Practically, not technically.
>and if not, prove it
Child Pornography, defined in the 2012 Criminal Code as "any material that shows a juvenile displaying a sexually explicit behavior or that, even if not presenting a real person, simulate a juvenile with such behavior in a credible manner". This includes, for example, realistic 3D renders of juveniles.
>a juvenile displaying a sexually explicit behavior
“Sexually explicit conduct“ means actual or simulated: sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
“a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer“
Anything can be lustful in the mind of horny rowdy people
Read: Sexually Explicit.
There you are, the new rule is firmly based on a preventive
behavior rather than actual corrective
action, hence a personal vision decision rather than a legally mandatory one because none of these appeared in the thread as razor edge it was.
I don't like it none and i suppose we will have to go with it, although personally i will stop being kind or lenient to fellow anons here because it's clear some foreign agents will always take advantage when we let our guards down.
>this practically illegal thread would look like the chart in the real thread
Perhaps, but a post is much easier to clean via post deletion rather than lock it, but i saw that as a warning itself so if that was the intention then a spoiler and post edit could've been much more effective.
>I was not expecting this type of reaction.
I am genuinely surprised you didn't, other boards have been hunted down in the last year for similar incidents like some anon said here, Julay for example had its biggest board fall into a similar controversy in the middle of a refugee scenario that ended in an administration coup, spam attack and posterior nuking of the place that left it sterile from much activity and still-present animosity. /mu/ by side-effects felt too and /k/ was about to get nipped two weeks ago from a single BO misstep, just to mention a few and not to say this is only one modus operandi, you have sites having their owners v&'d like Nein and Hoppe, everyone is livid as hell and defensive, this board was one of the few ones without any controversy in its lifespan so it was a matter of time. I had the bad luck of having lived through all of those 3 examples so if we were all in a public area i swear i would've also succumbed into a drunk bar rage and made a mess, if i could've slipped into my monitor to punch someone i would've.
>We need an amicable resolution so we can move forward
>I'm not going to create a new board rule
>I'm going to attempt to refocus the original thread toward film discussion instead
>I'm hereby calling your bluff
Well i'll be, now it's our responsibility to actually post something interesting and related to film there. You have probably out-maneuvered this situation, now it's on us to back our hypothetical claims of possible discussion, well done homme inconnu.