UK's dangerous cartoons act

[Acepilotf14]

 

[<RJMC>]

*acepilot added to sex offenders list due to image of younf girl(young due to size of head compared ot the body) whit very revealing clothes,infact everybodi watching this is added*

I dont like the whole lollicom thing cuz I find it stupid and honestly find it wrong but I think jail time is too much,just put it on the list and I think it will be enough for that

unless it have like tons of those pics and tried to lure child to make those poses and took pictures of it but that is a escalated stuff

cuz if the law is only about the sex act and not the nudity itself,still who the hell likes that lolli stuff? seriously?

 

[CptStern]

So basically, you spent a few posts and a lot of multiquotes, wherein you told me to read the law, proceeded to post pieces of the law verbatim, laughed at me and said that the law has nothing to do with drawings...only to realize that the law's vague definitions can encompass drawings.

Hunh.

it has nothing to do with drawings. the law doesnt specifically say that yes. it doesnt specifically cover film either but that's nowhere near as nebulous as a "drawing". I've always maintained that the courts would have to settle culpability in a crime if it came to a charge where drawings were involved. I didnt just discover this; I've been saying this from the very beginning. it's up to the court to decide, when and if this ever comes to court.

So basically you subverted this thread with your multiquote menace and "in jest" personal attacks on an issue you don't give a shit about.

Nice dude. Nice.

nope. you're drawing conclusions ..hehe. I admitted I didnt care all that much if anime fans felt threatened yes that much is true however I did care enough to bother clarify the issue. and you see what you want to see. I though the "jest" was funny in a round about way, considering the topic maybe I shouldnt have gone down that route, seeing as how you're all sensative to that issue (nudge nudge wink wink ..oh look there's me being an ass again) and if you took offense well then I apologise. not really my intent

 

[PvtRyan]

You are now all in the possession of child pornography:

 

[Acepilotf14]

 

[VirusType2]

because you're too pathetic to get laid

So you want them to molest children instead of looking at drawings?

I don't really think it should be a law but frankly I couldn't care much less about fighting for some pedo's right to fantasize about raping 12 year old anime characters.

Already, I'm constantly hearing how much of a problem child molestation and child on child rape is, in the UK.

Science continually proves that the availability of 'porn' reduces sex crimes.

 

[CptStern]

So you want them to molest children instead of looking at drawings?

why would it be an either or choice? "If I dont look at anime porn I'll molest a child!!!"

Already, I'm constantly hearing how much of a problem child molestation and child on child
rape is in the UK.

Science continually proves that the availability of 'porn' reduces sex crimes.

you have it backwards:

"A study of sex offenders reported that 56 per cent of the rapists and 42 per cent of the child molesters in the sample said that pornography played a role in their offenses"

http://www.ncf.ca/ip/social.services/rape.crisis/porno.txt

does that mean porn leads to sexual assualt? no more than playing violent video games leads to real world violence

 

[VirusType2]

why would it be an either or choice? "If I dont look at anime porn I'll molest a child!!!"

He says they're "too pathetic to get laid" when actually, they are attracted to children. So for example, are a large portion of catholic priests too pathetic to get laid, or is it that they are attracted to children?

you have it backwards:

"A study of sex offenders reported that 56 per cent of the rapists and 42 per cent of the child molesters in the sample said that pornography played a role in their offenses"

http://www.ncf.ca/ip/social.services/rape.crisis/porno.txt

does that mean porn leads to sexual assualt? no more than playing violent video games leads to real world violence

No, I don't have it backwards. I'll just copy/paste the first 10 results from Google:

All that Internet porn reduces sex crimes. Really.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

Sexwork & Porn Results in Less Sexual Crime

http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/lesscrime.html

Is Porn Good For Us?

http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2010/03/12/is-porn-good-for-us/

While the question of free speech is philosophical, the question of whether porn does any social harm is an empirical one. And the data is pretty clear: Pornography either reduces sex crime by giving males a non-violent outlet for excess sexual impulses, or it has no effect. Milton Diamond, a professor in the department of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology at the University of Hawaii, offers a roundup of the relevant research in The Scientist

Scientific examination of the subject has found that as the use of porn increases, the rate of sex crimes goes down.

