Remember that the film "Kids" was filmed with actors who were not minors... but they depict minors doing not-so-minorly things. The film may have received an NC-17 rating for its sexual content, but just because the actors LOOK below the age of consent did not make the film fall into the category of 'child pornography.'
So, it's already been determined in the courts so long as the actors of pornography/sex scenes are of the age of consent, it does not constitute child pornography because the person the doing the act, or having the act done unto them, is of the age of consent. How in the holy hell can this apply to cartoons? I don't recall fictitious characters created in the world of imagination having any legal protections other than copyrights.
What a bloody grand time to be a lawyer in our litigation-minded society.
Dear Excellency and Friend:
I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].
Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.
One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word. -- Robert Heinlein