In a landmark ruling today a Sydney man lost his appeal to have his child porn conviction quashed.
He had tried to argue that the images he had of cartoon characters Bart, Lisa and Maggie having sex didn’t depict real people.
Justice Michael Adams found when child porn laws refer to a "person" that it included fictional or imaginary characters.
"... the mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'," found Justice Adams.
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/200 ... child_porn
now looking at this, under this classification bazza and co would be in posession of child porn
no, thinking of it.... If it is illegal as this judge has ruled, then a definition of what would constitue a child in anime would also have to be ruled...