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57169/

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...3iaPuA&sig=AHIEtbRTZ5GSJdM4XzkbiHdxKVoGpDf7Mg

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html

The arrival of the internet caused a large decline in both the
pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs of accessing pornography.
Using state-level panel data from 1998-2003, I find that the
arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape
incidence. However, growth in internet usage had no apparent
effect on other crimes.

In two recent studies of the relationship between pornography and sex crimes, economists Todd Kendall of Clemson University and Winai Wongsurawat of National Economic Research Associates separately argue that pornography is a substitute for sex crimes. In an unpublished manuscript that has circulated among economists and social scientists, Kendall argues that easier access to Internet pornography reduces rape. By contrast, Wongsurawat's study, published in 2006 in the Journal of Applied Economics, uses different techniques to identify the relationship between rape and access to printed pornographic material, finding the same effect.

http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf

http://www4.cema.edu.ar/pjae/m/121Wongsur200605

"Reducing the supply of pornography will increase the number of sex crimes, an unsavory tradeoff."

University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna, apparently arrive to the counter-intuitive conclusions that watching pornography online (the former) and watching violent movies (the latter) actually leads to a decline in sex crimes and homicides, respectively.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/moviescrime06-07-31.pdf


That's just the first 10 results on google. There's plenty more results, however I'll just point to one:

It has long been theorized that there may be a link between pornography, particularly violent pornography, and an increase in sex crime. This theory has relatively little empirical support and indeed Japan, which is noted for violent pornography, has the lowest reported sex crime rate in the industrialized world, which has led some researchers to speculate that an opposite relationship may in fact exist, namely, that wide availability of pornography may reduce crimes by giving potential offenders a socially accepted way of regulating their own sexuality.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Pornography/

 

[V-Man339]

*massive snip*

I either love you or this post, and I'm not entirely certain which.

 

[Maestro]

More importantly how can one prove it is a child? Legally a real person can be fact-checked for age, hentai can be drawn any way the artist wants and it is easily possible to misconstrue age.

So maybe they just claim that it's a fully-grown woman with a growth condition. I don't see how they can define 'child porn' when the subject doesn't exist.

 

[Shyam]

*watches epic CptStern and Darkside fight*

 

[Acepilotf14]

I think it's stern and virus now.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

What if it's a cartoon of a person who has that disease that prevents them from aging beyond the physical state of 12 years old.

What if?

 

[15357]

What if it's a cartoon of a person who has that disease that prevents them from aging beyond the physical state of 12 years old.

What if?

Don't they put disclaimers like this in Japan for those things?

"THE CHARECTORS DEPICTED IN THIS CARTOON/GAME ARE ALL OVER 18 YEARS OLD"

 

[Acepilotf14]

Don't they put disclaimers like this in Japan for those things?

"THE CHARECTORS DEPICTED IN THIS CARTOON/GAME ARE ALL OVER 18 YEARS OLD"

yes
but half of the visual novels take place in high school, where they cannot all be seniors.

 

[MultiVaC]

Laws like this always open a huge can of worms, because it's really impossible to decide who draws the line, and where. How exactly do you determine the age of a cartoon character?

 

[Dodo]

Im with VT2 on this one, I'd rather have pedo's fapping at hentai involving children then looking up RL child pornography... Banning it will put it in the same court as real child porno making it a mouse click closer. Much like how by making weed illigal you make it a borderline drug, while if legal it doesnt act like one.
I'm back btw

edit: As much as people hate pedo's (which is very understandable) I think we should help them, make it less taboo, and treat it more like an illness (which it isnt, just like homosexuality) to prevent them from raping kids; Banning loli hentai doesnt help.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I can understand Stern's position, having kids and then imaging people that possess such material around them...would anyone here want that really? But considering the point to Virus' post, that these types of 'alternatives' or 'outlets' if you will actually help prevent actual crime, isn't it much better to let them be? I'm not hot on the topic but when they do catch pedos, they usually find real children's photos in their possession, not cartoons right?

 

[Darkside55]

I can understand Stern's position, having kids and then imaging people that possess such material around them...would anyone here want that really?

As Vegeta brought up before, you wouldn't know whether people "around you" possessed that sort of material or not unless you were a mind reader or they were already on the registered offenders list.

