Is 3D loli legal under the PROTECT Act? (Which is unconstitutional anyway)
I am not a lawyer but how I understand the text it is illegal when you can't tell if it is computer generated or not. This is to protect kids so real molester can't just say "the video is computer generated and I haven't done anything wrong" and get away with that.
I don't have much. Thise guy is pretty much the only one who's work is even decent.
Yeah, it has to be "indistinguishable from a real child" AFAIK.
TBH most 3D loli looks too realistically proportioned and low-quality from an artistic perspective.
The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. However, the provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law.[
To me, the law should be about protecting actual children from actual abuse.
Arresting and investigating people for drawn or cgi images of fictional characters is not only unconstitutional and big brother levels of prosecuting thought crimes, it also takes resources away from finding actual criminals attacking actual children.
It is like Jack Thompson sating GTA causes school shooting.
Fictional crimes should not be treated as real.
The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography, Dwight Whorley of Virginia, was upheld in a 2-1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008. This decision was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in which the Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography was protected free speech, provided that the virtual depictions are not obscene. Obscenity, including obscene depictions of children, either virtual or real, is unprotected speech. (Whorley was also convicted of offenses in connection with pornographic depictions of real children.)
Also in, 2008, Christopher Handley pled guilty to charges related to the PROTECT Act, in exchange for a six month plea deal. He was facing a maximum sentence of up to twenty years. While not convicted by a jury, he was the first person charged—and convicted—under the PROTECT Act for the lone act of possessing art deemed obscene. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys noted that the plea deal was due to the high risk of a constitutional challenge, and the federal government agreed that Handley would not be required to register as a sex offender.
eh. all thats changed is that we've had a few recent high scores and the media has loved to cover them more than ever
loli, 3d or not, is in a grey area
you can be arrested and prosecuted for it but depending on your lawyer and the judge will depend if you suffer consequences other than being in the news
basically if its a pic of a girl getting slammed and your lawyer cant make a good case as to why your protected under the first admendment then you prolly will get in trouble. but if its just a suggestive photo youll be fine
they believe that by liking loli youll evolve into kidnapping and fucking real children
because you know whatever you like in videogames, books, and porn means youll do those things in real life
There was a paper on that, it was advocating something about using cp/loli/whatever to try to curb child molestation rates. Something about porn and a reversed effect on the libido or something.
But thought crime is real. Just like you mentally rape girls when you look at porn. Remember, there are people who believe that shit.
I remember suggesting once that instead of sending pedos to jail they make a closed community to study them. Both males and females, make a working community, little different from others, but just pedos and surveillance equipment and what not to learn more about them.
People are entitled to their opinions and likes.
>if people can be gay people can like younger girls
Requesting Clementine and more in general.
Also, banning pixels and vectors is irrational and a bad sign. You can't define what a 3D model is by what you recognize it as. It's not a loli, it's a drawing of a loli.
So no, I don't think it's illegal. Except maybe in Australia or something, maybe even the UK.
What's wrong with pleasing a pedophile? And even more retardedly you imply a medium for relieving urges would actually make child molesters molest more kids? Jesus, you're dumb.
Also, someone who watches this is no more likely to rape a kid than someone into midgets will rape a midget.
The best thing to do is say these are legal images of legal models, real or imagined. There are 18 yos who look like that.
US law prohibits the distribution of anything that vaguely resembles a prepubescent person, whatever that is.
Australia straight up bans A cup breasts from appearing in pornography.
As well as pretending to be a minor in any way. Such as no 'Catholic Schoolgirl' porn, regardless of tit size.
vaguely resembling isn't exactly the right term, but yeah, it isn't exactly clear on the matter either.
Based on Max Extreme 4, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was underage. Just before the case was brought to trial in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition) that the statute prohibiting adults from portraying children in films and books was unconstitutional. Based on this ruling, the child pornography charges against Little were dismissed. The misdemeanor charge of distribution of obscenity was retained, but the jury failed to reach a verdict. An additional obscenity charge was subsequently levied against him by L.A., again resulting in a hung jury. Little commented after the trial that it "was a frivolous waste of public resources."
