So if the main argument "for" banning loli is that fantasizing about something makes you more likely to do it, I think about half the people I know who play tabletop RPGs need to be arrested, because it seems to me that once someone has been gaming for a while eventually they always end up making that one chaotic-evil/neutral character who likes to commit murder, rape, arson, or whatever. Which apparently makes you a murdering rapist according to the law.
What if your Game Master just describes the villain raping a child so that you want to kill him? Does that make the Game Master a child pornographer?
I don't know how this stood up in court, convicting someone for a fantasy they had, or read about and enjoyed, (which as far as I know the man in this case was never proven to have done) seems to be a pretty obvious case of thought-crime. That isn't a slippery slope thing. Once you're convicting people of THINKING about something illegal, you're already pretty far down into the Big Brother/1984 valley.
-------
"The prosecution, however, argued that the images could be used to entice children into performing sexual acts, and even went as far as to suggest the artists involved in the work could have used real children as models.
"And even a drawing could be of a real child," said prosecutor, Hedvig Trost. "A photo depicting a real child could have been used to make the drawing. It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not.""
Umm, objection!? Prosecution's statement calls for speculation that he's provided no evidence, even anecdotal, to support! (You can say that in Swedish court, right?)
He's not even arguing that the accused is a pedophile from what I've seen in this article. Isn't that absolutely necessary for this case to have the slightest chance of arguing it's extremely wrong charge? Unless they charged him with "intent to traffic" or something, which it doesn't seem like they did.
