Replying to @⁨Saledovil@sh.itjust.works⁩

This. People reaaaaally don’t like that point, but video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people. Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business. Movies, books, video games, pictures, all of those should be allowed to depict stuff, if only to criticize it.

Unfortunately, too many people think that if they don’t want to see something, no media of it should exist.

It would be very different if actual people were used, or even just their likeness, because then it actually can cause harm and distress. But this? People wasting their time defending pixels are doing only one thing: not defending actual people.

Replying to an earlier post

video/fictional stuff should not be held to the same standard as actual, living people.

Disagree.

Loads of countries treat animations or computer generated images the same as photos.

No one is “defending pixels”. The actual reasons are that the abuse of children should not be normalised, that authorities should not have to identify a specific victim, and that no legitimate artistic interest is served.

That said, the question of whether a child in an oven depicts child abuse according to the interpretation of the court is another question entirely, and I suspect that the answer is that it does not. Yes placing a child in an oven would be abusive, no an image of a child in an oven is not “child abuse material”.

Otherwise, we can kiss goodbye to 90% of the entertainment business.

Preposterous.