(April 11, 2011 at 6:37 am)tackattack Wrote: If you can honestly look at legal porn that makes it look like (depicts) the girls are underage (minors) and think it doesn't fall under
"Child pornography is defined by law as the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
then this is just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on Skipper.
Under the age of 18. Not, looks under 18. It is the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18.
"Normal" pornography is also illegal for anyone under 18 to partake in, should we tell anyone who looks under 18 they can't become a porn star is they so wish? It's illegal in the UK to buy alcohol if you are under 18. Should anyone who looks under 18 be told they can't buy alcohol even if they can prove they're 20?
The law you are stating clearly says it is the "visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct", you are creating grey areas when you widen that to include anyone who looks under 18 even if they're not just because it dosen't sit comfortably with you.
