I think that context is a big deal. A child being nude isn't necessarily sexual; in some cultures childhood nudity is considered a sign of innocence. Of course, I know that a lot of the fanwork we're all familiar with doesn't really fall into this category. Also, would you consider something like Lolita would be considered child pornography?
I also don't think that its in the same class as real-life child pornography. As other people have pointed out, we don't arrest people for murder when they play GTA or Call of Duty. I personally think that it is sick and wrong, but should we really let our morals be such a factor in our laws? I think that there has to be a limit with regards to obscenity, but I don't that paper-and-ink children being exploited matters as much as real-life children being exploited.
Also, when it comes to fiction, what standard would we use to constitute underage? If in the fictional story the age of consent is 14 (which is not unheard of), would that character being in a sexual situation be considered CP? I'm actually curious to what everyone thinks about this, because I can't think of a concrete answer.
I agree that nudity is not always sexual and that not all nude images are porn. I think it depends per individual case and that would make it pretty hard to draw the line if you were to allow photographs of nude minors.
I don't think images of adults pretending to be younger is CP. And neither do I think your description on a fictional story should be considered CP. I personally think that, as long as no real-life children are being harmed or exploited, it doesn't truly matter and it shouldn't be illegal.
Yeah, but apparently DA doesn't think so. I've reported pictures where the character has been deemed 18 years of age, but LOOKS like a child with child-like torso, limb, and facial proportions. The artist says so, and even professional production companies do this at times. But, I do see your point.
Anime/Manga while I can't stop them from what they make, seems to be one of these sources. I could probably look up an anime/manga character who has been featured officially nude in their respective series, and find it on dA without any reports since 2009. (I tried reporting one particular picture once, and I even provided the character's age from the synopsis. dA said "Need information". ABOUT WHAT? THAT'S WHAT THE OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS SAYS!!!)
I don't know how long this complaint runs around these forums, but judging by the many comments on this thread, QUITE FRIGGEN OFTEN! Though... Not to be rude, =MaskedGuardian has a point...... to me, it is like saying it's illegal to kill someone in a video game, or slaughtering someone in a drawing, but no one talks about that. No one would ever dare complain about a corpse in a picture, or a stitched human doll. Because that is acceptable to the Gothics, so.. why not right?
I mean, yeah okay, it's annoying to see, but go so far as to call it illegal? Erm, I would not say that much.... okay, there are rules about it. But do you think Deviant Art really sticks by their own rules? I only see their own action taken on forums, or when submitting a ticket. never when it comes to pictures.
The problem arises in many cases I think when artists treat the character as not underage; this happens quite often IME, especially with those characters between 10-20 years of age. The artist themselves will not see what they are doing as offensive and will be shocked that YOU do.
Then there's the problem with uncertain ages. My Little Pony characters have been stated to have an age, depending on situation, between 12-20 which means that images of them can and cannot be policy violations at the same time.
Amusingly when FurAffinity decided to enact a serious ban on cub porn, an entire new site, Inkbunny, was crated specifically to allow it. To this day 1 out of 3 images in underage porn.
making a drawing about a fictional underage character who is naked is no different than REAL-LIFE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
Bull fucking shit. We don't arrest people for murdering others in Call of Duty, it should be no different for drawn child pornography. Just because the rule is in place doesn't mean it should stay that way.
vajrasanaFeatured By OwnerFeb 6, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
Well it is really against the law to depict a child, real or not, in a sexual manner. People have been arrested for this. The supposed reasoning behind the law is that it could be used to coerce a child into preforming sexual acts/convincing them that it's alright.
What's worse is when the characters are from shows made for children. Just look at My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for example. I have absolutely no problem with the fact that there are so many adults who love this show.
But then Rule 34 shows up and perverts the whole thing! It's a show meant for toddlers for goodness sake!
GalacticGoatFeatured By OwnerFeb 3, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
Honestly I don't get the former. It its just nudity and not sexual why is it against the rules? The only argument I can think of is "well how about the pedos get off to it?!?" in which I reply "if a non sexual image of a child just not wearing clothing can get them off then an image of a child wearing clothing should do the exact same thing".
But as far as actual sexual situations DA is actually pretty decent at removing art in some areas but the worse in others. For example my friend posted an image of Ichigo from Bleach in a slightly sexual way, he's 17 and therefore can consent in pretty much everywhere yet the image was still removed which is fine because yeah it was rule breaking... but then there's the sexualize images of cherubs that don't get taken down despite being naked sexualized babies only on the basis they have bird wings doodled behind their back.
When your rules are so broken a art of a party able to consent breaks the rules but adding wings to a baby isn't you know things need to be improved upon.
She told me that someone found out her full name shortly after she got banned. And then I saw your conversation with her earlier about how she wouldn't let you blackmail her with the "information" you have on her. So I thought you were the one she was talking about.