Just to be clear - you think a naked drawing of an adult Lisa Simpson is child porn? Because that's what we're discussing here.
usernotfound
joined 1 year ago
So that would effectively mean that if a moderator doesn't recognize a character that's clearly drawn to be of legal age, they should just delete it.
I fail to see the logic in that.
What if the only way to know that they're minors (as in: they don't look like it) is to know who the character is? And what if you don't know who the character is?
(Assuming people are operating in good faith here)
~~If it were up to me, I'd drop Rule 2, but increase Rule 1 so that they look like at least clearly in their twenties.~~
Correction: Drop all the rules (who cares about the canonical age of a fictional character), and replace it with this one: only allow images of character that clearly look like they're over 18. In case of doubt, delete.
Honestly, I'd keep canonical age out of it. For example, I don't know who the person in photo #2 is, but looks old enough to me. If it turns out that it's an "aged up version" of someone that's canonically 12... So what? In the picture they're not 12, and that's what counts.
So in my opinion 1, 3 and 5 look too young, while 2 and 4 are fine imho.
FWIW, I don't care about these kinds of drawings either, I have no stake in this.
I guess my issue is that if a drawn, fictional character looks like an adult, I don't classify it as child porn. If you think it is, that's absolutely fine, I just want to rule out we're misunderstanding each other.