Max may be asshole but that is retarded
Actually, I think this is what I was thinking of when I mentioned Aus having the can't pretend to be a minor in porn law. The US has it.
Oddly, this game is illegal in the US, but not >>571175176
They don't have to be made in game, it just has to be able to be shown that he used a real child for at least one of the models.
Really, though, any of this coming up in a court case, likely means they are wasting resources that are better used fighting actual crime.
Holy shit! CGI pron will be undistinguishable from the real world in a few years!
Ehh fuck I've been wanting to get that VN but felt iffy about it for fear of illegality. Is there any realistic way I'd get caught downloading it?
I just want an outlet goddammit
That it is, and would have set bad precedents for doing so in the future. It shouldn't matter who is on stand, just what the evidence says was done. Nothing else should matter, and justice should stay blind and carry equally.
------------------------------A MESSAGE FROM ANONYMOUS LEGION--------------------------
Potential soon-to-be child pornography thread reported.
As a proud member of Anonymous working with other members in anonymous with #OPInnocence #OPPedoHunt I report all threads that depict / and otherwise sexualize children or show questionable content.
This is it. It is over. This is the end of your disgusting parade of shameful, abusive imagery. As a member of Anonymous, it is my duty to defend 4chan from the villainous scum like you people. Pedophilia must end.
The following is illegal and/or not allowed on 4chan:
1. Child pornography
2. Abusive pornography
3. Animal abuse
7. Teen threads
8. YLYL threads
9. LOLCAT threads
Anonymous is doing all that it can to stop these crimes, but you can help too. Report these threads to make for a better 4chan.
We in Legion thank the Janitors & Moderators of 4chan who listen to our reports and work with us along with the interception and help from the FBI, LEA, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), New York Police Department, Google & Microsoft in working together to help stop child exploitation and abuse.
Remember, we must protect the children as they are our future - the future of Legion!
We shut down freedom hosting, OPVA, CPheaven and many more deepweb sites we can do even more!
If you help, support, produce, assist or in any other way endorse child sexual abuse we will find you.
We are Anonymous.
We do not forgive child molestors.
We do not forget the children that have suffered.
nice pasta, man
give it 2/10 for accuracy
That is from a child modeling agency, which I will not name. The outfits are meant to be cute, and there is nothing pornographic or objectively sexual about the content.
But posting it gets you a permaban here.
Best Anonymous copypasta coming through.
>implying we give a fuck
Top kek fag
LOL LOOK GUYS HE POSTED IT AGAIN
That depends which sets you are looking at, or I'm thinking of a different agency. Some were quite ... not so innocent.
Knowing this artist, she could have had them cut off or something. He does do that sort of thing. A good amount of his stuff is torture/rape related.
The only thing illegal is child porn. as it should be.
if its animated loli, its just that animated. And being animated is legal.
Also, 'anonymous legion' can never be taken seriously until its members stop wearing guy fawkes masks and fedoras at the same time.
That implies the girls aren't aspiring models who willingly do this and enjoy the experience (and money for their college fund).
Here is one of the more famous ones, grown up (i.e. NOT a child) and still modeling. Except now she is full-on sexy.
It's just porn made in Source Film Maker of Clementine from The Walking Dead games.
>Arresting and investigating people for drawn or cgi images of fictional characters is not only unconstitutional and big brother levels of prosecuting thought crimes, it also takes resources away from finding actual criminals attacking actual children.
I pretty much hate pediphiles and strongly oppose it.
The thought to prosecuting the thought crime is to ward the behavior completely. Porn can cause people to change and develop new sexual attractions and we want there to be no sexual attractions to minors. Some people are more wired that way, but others develop it as a fetish. If allowed to prosper, underage porn would cause large numbers of additional pedophiles who can only satisfy their craving in real life through destroying another person's psyche. It simply can't be tolerated.
Flawless logic - except that not only have pedophilic relations been going on long before porn, until modern times they were basically the norm. People would marry some girl before puberty, but (usually) wait until she hit the ripe old age of 9-11 to fuck her. And even with these standards there were always people who went "too far" relative to the norm. Your argument makes no sense because we know that pedophiles, ephebophiles, child molesters and sexual predators will exist regardless of whether porn exists.