[ChessMan]

Rest of story at link

[Paul C. Jesup]

The case won't stand. The Federal Surpreme Court already ruled that child porn laws only applies to actual pictures and videos of children, not hand draw fiction characters because the ages of such fictional characters are subjective.

[Redcloak]

Are they aware of the fact that children are not made of ink and paper?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Though they can probably send him to jail for everything else but the fiction.

[jocon307]

This guy should get 20 years for stupidity alone.

[opinionator]

I've seen things on South Park that would violate this law.

[opinionator]

Some of these girls look young, how did they verify the age of those involved?

[muir_redwoods]

The firmest basis for laws against Child porn is that children are unable to give informed consent or contract legally. Since no children were actually used in the creation of these disgusting images, it's hard to see how this law will stand.

I think it would be a good time for Whorley to have a massive heart attack or step in front of a bus but the law seems weak to me.

[GAB-1955]

Anime is proof that we didn't drop enough bombs on Japan in 1945.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Maybe a sex cartoon is considered underage if it was drawn less than 18 years ago?

[steve-b]

They should have stuck with the open-and-shut charge (the misuse of state computer equipment). The legal precedents indicate that the charge for purely fictional kiddie porn images (not involving any actual minors) won't stand.