Right, my question is of course a rhetorical one. If I similarly draw other crimes being committed, the same does not apply. Why is that?
And to address your explicit question, it is far too complex and specific to a given community to answer in any meaningful way here. I can tell you what isn't the answer though: deploying spyware on phones worldwide.
> If I similarly draw other crimes being committed, the same does not apply. Why is that?
The answer is much more simple than you seem to think it is. Because the law doesn't say it is. I can only go by the law in my country, which is that (loosely translated) 'ownership of any image of someone looking like a minor in a sexually suggestive position' is a crime. Since a drawing is an image, it's a crime. Having an image of someone breaking into a home is not a crime according to law in my country. That's why you can have a drawing of that.
Your question is like asking "why don't I get a fine for driving 60 on the highway, but I do get a fine for driving 60 through a school zone?" Well, because one is allowed and the other isn't.
Yeah but he's using reducto-ad-absurdem to illustrate the law as written is absurd in some cases. So yes you can pedanticly cite the law and have an answer to the question, but you're missing the larger discussion.
At somepoint somebody is gonna actually have to tackle that looking at images, especially fake ones, might not only be harmless, it might be safer to let people get release from their fantasies (I'd be curious to see what the research says).
Some day, people will say "Obviously nobody cares if you possess it or look at it, obviously, it's just about MAKING it."
I think this is follow the process of weed (unspeakable horror, "drugs will kill you" in dare, 1-strike expulsion from high-school or college) when I was growing up, yet now legal to even grow.
It seems just as plausible that viewing such depictions could feed into someone's urges. Without some evidence I'd be hesitant to go with someone's conjectures here. There is also, frankly, the fact that a lot of people find viewing such stuff so shockingly depraved that they don't care if someone is "actually" harmed in the process, a claim that is hard to evaluate in the first place.
> So yes you can pedanticly cite the law and have an answer to the question, but you're missing the larger discussion.
While I do agree that drawings being illegal might not be in anyone's best interest, that doesn't have anything to do with the questions I asked.
> At somepoint somebody is gonna actually have to tackle that looking at images, especially fake ones, might not only be harmless, it might be safer
I thought I agreed with you for a second, buy "especially fake ones" implies you think that child pornography is actually a good thing. I hope I'm wrong about that.
> Some day, people will say "Obviously nobody cares if you possess it or look at it, obviously, it's just about MAKING it."
Guess I'm not and you really think possession of child pornography is harmless. My god that's depressing.
If you are reasoning from the standpoint that the ownership and trade of child pornography is harmless, yes, then I understand that giving up privacy in order to reduce this is a bad thing. Because in your eyes, you're giving up privacy, but you gain nothing.
>> implies you think that child pornography is actually a good thing.
Holy cow, that's the worst phrase anybody has ever put into my mouth. That's too offensively disingenuous to warrant any further discussion. Shame on you.
It is a pretty dumb law IMHO for the mere fact that two teenagers sexting on snapchat when they are 17 years and 355 days old are committing a fairly serious crime that can completely mess up their lives if caught but doing that the next day is totally ok all of a sudden and they can talk and laugh about it.
And to address your explicit question, it is far too complex and specific to a given community to answer in any meaningful way here. I can tell you what isn't the answer though: deploying spyware on phones worldwide.