple question.
Also I finally looked at the article and it is hilarious that they chose the absolutely most innocuous image show how bad the laws is and not the awful degenerate filth that the law would actually be applied to.