Surprisingly it isn't already illegal there.
Here's the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/03/nporn03.xml
Also, by banning the work of someones imagination they'd be opening the floodgates to banning books and fiction.
Here's the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/03/nporn03.xml
Keep in mind this is proposedThe Telegraph said:Drawings, images and sculptures depicting child sexual abuse are to be made illegal, the Government said yesterday.
People caught in possession of "non-photographic" child pornography, which is currently legal to own, will face a three-year jail term.
Ministers said "genuine works of art" were not the target for the new law - though there will be concern that heavy-handed policing could see galleries raided.
advertisement
In 2001, Charles Saatchi's gallery in north London was visited by officers from Scotland Yard's obscene publications unit over a photographic exhibit showing nude children.
It showed the photographer's three young children playing while naked. The case was dropped when the gallery defended the images as harmless photos of children on holiday that were neither lewd nor sexually provocative.
The following year police decided not to prosecute a London gallery over displaying a photograph of a naked girl in a bath that had been taken by the child's mother.
The proposed new law would cover depictions of child sex abuse that have either been created on a computer or are cartoons, drawings or other "artwork".
John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: "The ease with which images can be circulated or altered brings fresh challenges in combating the availability of child sex abuse images.
"It is critical that the law stays one step ahead and nowhere is this more important than protecting children."
Also, by banning the work of someones imagination they'd be opening the floodgates to banning books and fiction.