>>95069865If the case is taken into the hands of the law, that's where it's going to go to. Court. Where he'll be able to defend himself and be judged by the judge and jury. Any normal, sane person not in denial is going to say that it is explicitly a caricature of a dick.
>>95069840Too bad parody laws only apply for art, culture pieces, or intrinsic works.
>>95069912>hurhur i'll call you a moralfag that'll prove you wrongusing that as an argument is idiotic. i've said before that althought something like the drawing of keem's daughter, or lolicon/shotacon in general makes me uncomfortable (only ones I said it for) they should retain the right to have it, since FPC and others see it as non-harmful. But by law stated from
>>95068619 it states that if the minor is real, and is undergoing sexually explicit conduct (like sucking microphones and them coming) then it is qualified as CP. Keep trying to defend this point. Don't know why you want to so bad, since the point of lolicon/shotacon is to be focused on fake characters to try and distance oneself from the real counterpart.
>>95069950Because it's on the hands of the person being drawn on whether they see it as being constituted as pornography of them or not and whether or not they wish to press charges. Similar to the situation with Dafne Keen, would the professional lawyers studying criminology and going to law school for an Associate's lie, when the case could end up in court?
>>95070046When something becomes too suggestive, in the point of it being only suggestive, it instead becomes explicit. It is suggesting the idea too much to be considered suggesting anymore. It is the definition of explicit, in your face detail of what it is.
