I believe you answered your own question.
Not true, as I understand it. At least for the US.*edit* And to reply to an earlier comment, simulated child-porn is still illegal. You can't make a porn with an 18 year old actress and make her character 13 years old. Even the characters have to be of age.
Worst pun ever.Nope - digital manipulation of a 14 year old is illegal so get you fingers off her!:crazyeyes:
And here people were thinking only filthy Austrians did that.Man Faces 20 Years For Keeping Sex Slave In Mom's Basementinsidebayarea.com — A 23-year-old California man accused of keeping a teenage girl in the basement of his parents' home and molesting her hundreds of times will face up to 20 years in prison. Before copping a plea to a dozen counts, he had been charged with 142 felonies, including more than 100 counts of child abuse, many involving sodomy and oral copulation.
Max Hardcore was charged over making over-age (VERY over-age in most cases) actresses pretend to be under-age. But he was cleared. As I understand it he contends that it was never explicitly stated in the - erm, work - that they were supposed to be under-age. Don't know if that was the point the case actually turned on though.I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Can you cite the law?
Because from 18 USC s2252A:
and 18 USC s 2256 defines child pornography as:
Well I'm not sure about the Canadian part...Everyone stereotypes.
All Canadians live in igloos and sleep with a hockey stick, all americans are fat and lazy, all europeans listen to death/black metal, and all asians eat dogs n cats.
We know none of this is true, but we say it anyway. Pretty cruel world.
From Wikipedia:Max Hardcore was charged over making over-age (VERY over-age in most cases) actresses pretend to be under-age. But he was cleared. As I understand it he contends that it was never explicitly stated in the - erm, work - that they were supposed to be under-age. Don't know if that was the point the case actually turned on though.
Summary: He was charged with a violation of a child porn statute passed by the city of Los Angeles. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the Court decided that since child porn laws are in place to protect children, and the model was over 18, then the statute was unconstitutional.Based on these movies, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was under eighteen years of age.
Just before the case was brought to trial in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the statute prohibiting adults from portraying children in films and books was unconstitutional (See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). Based on this ruling, the child pornography charges against Hardcore were dismissed.
TV Ontario has lecturers lecture. On English prof was talking about Canadian laws. He told his audience (first year University students) that if they had friends that were under 18 to tell they could make love but they had better not write any poems about it, because that would be illegal.Since we're stretching concepts here, is Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita illegal in this respect? What about the film version?
In the past the lifespan was what 30-60 if lucky? Age is a shortcut for Biological and Social Maturity laws on sex.To play the devil's advocate, men all around the world would instantly become pedophiles if they moved the age of consent from 18 to 19.
Are some things just universally known? (If that doesn't make sense, I mean like at age 21, you can magically drink alcohol, and society and laws have little to do with it.) Is it at all possible that, with extreme long life in the future, the age of consent would move to 25? And perhaps people in that future would look back on us with disgust - much the way we look back on people in the past who married girls at 12 1/2 on average.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Seriously? This is hard to believe. Would it still be illegal if someone did this themself, if they edited an image of themself at an earlier age onto the head of their adult body doing something explicit?If you were to take an 18 year old actress, film a porno, then digitally edit a picture of her at 14 over her face in the movie, that would be illegal, yes. But that requires a real picture of her at 14 (i.e. not just digital manipulation).