publicly displays, presents, or otherwise makes accessible; or
produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, or undertakes to import or export, in order to use them or copies made from them within the meaning of Nos 1 or 2 above or facilitates such use by another, pornographic written materials (section 11 (3)) that have as their object acts of violence or sexual acts of persons with animals
(3) Audiovisual media, data storage media, illustrations and other depictions shall be equivalent to written material in the provisions which refer to this subsection.
1. sexual acts and activities shall only be those which are of some relevance in relation to the protected legal interest in question;
2. sexual acts and activities in the presence of another shall be those which are committed in the presence of another who observes them.
Putting this all together, as I read it:
A 'sexual act or activity' must have some relevance to the protected legal interest -- either an actual, living human being, or an actual, living animal. The law is intended to coverany kind of depiction whatsoever. So, the law covers actual recordings of non-fictional people fucking non-fictional animals, and actual accounts of non-fictional people fucking non-fictional animals.
I don't understand where you got this idea it's clear that it's illegal. At all. If anything the far stronger implication is that it's entirely legal.
Besides, you _did say that:
This is not the case for, say, cartoon pornography involving underage human children, which attracts severe sentences for mere possession, let alone hosting and distribution. If you want to allow cartoon human pornography, you have to determine what is underage (what age? how?). Then, if you don't outlaw cartoon furry underage pornography, people will complain that you are being inconsistent. You end up having to determine the age of every character depicted in a sexual situation so that you can ban them if they are "too young".
which is much, much easier to understand than German laws about bestiality which don't seem to apply.
Actually the German is not clear on the topic whatsoever, if you read it carefully.
See, when it speaks of 'written materials' here, in section 184a --> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P...
It means written materials by this definition (point three) --> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P11
And when it speaks of 'sexual acts' it means, according to section 184g --> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P...
Putting this all together, as I read it:
A 'sexual act or activity' must have some relevance to the protected legal interest -- either an actual, living human being, or an actual, living animal. The law is intended to coverany kind of depiction whatsoever. So, the law covers actual recordings of non-fictional people fucking non-fictional animals, and actual accounts of non-fictional people fucking non-fictional animals.
I don't understand where you got this idea it's clear that it's illegal. At all. If anything the far stronger implication is that it's entirely legal.
Besides, you _did say that:
which is much, much easier to understand than German laws about bestiality which don't seem to apply.