Subarashii Sekai Superbly Seductive
The Wolf-Boy & The Girl in The Red Hood Sweetly Feral
Rory Mercury Cosplay Godly & Gothic
One Piece: Burning Blood Trailers Fiery Hot
Ero-Manga Sensei Anime Announced
Since I don't have a law degree or the ability to troll through thousands of legal rulings that seem to change based on the whim of a judge, what is the current state of lolicon in the USA? Is it still protected under free speech? And also why 20 years for posession of a cartoon when you only get 3-7 years for ACTUALLY molesting a REAL girl?
Sankaku Complex Forums » Manga
-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
captnfatface said:
Since I don't have a law degree or the ability to troll through thousands of legal rulings that seem to change based on the whim of a judge, what is the current state of lolicon in the USA? Is it still protected under free speech? And also why 20 years for posession of a cartoon when you only get 3-7 years for ACTUALLY molesting a REAL girl?as long as you don't have an actual CP, you can appeal it and fight for it. there was that recent case where Supreme Court said hentai can be protected under First Amendment, but I can't find it
Posted 6 years ago # -
try Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
Posted 6 years ago # -
unfortunately its quite illegal which is so flippin retarded and i think its hatred against nihons great porn industry cuz it owns every other thing pretty much
Posted 6 years ago # -
Why don't you assholes just admit you have a problem and turn to Jesus? He said "Suffer the little children that come onto me" .
Can't you draw your own? Can't you dress legal aged women like 'little girls'- there's plenty of petite (LEGAL) girls who'll do that. Like Josie Junior
http://www.thesexyteenblog.com/category/josie-juniorThis chick found a 'niche' and filled it!
Posted 6 years ago # -
I actually like real lolis that ARE legal but they have to be of a certain height.
level of maturity may vary.Posted 6 years ago # -
Sadly even drawing your own can probably be considered illegal. After reading the Wikipedia page and following the links it still seems pretty fuzzy as to what the legality is, since there is pretty recent cases that have ruled either way.
Honestly if this type of material is considered illegal I don't understand why images of say Selina Gomez or Miley Cyruss dressed in a sexual manner are not considered illegal as well.
There is a ton of sexually charged music/images in pop culture. This just seems like moralfags trying to make an example.Posted 6 years ago # -
captnfatface said:
Sadly even drawing your own can probably be considered illegal. After reading the Wikipedia page and following the links it still seems pretty fuzzy as to what the legality is, since there is pretty recent cases that have ruled either way.Exactly; in fact, someone got arrested recently for having their own child bathing picture. I mean, I think every parents have one of those. :\
Posted 6 years ago # -
Gantz_Playboy said:
Why don't you assholes just admit you have a problem and turn to Jesus? He said "Suffer the little children that come onto me" .Jesus said a lot of things, apparently.
Matthew 5
27 You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not commit adultery:
28 But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if your right eye offend you, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if your right hand offend you, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.Need I point out the hypocrisy in your post, Gantz? Or are you going to pluck out both of your eyes?
Edit: Just for the lulz; some more from the chapter that you quoted.
Mark 10
13 And they (the Pharisees) brought young children to him (Jesus), that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said to them, Suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Truly I say to you, Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them.Posted 6 years ago # -
Did you know that a couple got arrested for breastfeeding their son? I mean thats just straight up BS
Posted 6 years ago # -
Look up "Pornographers I Have Known" April 18, 2002 by John Bloom. NEW YORK, April 18 (UPI) online.
"George Bush banhammered lolicon, shotacon, and toddlercon in the USA during 2003, but in 2004, The Supreme Court unbanhammerd lolicon because censoring Art is unconstitutional."
"...I'd like to ease people's fears.
It has just been made official by the U.S. Supreme Court, once and for all, that lolicon (SEXUAL REPRESENTATION OF MINORS IN CARTOON, COMPUTER 3D RENDERING OR PHOTOGRAPHY) is LEGAL. Go to Wikipedia and look up United States v. Williams
United States v. Williams
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaUnited States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___ (2008) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of CP [1] (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did not in fact possess CP which to trade.
The Court overturned a decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the statute was facially void for overbreadth and vagueness, having reasoned that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions[2] and that banning "the collateral speech that introduces such material into the CP distribution network" does not in fact criminalise a "substantial amount of protected speech."
Important Notes/Dicta (THIS IS THE ONE THAT AFFECTS "LOLI").
The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) CP, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
The Court assured a worried nation that "But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual CP 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 CP will be as available as ever." (emphasis supplied) Williams at 17.
