On 5/4/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
You might wish to look at [[Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition]]. Child porn is protected free speech so long as no actual children were involved in making it.
I know of that case (it is of interest since it is a clear difference between US and UK law in the area of free speach). Argument of definitions. If I call something child porn I mean children were involved. Otherwise I would probably call it something like lolicon.