Gumboot, I'll answer this because you feel it hasn't adequately been answered. I realize that perhaps you haven't participated in the entire conversation and as such my earlier answers to this may have been missed.
No, I saw your answer. Thanks for taking the time to address it again, but as we shall see, you yet again failed to answer it. This is mind boggling. My question is incredibly simple. Answering it should take a single sentence. Why is it neither of you has been able to answer the question?
How does me drawing the picture address the question? Are you suggesting the only way to determine if it involves a child is to actually draw it? C'mon, you're smarter than that.
Draw as many cartoons as you want. No one is telling you that you can't (or at least I am not, and I don't think the law is either, as it stands now).
It's illegal in my country because it's considered child pornography.
It doesn't become pornography (a consumer product) until you distribute it, and at that point, you are injecting your thought and the product of that thought into the economy, society as a whole. And economy, by the way (child pornography) that brings in billions of dollars every year at the expense of children.
Actually if we're talking about the USA, it never becomes pornography. Virtual child porn is not considered pornography in the USA. It
can be considered obscene, and banned on those grounds, but obscenity is a totally separate issue to pornography, and anything could potentially be considered obscene, regardless of whether it involves sex or not.
In countries where such images
are considered child pornography, they are illegal (such as New Zealand and the State of Victoria, Australia).
At *that* point, society, government has a right to intervene if it deems that there is something dangerous to our society in that content. It's like being fascinated with guns and wanting to collect them all, but our government places restrictions on that, the buying and selling of guns, because of the nature of the item. Or...weapons in general. The laws vary, but in many places, buying certain lengths of blades is illegal, or carrying certain lengths is illegal, even though shorter lengthed blades could potentially also cause harm. A limit is set. Do you feel sorry for gun owners who cannot purchases sawed off shotguns or fully automatic weapons? Or do you think there's no legitimate reason for them to have them? In other words, do *your* thoughts and government's opinions trump the thoughts of the few.
That's all very interesting yet doesn't pertain to the question.
I don't know how to answer your question other than that.
Jesus wept, why is this so hard?
One of you (I don't recall which) claimed that virtual child pornography involved children. In response to this I presented an example of virtual child pornography, and asked you to demonstrate where exactly the involvement of the child was.
Answering this question is very simple. That neither of you have managed to do so is mind boggling. Here's how an answer might look:
1) You're right, it doesn't involve a child after all, I was wrong, and retract my earlier claim.
OR
2) A child is involved in the following way.........................
Why is this so hard?
There seems to be some massive disconnect going here simply because the subject matter is pornography. A disconnect, I use that term, because it seems that the same standards and feelings regarding free speech and expression and right to privacy doesn't exist when it comes to less popular notions such as guns, religious expression, illegal drugs, what have you.
I'm curious to see how you make sense of this nonsense...
Do you consider it restricting freedom of thought if a male business owner only wants to hire men because he doesn't believe men and women should work together?
Freedom of thought?
That's not restricting freedom of thought at all. I don't think it's actually practically possible to restrict freedom of thought. What are you on about?
I'm willing to guess that you do not, and you would call that discrimination.
That's because it is.
Laws against discrimination are what if not policing personal thought. We say "you can *think* what you want, but in our society, you must *act* or *do* this". Nobody gripes about that here do they?
You've just explained yourself how they're not policing personal thought. They don't police thought at all. They police action.
Serious question... do you actually think about what you write, or do you just hit the keyboard?
Same principle. Same exact principle.
I cannot think of even the most vague and wishy-washy way that anti-discrimination law could have any relevance or bearing on anti-obscenity law.
In the above discrimination case a person is directly harming others by preventing them from equal opportunity employment.
In the case of the virtual pornographer they are not causing any harm to anyone at all.
I think SW should be banned. After all he IS causing people harm themselves (heads banging against desks can't be good for the noggin').... 
