Someone here said that although the word of the law could include drawn csam, the precedent is that they don't prosecute it, they would only prosecute like essentially Photoshops that make an image indistinguishable from csam photography
If the horse images are photorealistic then maybe that would be prosecutable, idk.
Although under obscenity laws, there's no limit to what is illegal, it's just jury opinion basically
From my knowledge, drawn CSAM has been prosecuted, but only when there's been other charges. Like "Wait, this guy who makes cp also has drawn images? Let's add that to his charges." As far as I know, nobody has ever been charged solely for possession of drawn CSAM.
Handley entered a guilty plea in May 2009; at Chase's recommendation he accepted a plea bargain believing it highly unlikely a jury would acquit him if shown the images in question
I don't want to know what the images were... That must have been some horrific stuff
As far as I know, nobody has ever been charged solely for possession of drawn CSAM.
It's more "they haven't been convicted at trial, and had the conviction stand on appeal unless there were considerable other factors at work," but it seems like it became vanishingly rare for anyone to be charged solely for it once the courts started shooting that down, leading to the apparent status quo that it's only ever an extra charge tossed in on top of other charges. I've heard even written material has on rare occasions led to charges on its own, but never a conviction that wasn't a plea deal. So cops and prosecutors sometimes still press charges, but since they know it won't hold up in court they only bother doing it if they really want to.
Like the wikipedia link in one of the other posts had just two entries for "convictions," one of which was a plea deal for 5 years of probation and no registration as a sex offender.
Someone here said that although the word of the law could include drawn csam, the precedent is that they don't prosecute it, they would only prosecute like essentially Photoshops that make an image indistinguishable from csam photography
If the horse images are photorealistic then maybe that would be prosecutable, idk.
Although under obscenity laws, there's no limit to what is illegal, it's just jury opinion basically
From my knowledge, drawn CSAM has been prosecuted, but only when there's been other charges. Like "Wait, this guy who makes cp also has drawn images? Let's add that to his charges." As far as I know, nobody has ever been charged solely for possession of drawn CSAM.
It looks like there's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley
I don't want to know what the images were... That must have been some horrific stuff
It's more "they haven't been convicted at trial, and had the conviction stand on appeal unless there were considerable other factors at work," but it seems like it became vanishingly rare for anyone to be charged solely for it once the courts started shooting that down, leading to the apparent status quo that it's only ever an extra charge tossed in on top of other charges. I've heard even written material has on rare occasions led to charges on its own, but never a conviction that wasn't a plea deal. So cops and prosecutors sometimes still press charges, but since they know it won't hold up in court they only bother doing it if they really want to.
Like the wikipedia link in one of the other posts had just two entries for "convictions," one of which was a plea deal for 5 years of probation and no registration as a sex offender.
People in the US have been prosecuted for having obscene anime and manga content depicting minors before. There is precedent, as long as it's obscene.