Simulated child pornography was made illegal with the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). The CPPA was short-lived. In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition held that the relevant portions of the CPPA were unconstitutional because they prevented lawful speech. Referring to Ferber, the court 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".
U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.
Your moral definition of obscene is not the legal definition of the word.
Main article: Child pornography laws in the United States
The legal treatment of simulated child pornography in the United States requires an understanding of the components of that phrase: pornography, child, and simulated. United States law treats these as separate concepts, each worthy of analysis.
In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California.
In 2002 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography. The basis for the ruling was that the CPPA made unlawful some forms of protected First Amendment speech, banning depictions of sex between children even if not obscene and not involving real child victims. Under New York v. Ferber, if the depiction is of real child abuse or a real child victim, as a result of photographing a live performance, for instance, then it is not protected speech. Under Miller v. California, obscene speech is likewise excluded from First Amendment protection. The CPPA made all virtual child sex depictions illegal without regard to whether the speech was protected or not, so that part of the statute was struck down as facially invalid.
im not a pedo but i don't see why being one is such a big deal... i mean, as long as they aren't harming anyone, it's kind of like being gay... pedos get judged for crap they cant control
The problem is, being a pedo always involves harm towards children. Children need more protection because their feeble brains are not fit to process the advanced imagery of genitals larger than or the opposite gender of their own, nor are their bodies developed enough for explicit acts.
>she looks 18
well with that logic, i'm off to fuck a 12 year old
How is watching loli or CP harm inducing? What's already out there will always be out there and watching it does not cause the person depicted to relive the pain, no matter what the SJW's tell you.
It stimulates the inner paedophile, which may lead to harming children later, either directly (>rape) or indirectly (real CP.)
Children were harmed to create such content.
With that logic everything we see or do may lead to harming others later. Games and movies included.
>Children were harmed to create such content.
Agreed, but it's already out there. Watching the content does not cause anymore pain than is already inflicted.
but that's only if they choose to fuck a minor
also what about the 12 year old kids nowadays that finished puberty lol
or the rare cases of >18 yr olds that haven't gone through puberty, why aren't they protected?
>Watching the content does not cause anymore pain than is already inflicted
Except that after viewing the real content, the paedophile will wish to view it in person, if you comprehend. This is more harm. It's the same logic as violent video games creating school shooters, terrorists, and other criminals.
Lolicon is not pedophilia, you may think of it on a moral compass as equal to pedophilia, but that's just your opinion and the more you plead ignorance the more you aren't helping your case
What's up you pedo faggets. I got all your IP addresses. I'm going to find you bitches, and rip your fucking heads off. Go ahead. Talk shit. Because we all know you'd never talk shit to my face.
pic related: it's me
And I completely agree you. I'm just parroting what the government says, because at the end of the day, they are the authority, and we must bow to them, as their unloving and intolerant nature yields no room for unlike-minded individuals.
Adam Lanza, perpetrator of Sandy Hook '12. His mother noted that he played violent video games on his computer, and did not wish to be disturbed. Police videography of his home shows a taken-apart (remember he smashed his hard drive?) gaming computer, confirming such suspicions.
>Using children in prescription drug or car insurance commercials is okay.
Because it's not harming the children.
>U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.
>The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene
>legally protected unless found to be obscene
>found to be obscene
That's your key word. Lolicon, as /b/ defines it, would be very much found obscene.
Indeed we are. We still haven't adopted universally accepted standards (Metric system, proper English, etc.) and much of the population lacks access to the basic utility of uncapped, high-speed internet.
Fucking this, sexual deviations from the natural order. Eg.
>Relationships with those less then 14 (or who have not gone through puberty)
This in regards to procreation, for socilisation inbreeding, and same-sex can be seen as acceptable if not used for procreation. But simply put the starting point is puberty regardless of relation to whoever along as it's consensual.
I am agreeing with the person I am replying to that having sex with a minor (as defined by puberty not modern laws), same-sex relations, and incest are deviations from the natural order, Which is to procreate.
Though with that said, and curbing procreation for a moment. The act of same-sex relations, and incest can be beneficial from a social aspect. So really I am agreeing, and disagreeing to his comment. It depends on context.
There is no context where sex with a minor is appropriate but same-sex relations, and incest can be appropriate in the right context. Same-sex in the sense of bisexuality, and incest in the sense of bonding.
America finds everything sexual obscene.
Weed sales aren't closely monitored by the FBI. Internet history is, however. So they'll trudge right into Utah and arrest a pedo, while not giving a shit about the junkies in Colorado.