And yes, usually when they catch pedophiles they find real children's photos in their possession. Real photos depicting an actual victim. This law, as well as laws in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, the Philippines, and some shaky legality in the US, now allows these governments to prosecute without actual harm. It's thoughtcrime and regulation of morality.

And much as Stern said before that it's slippery slope fallacies and fearmongering, wariness of this practice shouldn't be dismissed so easily. It seems far too convenient an "in" to go after an issue that the public will stand against (child pornography, even simulated) and having that down on the books as precedent. Precedent has always ruled the law. You get yourself a nice way in by having the public in favor for policing morals and what's next? Like I said, the Dangerous Pictures Act in the UK already covers other simulated acts, even having a clause for the ever ambiguous "gross obscenity," a term which is open to discretion.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

This article should be borrowed for the two FCC threads going on as well, particularly for "More net access, less rape."

 

[Danimal]

nwo etc idk lol

 

[CptStern]

He says they're "too pathetic to get laid" when actually, they are attracted to children. So for example, are a large portion of catholic priests too pathetic to get laid, or is it that they are attracted to children?

you made it sound as if there were two choices: look at child porn or rape children. you answered his post by giving a binary solution, even though it didnt really address what he was saying. you're only now addressing what he said. still dont think it's an either or choice

No, I don't have it backwards. I'll just copy/paste the first 10 results from Google:


"Reducing the supply of pornography will increase the number of sex crimes, an unsavory tradeoff."

it's not as cut and dry as you think it is. images of child pornography are by definition child abuse. giving access to these images is adding to the incidents of child abuse therefore those numbers couldnt possibly reflect the corelation/causation of child pornography and sexual molestation of minors. in any event we're talking about cartoons or drawings ..which makes it that much more difficult to associate it with the facts you posted because a separate study would have to be conducted as cartoon images do not appeal to everyone like a photograph would. in any event are you advocating that we allow pedos access to child pornography so that incidents of molestation drop?

 

[Vegeta897]

Why do we have to go through this stupid god damn topic every time.

Can a super mod guy just declare that these arguments are banned from the forum? I'm sick of them.

 

[Darkside55]

You could, y'know, just not click on the topic.

 

[CyberPitz]

I love how some peoples *RE Vegeta and Darkside* arguement is "You don't know they are doing it, why should you care?"

Seriously?.....that's part of your arguement? Believe it or not, Ignorance isn't bliss. What if they were taking pictures of your kids and you don't know about it? Still OK? They still aren't technically hurting anybody. Get your heads out of your asses, plz.

 

[Vegeta897]

I love how some peoples *RE Vegeta and Darkside* arguement is "You don't know they are doing it, why should you care?"

Seriously?.....that's part of your arguement? Believe it or not, Ignorance isn't bliss. What if they were taking pictures of your kids and you don't know about it? Still OK? They still aren't technically hurting anybody. Get your heads out of your asses, plz.

K, wow.

First of all, that wasn't really "part of my argument." It was just something to make a point. Second, I'm obviously not ****ing talking about people who actually go out and take pictures of children and actually affect anyone in any way. What is wrong with you? We're talking about people who just want to look at harmless drawings here.

There are probably people you know who are very close to you that have secrets like this. The whole point is that they aren't harming anyone, it's all their own business and they don't let it affect their lives or the lives of anyone else. The whole point is that YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW, and that's why you DON'T know. Do you get it? Do you understand this concept, Pitz?

Obviously I wouldn't ever dream of defending someone who is going out and actually doing things that would be harmful to children or anyone else. Get your head out of YOUR ass.

 

[CyberPitz]

So, they are intentionally looking at an underage person engaged in sexual actions.....which is completely fine....
..........
Yup, nothing wrong with that!

*EDIT* They obviously have a desire to see children doing that stuff, it's the thought and intention that is behind it. They know it's a child, granted not real, but still....as Stern has said, I wouldn't want them anywhere near my children. Again, Ignorance isn't bliss.

*EDIT2* I think the main thing that gets my goat is the fact you're trying to say "Well, you wouldn't know they are there" as a real basis for something, even if it's just a point.. It just blows my fkn mind.

 

[Vegeta897]

So, they are intentionally looking at an underage person engaged in sexual actions.....which is completely fine....
..........
Yup, nothing wrong with that!

