>>86791330>What do you think INDISTINGUISHABLE meansAnon. You're taking a word, "indistinguishable", and are replacing it with an entirely different one "hyper-realistic", and are now trying to pass them off as being synonymous in this context. I have no idea how someone can do something so utterly retarded yet think he's being clever.
>Do you think a judge can't tell the difference?That was never in question anon, because the difference isn't relevant to the law. It is a pornographic depiction of a minor. Whether it's a photo, a video or a fucking fingerpainting on the side of a vase it doesn't fucking matter. It also doesn't fucking matter whether or not YOU think it counts, it matters what the jurisprudence established on the matter. And go ahead, take a look.
>>86791543Here's a literal quote for you: "Under the Protect Act of 2003, obscene images depicting minors are considered child porn. While loli does not depict actual children, the act was passed to make virtual child porn illegal. Since lolicon depicts an identifiable minor engaging in sexually explicit situations, it violates federal law."
Feel free to cite literally any source that manages to establish something to the contrary, or feel free to keep sperging your own retarded headcanon, I know you'll be choosing the latter anyway.
Fucking infantile burgers.
