Re:Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
by falcolas on Friday July 15, 2016 @02:33PM
(#12102920)
I'm arguing that Google likely does not have a legal requirement to do what they've done, which is opposite what the grandparent was arguing. I'm not arguing that they do or do not have the right to make their own decisions about the content, but the phrase "child pornography" has a very specific legal definition.
Re:Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
by true_religion on Friday July 15, 2016 @11:37PM
(#12105132)
Ah, it may not be a legal requirement, but its against their terms of service. They're pretty clear with banning "textual content that depicts or encourages rape, incest, bestiality, or necrophilia."
As children (even depicted imaginary ones) can't give consent, its automatically rape material.
Any kind of writing with a purely puerile sexual-intent, lacking in any redeeming scientific, cultural or educational merit, is considered pornographic.
Considering the writing is pornographic... then the fact it used literally representing of people under the age of 18, would make it 'pornography involving children' or... as a short hand 'child pornography'.
Let's not argue over definitions here. If you feel that this man shouldn't be prosecuted because no real people were harmed, that's a good place to start. Obscenity laws need to be clarified.