Ok, I think that is the premise they're coming from - that if there is no "exploitation" of a real child, then it doesn't count as "child porn".
I actually don't care about what the legal definition of the term is, in the US or any other country - I was using it personally to describe a piece of pornography that featured sex with a child. I even clarified that that was my meaning/intention in my comment when it seemed we were on a goalpost-moving mission.
Whether or not we call representations of sex with children "child porn" or "rumplestiltskin", I would still appreciate a warning of such content. If it seemed that a real child was being abused, I would have had no hesitation in baying for the balls (and legal penalties) of the person concerned. But to have my - I think entirely justified - request for a warning over squickable content ignored and moved to a debate over semantics is annoying in the extreme.
no subject
I actually don't care about what the legal definition of the term is, in the US or any other country - I was using it personally to describe a piece of pornography that featured sex with a child. I even clarified that that was my meaning/intention in my comment when it seemed we were on a goalpost-moving mission.
Whether or not we call representations of sex with children "child porn" or "rumplestiltskin", I would still appreciate a warning of such content. If it seemed that a real child was being abused, I would have had no hesitation in baying for the balls (and legal penalties) of the person concerned. But to have my - I think entirely justified - request for a warning over squickable content ignored and moved to a debate over semantics is annoying in the extreme.