Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Child *** is universally despised, but what if there were no real victims? Computer-generated
child *** is a controversial topic. Is it an art or child ***?
The first legal trial related to computer-generated child *** images has garnered a lot
of public attention.
A 52-year-old Japanese man from Gifu Prefecture is accused of drawing numerous computer graphics
that depict sex acts and children, with most of the images based on nude photo collections
of under-age teenage girls.
After steadfastly creating the images since 2009, the suspect was finally busted this
past July for selling his illicit image collection on the internet.
A first trial hearing was held at the Tokyo District Court this past Thursday.
The case has become a matter of considerable public concern as it could deeply affect content
creators who worry that if two-dimensional graphics can be considered child ***, the
line between fantasy and the law would become blurred.
The suspect is also charged with selling his computer-rendered child *** images to Japan’s
largest literary magazine publisher. After selling the images, the artist became quite
well-known.
The suspect offered a rebuttal to the accusations during his first trial, claiming that his
graphics were the products of his imagination and that his collections of real photographs
were only used as reference material.
Steadfastly denying the charges, the man maintained his innocence, arguing that computer-generated
graphics are not ‘child ***’.
What do you think? Does this qualify as child ***? Do you think he is innocent or should
he be sent to jail?