@Ceciliantas If we refer to the Supreme Court Case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, where it presented the question:
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), prohibits, inter alia, the shipment, distribution, receipt, reproduction, sale, or possession of any visual depiction that "appears to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(B) (Supp. V 1999). It also contains a similar prohibition concerning any visual depiction that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(D) (Supp. V 1999). The question presented is whether those prohibitions violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
In the Supreme Court's ruling, it stated:
The statute is aimed at hard core child pornography and does not apply to innocuous images of naked children. Nor does it reach drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting youthful persons in sexually explicit poses.
As we have discussed, there are several ways to disseminate educational, medical, or artistic works concerning a child's sexuality without violating the CPPA: The Act does not cover drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings that depict youthful-looking persons in sexual poses; it supplies an affirmative defense to persons who disseminate visual depictions involving adults who may appear to be children, provided that the depictions are not promoted or presented as child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c) (Supp. V 1999); and the Act does not apply to visual materials in which sexually explicit conduct by children is understood to be taking place, as long as the sexually explicit conduct is not itself visually depicted.
PSO2 would fall under the umbrella of "drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings," and PSO2 does not promote or present itself as child pornography. Thus the legal precedent set by Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, would mean the CPPA would not apply to PSO2.
Now 18 U.S. Code § 1466A does state:
Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting
So it does include "drawing[s], cartoon[s], sculpture[s], or paintingp[s]," but it also requires that the person(s) in question knowingly produce, receive, or possess with intent to distribute child pornography. The key words being knowingly and intent, as Sega would not be considered to be persons who knowingly or possess intent to distribute child pornography if this were to somehow be brought up in a court of law. Simply by having a policy against such depictions they would have a defense against such accusations as that is how it works with Symbol Arts. So there are no legal issues regarding short characters.
In regards to the cutscenes, if you actually watch the removed cutscene, the camera does not show Al's hand when he accidentally grabs Kohri's chest. Furthermore, the cutscene is in the game's files; that's where the dubbed voice lines came from. If there was an actual legal issue with the cutscenes, then they wouldn't be in the game's files. Any thing within a game's files constitutes as part of the game's content as far as rating boards and legal entities are concerned; an example of this would be Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and its infamous Hot Coffee Mod where the sex scenes were found within the game's files; thus the game was re-rated in rating boards across the world and banned in countries where said content is inappropriate. Simply by having the content within the game files, even if inaccessible during normal gameplay, constitutes as distributing said content as it is downloaded with the game.
So yeah, no, there is no legal issue with Sega uncensoring the game.
Yo, Luna, Im really happy for your lack of business sense and logic and love to let you finish, but