*EDIT* They obviously have a desire to see children doing that stuff, it's the thought and intention that is behind it. They know it's a child, granted not real, but still....as Stern has said, I wouldn't want them anywhere near my children. Again, Ignorance isn't bliss.

Not everyone who enjoys loli art wants to look at children ****ing. Stop treating them like monsters who have no sense of morality. People who enjoy loli art can be just as disgusted by seeing child porn as you would. This is also why they wouldn't harm a child or even think about anything sexual when it comes to real children they may encounter IRL.

You aren't ignoring anything, because there is nothing TO ignore. They aren't DOING anything. What is there to ignore? The possibility that some guy is thinking about your children? ANYONE could be thinking about your children. How would you know?

You sound like all the ****ing stupid paranoid parents who think everyone is out to rape their children.

You still don't ****ing understand the simple concept that you WOULD NEVER KNOW if someone is thinking about your children. Therefore, ANYONE can be. You would never know. So the only way, apparently, for you to be safe is to keep your children away from every stranger in the world, because it's always possible they're thinking about your children. Oh noes.

I've posted this blog entry before, you should read it to understand how stupid you sound: http://www.violentacres.com/archives/279/a-pedophile-lurking-behind-every-dark-corner/

 

[CptStern]

agreed. I dont think it's harmless even if they're just thinking about it. I still wouldnt want them within a few miles of my kids. I really dont care if they think they have control over their sexual preference; I wouldnt want to take the chance

and yes I might not know in every situation but if some fat greasy slob is eyeing my kids regardless if he isnt doing something I'll ask him to leave. or force him either way I'm not taking a chance

 

[Vegeta897]

So now we're moving from "people who look at loli art being near my kids" to "people who are creepily eyeing my kids" and this is a fundamental difference. I could understand you being uncomfortable seeing the latter. He'd definitely leave if you asked him to, if he knows what's good for him. People like that are scared off easy. How does this have anything to do with the thread though? We're talking about whether or not people should be allowed to look at drawings of children, or whether it's 'okay' for them to like looking at it.

 

[CyberPitz]

They can like looking at it all they want, I'm not going to say that loli is a gateway drug to the child pornography, but look at it form others views. "That guy likes to draw kids getting rammed in the asshole. I think I'll invite him over for tea."

 

[15357]

You know, I'm all for banning shit and repressing 'art', but since Stern supports it, it makes me feel weird.

 

[Darkside55]

I love how some peoples *RE Vegeta and Darkside* arguement is "You don't know they are doing it, why should you care?"

That wasn't my "argument" at all, nor was it Vegeta's.

as Stern has said, I wouldn't want them anywhere near my children. Again, Ignorance isn't bliss.

*EDIT2* I think the main thing that gets my goat is the fact you're trying to say "Well, you wouldn't know they are there" as a real basis for something, even if it's just a point.. It just blows my fkn mind.

The fuck does that even mean? "As a real basis for something, even if it's just a point." The point is, even though nobody would want pedophiles around their children, there's no way of knowing who is and who isn't unless they're on the offenders list. Ignorance might not be bliss, but what are you going to do about that? Exactly what are you trying to say?

Of course nobody wants pedophiles around their children, stupid. But it's not like you're going to know who is and who isn't. That's not an "argument," that's a fact. It might "get your goat," but that's how it is. I don't like it none either. Neither would Vegeta.

They still aren't technically hurting anybody.

With regard to some lurker taking photos of real children, there is potential for harm in that. You don't know what they're going to do, whether snapping off shots solely for masturbation material or if it'll motivate them to actually take those kids. It could lead to a possible real life victim.

Now you might also say that a drawing could stimulate a person to the point where they become motivated to pursue a real child (despite all of Virus's links to the contrary), but at the moment there isn't even an implied real victim. This law is an attempt at prevention that might not even work at preventing anything, and might end up persecuting people who might never have committed any type of crime against a real child.

I don't think anyone in this thread on either side of the argument is sticking up for pedophiles. The thought of someone molesting children is abhorrent on both sides. The difference is that some people in this thread are looking past that bias to realize, "Holy shit, these are censorship laws that don't actually require a victim or potential victims."

 

[CyberPitz]

What if the victim is the person drawing it? EVER THINK OF THAT ONE DARKSIDE HMM?

