Sankaku Complex Forums » General

Laws on Underage Hentai

Started 6 years ago by Michio, currently has 43 posts - latest post is by sonicflame

Tags:
- cake
- chris Hansen
- hentai
- illegal
- Law
- laws
- Lolicon
- party van
- shotacon
Feed for this topic

Michio

There are people here from a lot of different countries, so it might be worthwhile to know that you could go to jail for possessing certain questionable material.

It seems like information is hard to find on this, and there's also been confusion about the U.S. situation.

Anyway, Wikipedia has a list about laws on this. You might be surprised that you could get up to 10 years in prison for lolicon in New Zealand for example.

I don't mean for this to be a morality debate thread by the way, just providing info about the law which can be hazy.

-----

U.S. resident here. I got worried when I heard about some recent court cases, and also some motions by George Bush and John McCain to make hentai fall under the definition of child pornography.

There is also another unfortunate incident with Christopher Handley who was convicted to 20 years in prison on child pornography charges. However, the wording on some news stories and in particular wikipedia makes it unclear what exactly he went to jail for. He had both real child porn, and I guess some lolicon.

--
MSNBC said:Among the arguments in his appeal was that cartoons are protected under the First Amendment because they do not depict real children. He also claimed the statute is unconstitutional because text-only e-mails cannot be obscene.

Two judges rejected those arguments. A third agreed with Whorley on those issues but joined the majority in affirming his convictions on the counts pertaining to photographs.
--

Also I don't understand why an argument needed to be put forth at all. The ruling in 2004 with the supreme court said that loli was cool.

There is also a somewhat related case in United States v. Williams dealing with whether it was illegal to ask for child pornography. This was stated:

--
Wikipedia said:The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever."
--

If I was really worried ... what could I do to make sure nobody finds out I have this stuff?

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
what could I do to make sure nobody finds out I have this stuff?

NOTICE TO PARTICIPANT: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has logged a record of this along with the IP addresses of the user due to violation of United States federal law. VIOLATION: Child pornography. IMPORTANT: If you believe this chat to be logged in error, please state your reasons to the F.B.I. Monitoring agent observing this forum and quote reference number 3744956127. Failure to do so within the next 2 minutes will result in your IP address being entered in our criminal database and prosecution. Your IP address has been recorded by the Child Internet Service protection Agency. Please wait while reference code 3744956127 is entered into the database.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle
oh yeah blame Bush as if the Dems want to make it LESS of a nanny state? And why you would mention Bush and McCain in the same sentence is questionable. McCain has always been a Rino. Dems are just as bad as Bush and the "modern" republicans Google Tipper Gore and her quest against music or Joe Lieberman back in the 90s when he was a hardcore democrat and his fight against violent games.

Long story short we need LIBERTARIANS on the supreme court.

pic oh so related.
Attachments
1. 1196539431760.gif 6 years old
Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Michio

I wasn't trying to blame anyone in particular or make this some shitty right-wing/left-wing debate. The reason I brought it up was only because it said it in the wikipedia article. Lol. It's just a fact that Bush tried to extend the PROTECT act to include underage hentai. It's also a fact that McCain wanted to add a hefty penalty to the PROTECT act.

"On April 30, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law)[74] which again criminalizes all forms of pornography that shows people under the age of 18 regardless of production. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. § 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", 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" (the third test of the Miller Test obscenity determination)."

"In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act.[81]"

Sauce to article about McCain.

Despite all of that, there have been lots of judges involved in this, and they matter too, and no doubt some of them were Dems.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle

my bad sorry to come off as a jerk but Obama has promised to strengthen the protect act as well. it's bipartisan. Dems and Repubs have been selling us up the river quite a bit. And libertarians are simply not viable. it's sad really.

under the Miller test is Kodomo No Jikan still safe? I think it's literary gold.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Azarius

@ tingle,

I don't understand why you're so determined to prove Obama wrong. He never mentioned the PROTECT Act we're talking about right now, but rather this one. Please try to state/know your sources as much as possible to avoid errors of the like when speaking of politics.

As a canadian, I can tell you that even if none of the political ''sides'' is perfect, the conservative faction has a strong tendency to be more repressive, and that is especially true when it comes to controversial issues such as lolicon.

