You're missing the point. The point of the comparison lies on the fact that they're not real. Like if someone went on a killing spree in a first-person shooter or watched an animated film where the protagonist goes on a killing spree, just like FICTIONAL pornography depicting fictional minors isn't real.
Loli thread
Nathan Howard
Michael Hughes
>falling for obvious bait
Anthony Richardson
Jonathan Brown
You might want to educate yourself on the definition of child pornography before submitting falsified complaints like this to law enforcement officials.
According to the Supreme Court, child pornography is defined as a "visual depiction in which an identifiable minor is seen engaging in sexually explicit conduct", as dictated by the precedent New York v. Ferber.
Years later, in 1996, Congress passed "The Child Pornography Prevention Act" which attempted to expand on this to include "Any visual depiction" or "Anything which conveys the impression" that a minor is engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This law was overturned as overbroad and unconstitutional in the 2002 case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, because it was read to impede upon a substantial amount of protected speech.
It established an observed distinction between depictions of sex involving minors where no actual children were sexually exploited in their production as opposed to those created using actual minors, which, providing it passes the Miller Test and has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which these depictions observably possess.
Kevin Murphy
All valid points but u fell for obvious b8
Dominic Jackson
No, he actually submitted a tip to the National Centers for Missing and Exploited Children, the federally sanctioned organization dedicated to helping children victimized by exploitation. They also investigate child pornography, and by submitting a bogus tip to them he's not only wasting their time but also potentially harming children by doing so.