The problem with that line of thought is it's obviously historically invalid, and clearly a modern social construct rather than a prevailing norm of morality.
Before a few hundreds years ago, nobody really thought it was terribly inappropriate to have sex with minors old enough to express their own thoughts on the matter (6-10). That view was held by every society, everywhere, for all history, except the past few hundred years in the more civilized countries. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has faced far more historical restrictions.
yes actually there is laws that you can drop any child off at like firestations and some other places without any questions asked.. idk what the age limit is if there is one though.. they deffinetly take babys idk about like a 12 year old though
On /b/ watching this faggot make a thread. I'm not giving it up. I can swear off cp and lot of other things but they aren't telling me that a drawn image is illegal. They can fuck themselves and so can op.
It became illegal federally in the USA in like 2013. Pictures; anything taken with a camera or drawn in such a manner as to sexually exploit a minor.
Before that I was just photographs but then they added the "drawn" part.
I tried to tell them, but they didn't listen. Maybe they'll listen to you. God speed, comrade.
Well less than a few hundred years really. Up until around 1900 there were places right here in the US where 7 was legal.
But it was mainly feminism. And whether it's right or wrong, is beyond the point- there's plenty of things we get right now that we didn't in that past. The key is to recognize that it's just not something that has *always* been considered wrong like theft or unjustified murder.
Yes you are absolutely correct.
As for the second statement I agree with you as well. Though it was mostly boys in that age range if I am not mistaken. In the more recent societies though we've gone to extremes to shelter children, and I don't think this is for their protection. Rather the overall pacification of society. And those changes are only within the last century. Kids these days 20 years old don't even know how to take care of themselves.
I find it amusing that Gender dysphoria is often considered a mental illness but people with Body dysphoria who hate their bodies enough to spend their lives in a gym and even resort to drugs to change how they look are considered normal and are actually 'looking after themselves'.
I know your post is bait but just saying anyway and you look like a fag.
I was like that too, and then they morphed into my depressant, as I looked over the sad state of /mlp/, the decline of the show's quality, and the fact that none of it will ever be real.
well you're not going to get a solid answer either way because different courts have reached different conclusions, and the supreme court hasn't yet weighed in.
unless the SC decides to take up the issue, in general you're going to be fucked. take a plea deal, or have to litigate the miller test in front of a jury: i.e. try to convince 12 people selected for their bootlicking traits that the pictures they're looking at are not obscene. protip: normal people will think a picture of a toddler getting tentacle fucked is obscene.
Spoken like a delusional pedophile. If you enjoy drawings of prepubescent kids naked and are sexually attracted to prebubecent features you are by definition a pedophile. What if I said I wasn't gay but I constantly jerk off to gay cartoon porn? It makes no sense.
what about all the stuff that *is* legal that 4chan will absolutely lie, label illegal, and permaban you for?
try posting napalm girl, the pulitzer prize winning photograph. absolutely, unequivocally legal. allowed on facebook. guaranteed CP ban here on 4chan.
what 4chan consideres legal or not has almost zero relation to what actually is legal.
/b/ was better with Id's than you could've known i wasn't the one claiming it was legal.
The problem is that the laws around this are so vague and taboo that nobody wants to talk about it and make them clearer.
If it is illegal it shouldn't be, atleast not the anime shit, I haven't made my mind up about photo realistic stuff because then you can just photograph children and claim it's a drawing.
Either way, I'm not American. Stupid laws just annoy me.
well when we do get to the point where a photo can't be distinguished from CGI it will be interesting, but we're not there yet when it comes to people.
what? no, i'm talking about photos like that one i mentioned that are absolutely 100% indisputably legal, but 4chan mods will claim is illegal and permaban you for
>there must be reasoning behind this
Because if law enforcement thought anti cartoon CP laws could standup on appeal, they would be prosecuting people left and right.
But they know these laws will, easily, breakdown under a first amendment challenge.
So they only trot them out to smear someone or tack on new charges to some other, more serious crimes to get longer jail time... and hope people take plea bargains.
It's like jaywalking... everyone does it, but you only get a ticket for it when a cop is in a bad mood or you've been known to publicly criticize the town mayor.
I have a gun
How is that gonna help your muscles?
