Why is r9k so pathetic?

>>39167477
Just giving myself a little self-checking and self-bumping

>>39167477
I don't know. A lot of people on here seem pathetic as hell and are either pussies or just dumb

>>39167477
People made r9k being the hangout for losers into a meme

So losers heard about it and actually started hanging out here

>>39167477
somebody better shop some cocks in those hands

>>39167825
This is what I mean

Wanting CP

File: 1.jpg (839KB, 1000x2331px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1000x2331px

>>39167955
That wouldn't be CP, anon.

Efilism among other things brought me here

>>39168005
Photoshopping dicks on a minor still counts as CP under US law.

>>39168064
Julianna Rose Mauriello was born May 26, 1991.
She was Stephanie on LT from 2004 up to 2016.
Youngest she could be in that picture is ~13, but she could also be 25.

>>39168121
Doesn't matter how old she is now, in that pic she was under age.

File: 1.jpg (694KB, 1000x1752px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1000x1752px

>>39168064
No, it doesn't.

original

This is containment board now.

>>39168168
Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

Yes it does.

>>39168167
Source? Is it original?

File: 1st_Grade_Reading.jpg (199KB, 1024x889px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x889px

>>39168167
>Youngest she could be in that picture is ~13, but she could also be 25.

>>39168192
I don't what ass backwards place you got that from, but that's objectively false.

>>39168229
>the US Department of Justice is false
Well fine. Go ahead and photoshop it and say hello to Tyrone in prison for me.

>>39168249
That's not from the US department of justice, you twit.
That's from some biased wikipedia article used to suit puritanical rulecucks like yourself.

>>39168279
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

>>39168291
>Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

>Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.
Neither of these things are describing photoshops. That's your biased interpretation of the texts. There are countless fakes of underaged celebs available on the clearnet.

>>39168358
> and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.
> modified
Time to stop posting

File: exgdGXa.jpg (17KB, 570x538px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 570x538px

>>39168005
>>39168168

Is anything sacred to that man

File: 1388036621756.png (809KB, 1004x565px) Image search: [Google]

809KB, 1004x565px

>>39168395
>modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.
Again, due to your zealotry, you're zeroing in on the modified part. What you're missing is
>but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.
Modified in this context would imply that someone who already has CP modifies in some way for whatever reason.
That's so that people with actual CP can't get out of it by saying, "Well, I put a filter over it so it's not the original CP!"

But all of these big words and lawyer talk are probably a bit over your head. You're a normie, and you've gotta protect dem kiddies at all costs to show what a good guy you are.

Because this board is one of the most underage. Depression is seen as cool.

File: butch-hartman-realhartman-draw-me-as-a-superhero-and-you-26074140.png (185KB, 500x1414px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 500x1414px

>>39168397
no

originodoopydoo

>>39168473
Well,
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2016/03/11/man-convicted-altering-images-child-porn/81655806/

>>39168500
Shadman? More like Madman

File: 1435716848709.png (117KB, 304x397px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 304x397px

>>39168586
Again, you need to work on your reading skills.
Notice how it's worded?
>David Guy, 61, of New Richmond used Photoshop to place the faces of 11 different minors into images of very graphic adult and child pornography
So this guy was photoshopping the faces of minors onto real CP. If you placed Donald Trump's face onto real CP, it would still be regarded as CP. The ages of those minors are irrelevant.

>In addition to other charges for receiving and possessing child pornography, Guy was also convicted by a jury of "attempted to produce child pornography when he took a photo of one minor, posing the child on her hands and knees and exposing her bottom."
So not only were the ages of the faces shooped on irrelevant, but it was not the main thing he wa charged with. The main reason guy was arrested was he was caught with having, receiving, and attempting to make CP in real life.

Maybe you're reading this a certain way, maybe Fake News was trying to spin it a certain way. Point is, what you're trying to imply happened didn't really happen.

File: couldnt post robot complained about non ascii characters.png (7KB, 679x105px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 679x105px

>>39168673
http://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=barrylrev

>>39168673
My bad, didn't read it carefully before posting

File: 1481866857384.jpg (89KB, 612x682px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 612x682px

>>39168005
>>39168168
>Shadman

Gee. I sure hope I'm not on a watchlist right now

>>39168720
>An "identifiable minor" is defined as either a person who was under the age of eighteen at the time the visual image was created or whose image as a minor was employed in creating or modifying the visual image and that person is recognizable as an actual person through the person's face or some other distinctive characteristic.
That doesn't change anything about what I said.
Say there's a minor who at some point is filmed in a sexually explicit photo. He or she, the individual depicted in the photo, would be an identifiable minor.
So if a person were to take that photo and modify it, not only would that person have CP, but the finished product from whatever photoshopping would also be CP.
Photoshopping dicks into the pink girl's hands would be a completely different story, as the original image is not CP.

File: Lolicon legality status per state.jpg (848KB, 2289x1744px) Image search: [Google]

848KB, 2289x1744px

>>39168750
I'll help out a fellow anon.

>>39168872
Ok, now it's all about interpreting legalese. We need third party opinion here.

>>39168906
What for yeuropoor ?

