is lolikon legal in usa?

Answer 1

You didn’t mention where:

Legal status in Canada
Section 163.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code defines child pornography as "a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means", that "shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity", or "the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years." The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production. From paragraph 38 of the decision:
Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
—Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Sharpe, Paragraph 38
In October 2005, Canadian courts sentenced an Edmonton, Alberta, man to one year of community service for importing manga depicting child sex, possibly the first manga-related child pornography case in Canada. The man was on probation at the time for possession of child pornography that featured real children.
In April 2006, an American was sentenced to 30 days in jail for bringing child pornography to Canada. While he had possession of three videos and three images of real children, a criminal investigator cited the 13,000 "mostly cartoon" or "anime" images in his possession and the "prohibitive nature of these goods".
Legal status in Germany
German law does not discriminate between actual and "realistic" sexual depictions of children. Whether or not this includes Lolicon is yet unclear.
Legal status in Hungary
According to the latest definition of the act (Law 1997/LXXIII., Penal Code 195/A. §), "Production of Forbidden Pornography" is only forbidden if an underage person actually suffered through the production process. Due to this, any sort of graphics that were produced without using actual live models, or those using live models that were not sexually abused is legal. (Similarly it is legal if the resulting graphics is not original but a derivative of two or more pictures, in where the original picture of the underage person contains no matter violating the above paragraph of the Code. It does not need to bear any express label that the material was produced by any of those methods; and it is the task of the State to prove guilty, not of the defendant to prove innocent, which, with the recent developments in computer graphics, might be a burdensome if not impossible task.)
Legal status in the Netherlands
On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470) which deemed "virtual child pornography" as illegal. The laws appear to only outlaw "realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct," and hence lolicon is not included.
Legal status in Norway
Any images or videos that depict pornography in a childish context (which also even would include i.e. an adult model with childish clothes/toys/surroundings) are to be considered child pornography. Lolicon are therefore counted as child pornography, and not legal, in Norway (although this has not been proved by Norwegian court). So far, however, this law has only been used to sentence individuals in possession of real child porn.
Legal status in South Africa
With the promulgation of the "Films and Publications Amendment Bill" in September 2003, a broad range of simulated child pornography became illegal in South Africa. For the purposes of the act, any image or description of a person "real or simulated" who is depicted or described as being under the age of 18 years and engaged in sexual conduct, broadly defined, constitutes 'child pornography'.[17] Under the act, anyone is guilty of an offence punishable by up to ten years imprisonment if he or she possesses, creates or produces, imports, exports, broadcasts, or in any way takes steps to procure or access child pornography.
Legal status in Sweden
Any images or videos that depict children in a pornographic context are to be considered child pornography in Sweden, regardless of how realistic or abstract they are. This means that lolicon is considered to be child pornography and is therefore illegal in Sweden. It has, however, not yet been tried in court.
Legal status in the United Kingdom
The Protection of Children Act 1978 made it an offense to take, make, distribute or show "indecent" photographs of real children, and was later amended to include possession. At the time, a child was considered to be anyone under the age of sixteen years, although this was raised to eighteen years in 2003. Its purpose was to attempt to prevent abuse towards children during the creation of the photographs.
Non-photographic images have never been proscribed by the Act, and on the 23 November 2006, Vernon Coaker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated that "Although cartoons depicting child abuse are deeply offensive, they do not in themselves constitute abuse of a child. The 1978 Act is well understood by those who work with it and enforce it and there are substantial arguments against extending its scope to cover cartoons of child pornography."
On 13 December 2006, the UK Home Secretary, John Reid, said the Cabinet was discussing how to ban computer-generated images of child abuse, including cartoons and graphic illustrations of abuse.
Legal status in the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."
On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A which criminalizes both Miller Test obscene cartoon depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and, as noted by the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, cartoon depictions of a minor or what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) and need satisify only the third part of the Miller Test, that it lack serious artistic value.
In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." Whorley was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) on fourteen accounts for receiving "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes at the time of the violations, although these convictions were indepedent of Whorley's violation of the terms of his parole. The same [FOIA]-requested November 2006 United States Attorney's Bulletin describing the details of the conviction, concludes by suggesting that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions of possession of such obscene cartoons.
Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court.