ext_115854 ([identity profile] paigemom.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] puppetmaker 2006-08-25 07:14 pm (UTC)

I still don't understand why Potter Porn isn't illegal under child pornography laws.

If "virtual" photos (no child was actually used to create the image) are illegal, why isn't rabid, detailed description of "virtual" acts between minors (and between minors and adults) that don't really exist.

Seriously, can you explain this?
(5 comments)

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting
 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.