 

[Vegeta897]

"That guy likes to draw kids getting rammed in the asshole. I think I'll invite him over for tea."

Incredible, you still don't get it.

You couldn't possibly say that because you wouldn't be aware of the first god damned part. Jesus.

If you DID happen to know they liked drawing kids getting rammed, by all means avoid him or go tell him he's sick. But when you're dealing with everyone else (KEY POINT: ANYONE YOU KNOW COULD BE A PEDOPHILE BECAUSE IT IS VERY POSSIBLE TO CONCEAL) you would never know, so your only option to be truly "safe" is to avoid interaction with everyone on the planet.

Edit: Allow me to give you the previous line in your little dialogue example, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is:

"Hi there, my name's Bob, I like drawing kids getting rammed in the asshole! May I come over for tea some time?"

 

[Darkside55]

What if the victim is the person drawing it? EVER THINK OF THAT ONE DARKSIDE HMM?

Wait, like...if the person...drew him/herself as a child?

 

[CptStern]

They can like looking at it all they want, I'm not going to say that loli is a gateway drug to the child pornography, but look at it form others views. "That guy likes to draw kids getting rammed in the asshole. I think I'll invite him over for tea."

agreed. I dont see how it makes that much of a difference whether it's a photo or a drawing; the person is attracted to children either way. so no they wouldnt get invited over for tea

Now you might also say that a drawing could stimulate a person to the point where they become motivated to pursue a real child

or look at real child pornography. no longer victemless

(despite all of Virus's links to the contrary)

I take issue with this because virus' links said nothing about drawings nor was it solely focused on child molestation

but at the moment there isn't even an implied real victim.

it doesnt matter. the person is still attracted to children. there's no gurantee they wont act out on their urges. allowing acess to child pornography could potentionally fuel their desire. making it easier for pedos and fans of pedo material should never take precedent over the welfare of the victems. really I dont care if someone cant get loli porn because of this because there are some people who are not just passive viewers as you and other suggest. real life pedos also like child porn so you cant say taking this away wouldnt have any effect

This law is an attempt at prevention that might not even work at preventing anything, and might end up persecuting people who might never have committed any type of crime against a real child.

or prosecuting real pedos. I dont see why this doesnt fit into your equation seeing as how it's the goal of the law

I don't think anyone in this thread on either side of the argument is sticking up for pedophiles. The thought of someone molesting children is abhorrent on both sides. The difference is that some people in this thread are looking past that bias to realize, "Holy shit, these are censorship laws that don't actually require a victim or potential victims."

darkside you're gulity of pigeon holing people into two camps; pedos and people who like child pornography but are somehow not pedos. the simple fact is that regardless of whether or not they actually act out on their urges by definition a pedo is an adult who is attracted to children. to say someone who likes drawings of children having sex isnt a pedo is silly; they're attracted to the representation of children. you can simply test this fact by showing drawings of children engaged in sex to a person not attracted to that sort of thing; I'm sure there reaction wont be "it's ok because it's a drawing" they'll just assume you're a pedo. I find it disturbing because it's a depiction of children having sex. they dont actually have to be real children. the disturbing part is still there

 

[CyberPitz]

Incredible, you still don't get it.

You couldn't possibly say that because you wouldn't be aware of the first god damned part. Jesus.

If you DID happen to know they liked drawing kids getting rammed, by all means avoid him or go tell him he's sick. But when you're dealing with everyone else (KEY POINT: ANYONE YOU KNOW COULD BE A PEDOPHILE BECAUSE IT IS VERY POSSIBLE TO CONCEAL) you would never know, so your only option to be truly "safe" is to avoid interaction with everyone on the planet.

Edit: Allow me to give you the previous line in your little dialogue example, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is:

"Hi there, my name's Bob, I like drawing kids getting rammed in the asshole! May I come over for tea some time?"

Why yes Bob, yes you may- WAIT A MINUTE! You can't trix me.

You can find it as ridiculous as you want. The fact remains that it's still a sick means of entertainment, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be banned, although 3 years in jail is extreme.... Who am I judge what entertainment is sick and what's not? Well, I can vote, so that gives me a small percent of judgment *except I don't live in the UK, so really I have no right to say it or not, but dammit, this is the internet and I'll say it anyway.*

 

[Vegeta897]

The fact remains that it's still a sick means of entertainment

Just like slaughtering people in video games, right?

