Normally, yes. But when something that could potentially be considered child pornography rears its ugly head, we try to stop it down into the black void from whence it came.Tanis said:I...um...huh.
Aren't Swedes suppose to NOT act like neo-con religious wackjobs?
My opinion? I live in Sweden, and I think this whole case is absolute b*llocks. Heck, I even wrote an entire essay on the matter for my school paper, and the gist of the problem is that the law for child pornography is rather poorly worded. Basically any picture containing a character (not child, character) who might be seen as, or is stated to be, 18 years old or less in the nude, is child pornography. I'm a collector of manga, and roughly 70 % of my collection (all of which I've bought in my local, legal comic store) contains something that, by the definition given by the law, can be considered child pornography.
Though, the law does have a loophole that allows more highbrowed works (paintings, regular comics, etc.) a pass from the judge: a work is not considered child pornography if it has "artistic worth".
...
Let me ask some perfectly valid questions; who is to say these works don't have artistic worth? And why should it make such a difference, when we can walk into any random museum and watch a picture of a child getting molested, sitting on the wall on full display? Does this law cover fictional characters who're not human, but just look the part? Why is the limit for child pornography 18 years, when our age of consent is 15? Why does the court rack down on these relatively harmless manga pictures, when they could be using their resources to judge ACTUAL child pornography crimes? And why is depicting naked children in drawn pictures so taboo, when it is perfectly fine to depict it in books, music, and other forms of so-called "art"?
Our child pornography laws need a bit of a cleanup...