I hate pedophiles too, but I was fapping to lolis years before I even knew what they were. Most anime girls are high school girls and maybe because I grew up with it I feel differently, but I don't understand why do you SJWs get so up-in-arms about these stupid drawings. Are you triggered because you see all the pedophiles in the loli threads on /b/? Like of course you're going to see pedos there, thats were pedos go. Pedos like little girls, therefore they would like lolis. But not all people who like lolis are pedophiles. A school shooter would most likely have violent video games, it doesn't mean the games made him violent.
You people think you're doing the right thing, but I think you're directing your hate to the wrong places. Fuck pedophiles, but getting this upset over drawings is sad.
There are aesthetic reasons why most people like the characters. Personally I've come to enjoy things like armpits, feet, pee and all the weird shit they include in anime but I have no interest in that stuff whatsoever,m IRL and the same goes for little girls.
There's a difference between fictional and non-fictional works, and not everyone will share the same opinions about either one. Stop being petty.
You're a fucking idiot man. Thanks for the laugh though. I don't believe in family, or relationships as they're prevailed in present day society. We need to take a step back to communal living. So there isn't a dad, or a mom specifically every one takes care of everybody. And as for sex that's just a social skill, it's not a big deal. I for one am asexual I have no interest in sex. But if someone else finds pleasure in it, then what;s wrong with making them happy?
>I don't believe in family, or relationships as they're prevailed in present day society
I have no interest in having sex, but I am still an animal just like you. But for the most part I enjoy the objectification of our species from an anatomical perspective. Not in a serial killer way but just surface anatomy. It`s intriguing, and that`s what turn me on. I enjoy watching rather then participating.
"law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity." I'm not exactly sure what it's saying but pretty sure this means loli is legal lmao :P still don't support it thought shits fucked
right, but every time you consume it you support an industry which creates child abuse material. this is the part people tend to skim over. i don't believe in banning cp, but i think we have to recognize that if you spend money on a video or whatever you're essentially funding and incentivizing further abuse.
they hit the kids with making C porn of themselves.
then they hit the parents with distribution, since they pay the internet/own the computer.
What a lovely fucking litigation system we live in.
Unless you're Superman, I don't think you'll survive a few shotgun blasts.
What's that? loli thread?
I am a lolicon and a pedo. Anyone who says that is a lolicon but not a pedo is in a huge closet.
Literally only a pedophile or SJW would say this. Kill yourself
you my lolifriend, are living in a huge denial
Smash your skull in while you're at it
Let me help anyway
You can hear your dick playing those ribs like it was a xylophone.
Donate for loli Chocola & Vanilla story <3
no thanks, I hate chocola so much. They are not even lolis
EXPERIMENT Glowing 1000 degree KNIFE VS LOLI
Loli story at $800,000
And Azuki is my fav personally
the moment you realize its all about the facial aesthetics
>six times the goal raised with 18 days to go
>mfw most charities can only dream of raising this much money that fast
holy shit people want that ova....what a time to be alive
ok fam, ye got me. Anything for my favorite artists.
I wish I knew, I posted it here so I can reverse search for it.
ahh cheers mate
Fucking manlets, when will they learn?
Lol ikr, what do you think it'll reach?
Welcome to neko paradise :')
I think, with the way it's going, it could reach about 750,000 when all is said and done
you are still a pedo in denial tho :*
No I mean taking responsibility of their welfare, and not only the welfare of those who can solely be linked to us by whatever means. But the welfare of everyone as a species.
I donated, I want them to go away with the money, for the lulz. I dont want it to be a disappoint tho, I want some lulz.
Like Death Race 2500, holy shit.
Yeah probably, It's slowed down a decent bit. I'm telling anybody I can so hopefully we can get the $800,000 goal at least
My god, I would hate to think about the amount of backlash that would happen if they just took the money
and ran *left this part off*
Why the actual tits are you still here
Probably will, with the tip of my dick
Weeb money is also spend in ona holes mate
some weeabo riot maybe?
i'm stealing this quote. I don't know for what use I would have for it, nor when I would be able to use it....but i'm stealing this quote
>Weeb money is also spend in ona holes mate
I don't get what that means in context to what I said
Last time someone said that she was on my pants
Its all your mate
dont worry, foreign pedofag here. I might not let myself clear sometimes.
nah, most weebs (like me) would not riot, just be supremely pissed. that's why seeing this, the most I would donate is like 100 dollars. enough to make somewhat of a difference, but not enough to put a dent into my fun bucks funds
>nah, most weebs (like me) would not riot, just be supremely pissed.
I know, most are useless and dont have balls, like hillary supporters, or leftfags. No trying to be a dick tho.
Its thanks to weebs we have lolis.
The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting" that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" damn