And for the Miller test... well it depends on the judge. The test is so absurdly subjective than one can virtually interpret it in any way he/she wants.
In the present context, my take is that it would most likely be deemed ''obscene'' >.<

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle said:
oh yeah blame Bush as if the Dems want to make it LESS of a nanny state? And why you would mention Bush and McCain in the same sentence is questionable. McCain has always been a Rino. Dems are just as bad as Bush and the "modern" republicans Google Tipper Gore and her quest against music or Joe Lieberman back in the 90s when he was a hardcore democrat and his fight against violent games.

Long story short we need LIBERTARIANS on the supreme court.

pic oh so related.

That goes beyond party lines because they see it as being wrong and on a moral basis as majority of americans would agree with it.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Oh and just to add the so called libertarians agree with democrats and republicans so they are by no means better either.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle

Bush is hardly conservative although he is repressive as is that Palin monstrosity but Dems tried to ban foul language in music in the 80s and blood from videogames in the 90s so it's hard for the republicans to be much worse.

My bad on the obama thing I get all the kid anti-molestation laws mixed up. Some contain loli some don't

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Spoony_Bard

tingle said:
Bush is hardly conservative...

Then what the hell would you call it, then? I consider it neoconservative because that's pretty much what he is.

Anyways, that PROTECT law is ridiculous. It's already been ruled by the Supreme Court that lolicon is legal to possess, and the law itself would have to include stick figures as well.

Perhaps I should run for a seat in Congress when I become eligible? After all, most Congress members are former lawyers.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Michio

Spoony_Bard said:

Then what the hell would you call it, then? I consider it neoconservative because that's pretty much what he is.

Anyways, that PROTECT law is ridiculous. It's already been ruled by the Supreme Court that lolicon is legal to possess, and the law itself would have to include stick figures as well.

Perhaps I should run for a seat in Congress when I become eligible? After all, most Congress members are former lawyers.

DOITFGT

Then you can be our spokesperson for lolicons everywhere.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle

Spoony_Bard said:

Then what the hell would you call it, then? I consider it neoconservative because that's pretty much what he is.

Anyways, that PROTECT law is ridiculous. It's already been ruled by the Supreme Court that lolicon is legal to possess, and the law itself would have to include stick figures as well.

Perhaps I should run for a seat in Congress when I become eligible? After all, most Congress members are former lawyers.

neocon is better description, like Palin and such. True conservativism in the historical sense like say the canadian conservative party or In America people like Howard Taft espoused minimal government interference, and fiscal responsibility (that's not Bush at ALL who went the complete opposite)

Essentially Gerald Ford was the last true Conservative. Reagan-cons spend money on the military that they don't have as opposed to democrats who still defecit spend but at lest they spend it on the citizens. Reagancons also feel the obligation to legislate morality whereas a true conservative would try to make it so every one is free to practice their morality without fear of the government stepping in and running or screwing up their church or mosque. Huckabee is a good example of the Reagancons picking a good pastor in chief when they should have been looking for a commander in chief.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
ah im safe in my country.
They have nothing against fictional lolis in my country

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
anonymous said:
ah im safe in my country.
They have nothing against fictional lolis in my country

You live in a Third World country right (like me xD)

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle
we need a pedo board for all this type of discussions
Attachments
1. kodomonojikanmangacafe.jpg 6 years old
Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle said:
we need a pedo board for all this type of discussions

I don't get it...

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Mangonel

I didn't know there was a supreme court case that ruled loli hentai as being legal to possess, closest thing I knew to a loli case being tried was the on-going Handley case, could you link me a reference to that? And as far as the US 'obscenity' laws goes, someone already pointed out our Miller test is absurd.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Michio

Mangonel said:
I didn't know there was a supreme court case that ruled loli hentai as being legal to possess, closest thing I knew to a loli case being tried was the on-going Handley case, could you link me a reference to that? And as far as the US 'obscenity' laws goes, someone already pointed out our Miller test is absurd.

For some reason I can't find a primary source, although the 2004 case is well known if you just google it.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
Spoony_Bard

Mangonel said:
I didn't know there was a supreme court case that ruled loli hentai as being legal to possess, closest thing I knew to a loli case being tried was the on-going Handley case, could you link me a reference to that?

And a link you shall have. Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. That decision was affirmed in '04.

Posted 6 years ago # Quote
tingle

anonymous said

I don't get it...

it's sperm, some guy fapped to those pages and touched them without wiping his hands

Posted 6 years ago # Quote

Reply »

You must log in to post.

Sankaku Complex