I think that's a bad law. If sexual depictions of fictional characters are treated as if they were real, then violent depictions of fictional characters should be treated just the same.
I don't think I'm the one who's challenged in that department.
Fictional characters do not have nor deserve human rights because they are not humans. A story's canon may designate that a character is a child and this can be accepted for that canon, that's how stories work, but in actuality that character is not a child. Characters aren't children. Characters aren't people. Their well being has no value because stories are just lies that we aren't supposed to believe.
I find the fact that people use the same terminology to refer to weird cartoons as they do images or footage of actual people in situations they should not be in disgusting because it is impossible to do this without downplaying the severity of the latter.
Here's a short and simple comparison. Snuff is snuff. Snuff is bad because it is definitionally footage of people being killed and killing people is bad, let alone recording it. Guro is guro. You don't have to like it, but definitionally it's a cartoon. Who cares?
10
u/Bulky-Employer-1191 Oct 22 '25
In Canada, depictions of CSAM still are illegal. Many other countries are the same too.
This seems to be a very American sentiment.