 

[Darkside55]

agreed. I dont see how it makes that much of a difference whether it's a photo or a drawing; the person is attracted to children either way. so no they wouldnt get invited over for tea

But if you never found out, you might still be inviting a person who could be a pedophile over for tea. Of course nobody is going to invite a convicted/confessed pedophile over for tea. The notion of it is silly.

or look at real child pornography. no longer victemless

Then at the point they look at real child pornography, convict them.

I take issue with this because virus' links said nothing about drawings nor was it solely focused on child molestation

Well, it was focused on performing an actual act vs. viewing a simulated act. I'm just carrying the data over.

it doesnt matter. the person is still attracted to children. there's no gurantee they wont act out on their urges. allowing acess to child pornography could potentionally fuel their desire. making it easier for pedos and fans of pedo material should never take precedent over the welfare of the victems. really I dont care if someone cant get loli porn because of this because there are some people who are not just passive viewers as you and other suggest. real life pedos also like child porn so you cant say taking this away wouldnt have any effect

And there's no guarantee that they will, either. See, now we come to the crux of the argument: should someone be convicted based solely on potential? And this is where your personal bias comes in, because if we applied this to other things I wonder what your answer would be.

Because, as you said, you don't care if people who view something passively are affected because there's the potential for some people to be influenced and motivated to act on viewing these things in real life. Could not the same be applied to video games and violent movies? It's the same thing, just one is less abhorrent to you than the other. Anyone could have the potential to be influenced to commit a crime, but as you yourself said, there's no guarantee.

And that being said, there's nothing to suggest curtailing and criminalizing drawings will mitigate pedophilia or real life instances of child molestation.

or prosecuting real pedos. I dont see why this doesnt fit into your equation seeing as how it's the goal of the law

The goal of the law should be to prosecute real crimes and prevent real crimes. At the point where someone is viewing a non-simulated act, such as looking at real child pornography, it becomes a real crime. UP UNTIL THAT POINT it's speculative.

darkside you're gulity of pigeon holing people into two camps; pedos and people who like child pornography but are somehow not pedos. the simple fact is that regardless of whether or not they actually act out on their urges by definition a pedo is an adult who is attracted to children. to say someone who likes drawings of children having sex isnt a pedo is silly; they're attracted to the representation of children.

Oh boy, if we get into THIS argument we're going to be here all day. The "simple fact" is, it isn't a simple fact. Especially when it comes to a drawing, what might be sexually attractive might have nothing to do with actual children. It's entirely possible that what one finds attracted in something simulated is not present in actual children, or if it is might actually be a turn off "in real life." And this describes a number of fetishes or sexual leanings. You might not be inclined to believe that, but it's true.

But that being said of course I can't completely say that all people who would look at representations of children engaged in sexual acts wouldn't be attracted to real children; obviously there would be some. It's a complete gamble, it really is. And I realize how that sounds, y'know, "How can you say that someone who looks at a representation of children doesn't like children?" Well, the brain, and human sexuality as a byproduct, are weird. So you really can't tell and can't blanket label everybody. I believe, a long time ago on this forum, I once argued about how some women have a fantasy for rape, but no one actually wants to be RAPED. That it isn't the rape, it's various bits and pieces that constitute it; the same could be applied to a drawing of children engaged in sexual activity. It might not be the CHILD part at all, but the stylization as such.

And that is a whole 'nother multipage argument. The point here still remains, no matter what, that it's an attempt at prevention by criminalizing something that is not, in and of itself, criminal.

 

[CptStern]

what some people dont understand that the language of the law is there to be as broad as possible to cover all possible secarios

if I have a video of a child being raped and then add a clown nose to the child's face. technically it's now animated. under laws that onlty cover "photos" this would be allowable or at least enough a grey area that I might have a chance to walk away without being convicted.. what about if I took a photo threw it photoshop, posterised it and voila I now have an near identical "drawing" based on a photo. what if I'm an artist who's into hyper realism. a drawing can look photo-realistic ..are these examples ok in people's books? they're somewhat victem less right? what if I liked cutting out kids photos from sears catalogues. they're not naked and or engaged in sex but does anyone think this would negate them being a pedo?