File: My God.png (160KB, 230x247px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 230x247px

>>39168906
>tfw redzone
Oh shit

>>39168872
In the document I gave you, the topic is creating computer-generated CP, not photoshopping CP into non-CP. Which is why I find it hard to agree with you.

Autists built 4chan and internet culture and we're naturally going to congregate in one place.

You're using a lazytown reference right now. Do you think anybody but autists would watch childrens TV shows and make memes out of them?

File: All smiles.jpg (10KB, 331x473px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 331x473px

>>39168941
Stop wanking to it or move to a green or blue state

>>39168931
Not quite sure lad. This template really reduces the amount of legal research you have to do for the states, but for Europe it's a little more complicated. All I know that it's illegal in Britain, Australia, and I think Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors

This may help you.

>>39168957
Well then that's a completely different subject from what we're talking about and I don't know why you posted it.

File: 1452188635403.png (922KB, 1104x974px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 1104x974px

>>39168906
>tfw moved from MS to LA

File: non-ascii text again.png (23KB, 905x257px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 905x257px

>>39168872
One more re-phrased definition

>>39167477
this is the designated place for all those people.

fuck normies shaming us. fuck you faggots

>>39168984
>Well then that's a completely different subject
How? We're arguing whether or not photoshopping the photo of the pink girl into fake CP is actual CP under the US laws.

File: Absolutely halal.jpg (73KB, 640x539px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x539px

>>39168997
Sorry for your loss anon. Move back to MS or OK or you're fucked M8. Better smash that hard drive.

File: delete.jpg (18KB, 394x277px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 394x277px

>>39168974
>A man was sentenced to 90 days after pleading guilty of possessing mostly anime images

in the trash my shota/loli folder goes

>>39169004
That's exactly the same thing in different words. The fact that they swapped it around is misleading, though.

>>39169025
>Mostly

If you have nothing but 2d it's fine. Just be discreet.

Wheras if you have 3d, you WILL be tracked down sooner or later, and nothing will save you.

File: 1497401532207.gif (369KB, 320x232px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 320x232px

>>39169015
What about photoshopping Stephanie's face onto of-age porn?

File: 1398483627494.png (646KB, 393x419px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 393x419px

>>39169040
>If you have nothing but 2d it's fine. Just be discreet.
What if it's pic related?

File: Absolutely halel.jpg (127KB, 531x471px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 531x471px

>>39169025
Again it depends on your state/country. If you're in for example New Mexico you're fine no matter what you have if it

>>39169049
I'd advocate for murdering you just because that's fucking horrifying but I dunno about the legality.

>>39169015
>the topic is creating computer-generated CP, not photoshopping CP into non-CP.
So you're not referring to CGI CP here?

>We're arguing whether or not photoshopping the photo of the pink girl into fake CP is actual CP
No, we're not. We're arguing whether or not photoshopping dicks into a photo of pink girl is fake or actual CP.
Now you're getting tripped up over your own words.

>>39169040
I only have 2d, and i m definitely not dowloading 3d, it s good but not worth the trouble.

>>39169052
I live in france. Rules are kinda strict on that subject here sadly.

>>39169032
No it's not. "modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct". How the fuck does that mean anything other than using the non-CP images of children to make shooped CP?

File: Cat.jpg (41KB, 952x960px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 952x960px

>>39169070
I feel bad for you M8 either smash your hard drive and move to America.

>>39169059
>under US laws
The essential part of my statement.

File: Distress.png (104KB, 252x265px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 252x265px

>>39168974
Fuck, man. I don't even fap to the shit 90% of the time. What the hell should I do? Should I leave the thread? Should I leave home? Should I leave the fucking state?

File: Cool pepe.jpg (93KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x800px

>>39169098
Since you're in a state that's probably illegal, I can give you some options to protect your legal rights. If you have the resources to just pick up and leave, then move out to the next green or blue state over. If you don't, and literally can't move out ever, remove your hard drive from existence.

>>39169074
Because if an identifiable minor is shooped onto existing CP, then the identifiable minor would be modified to appear to be engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
The "appear," bit is nothing but fluff. While technically correct has nothing to do with whether the original image is CP or not.
That's why I said it's so misleading.

>>39168941
Me too. But there's a blue on there i've wanted to move to for a long time now.

>>39169089
It' not essential at all. We're not arguing whether we're looking at US laws here.

File: ee7.png (7KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 493x402px

>>39169164
..... And I am. Did you think I was just being a moralfag? Oh, ok, fuck it, I'm tired and I've already wasted a fuckton of time. Go ahead, photoshop dicks into her hands and report yourself to the FBI, if you are so sure it's completely legal. Consider it a win, if your ego demands so.

>>39168906
> state consist literally only of commies and SJWs
> legal lolis
WTF?

>>39169259
Yes, the very people striving to normalize every kind of degeneracy including "non-violent" pedophilia. Why are you surprised?

>>39167477
>implying there are people who come to this entire fucking website that aren't depressed, autistic, a NEET or has some sort of mental disability

ummm hunty, wats wid da lies.

They just started to gather here, why is this such a mystery?