United States v. Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some weren't exactly impressed by this ruling but nonetheless :
Quote:
It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will revisit the virtual issue, Robert Corn-Revere, an attorney with Davis Wright Tremaine, told TechNewsWorld. "One thing remarkable about this ruling is the consensus view of the Court that CP is restricted to actual children."E-Commerce News: Must Read: US Law Aims to Catch Up With Tech - and Misses
The one in bold pretty much says that the decision will stand and that's that."
"...There are two kinds of virtual Lolicon (or three, depending on how you count):
1. Composites. The "models" in these pictures appear underage, and they are presented as such in the surrounding text, in advertisements, etc. The models, however, don't really exist: they were "assembled" from perfectly legal photographs using Photoshop or some similar program (say, by pasting the head of a 10-year-old onto the body of a flat-chested 20-year-old). Thus, the creation of this kind of pornography didn't involve children at all. Examples: Harry Potter Porn
2. Pictures of people who appear to be under the legal age (and the surrounding text depicts them as such), but are actually legal. In this case, the pornographer has simply found an 18-year-old who looks 15 (or whatever). Examples: Mail Order Lolita Videos with Teddy Bear and Pigtails.
In a recent United States Supreme Court decision (Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition), the Supremes held that these two forms of pornography were protected by the First Amendment.
The term does not include pictures of women who appear to be under the legal age, but are actually over 18 and are described as such in the text. As far as I know, this sort of pornography has always been legal--it appears in the 4th & 5th best selling men's magazines in America like Tight, Hawk, Live Young Girls, and (sort of) Larry Flynt Hustler's Barely Legal. It does tend to freak people out, though (myself included, sometimes). Supposedly, UK Customs briefly refused to allow magazine distributors to import Tight from the US because they could not believe that the models were of age. They only relented when the importers presented the customs inspectors with copies of the models' photo IDs and birth certificates."
Caveat to the above post -
It applies to the USA ONLY.
Canada, UK & (one state in) Australia are potentially a different matter entirely for hardcore sex representation/sexual devices etc. regarding the previously mentioned dolls.
Just Google:
UK Bans Loli: “All Children are Victims”
Canada now defacto bans the importation/sale of Hentai cartoons featuring Minor characters.
One particular state in Australia bans the downloading and sharing of even Bart Simpson cartoon porn.
Post-pubescent resembling Asian sex dolls/hentai are somewhat safe based on the fact that they "appear" as old as or older than many famous 18 & 19 year old Japanese AV Idol pornstars for example Cocoro Igarashi, Hinato Seto, Noriko Kago, Azuki Tsuji, Aki Nagase, Nozomi Momoi, Shizuku Tsukino, Hatsumi Takaoka, Aoba Ito, Yu Aine, Misa Komine, Ohsaki Chiwa, Ran Monbu, Ai Nagase, Airi & Meiri, Chihiro Kobayashi,
Chihiro Aoi, Himena Ebihara, Tsubomi, Ai Mita, Junko Hayama or even Bunko Kanazawa at her debut etc.Even the third best selling current Japanese DVD import into the USA "Flat Chest Bible Super Collection 8 Hours DVD" featuring only 18 or over adults as 100% of all commercial Japanese Porn films have done for over a decade by Law is probably legal in the aforementioned countries - otherwise it would violate United Nations/ EU racism. anti-ethnic, discrimination laws, civil rights plus pseudo genocide laws for "Ugly American" style Neanderthal Racism as Asian women simply look years more youthful than Caucasians.
So one could argue that angle in UK, Canada etc. in respect to the Asian sex dolls - The UK seizure of a NANO petite doll (check dolldataroom - Tabo's site under My Dolls for a comparison how small a Nano is compared to even a Petite Jewel F in side by side photos).
It was probably a close call and they were stretching the limit.The American hentai comic collector was originally charged several years back under a specific George Bush Protect Act 2003 provision against interstate commerce of Pre-pubescent "under age 11" hardcore sexual representations for a potential 20 year sentence. Simulated teen (pubscent/post-pubescent) porn was never anymore illegal than over 18/21 "Adult" porn was after 2002 (all things being equal).... ALL models of LifeDolls & Orient Industries CandyGirls breathe a sigh of relief....
After the Courts began striking down most provisions of Protect Act 2003 between 2004-2009 the only thing left exasperated Law Enforcement had to charge him with in 2009 was a greatly reduced Obscenity/Community Standards charge, but the Supreme Court ruled in the 1968 Georgia bookie Stag film case all US citizens are allowed to have legal obscenity in their own homes, just not ultimate sex acts Hardcore real CP after the later Feber decision. So he ends up as the first non-retailer/producer to ever be charged for obscenity which the Comic Book Defense lawyers were sure they could overturn if he had not chickened out for a plea bargain.
The issue with Makepure 100cm/Trottla/Harumi dolls is that a USA distributor-retailer of those dolls advertising them in film or print in a sexual context could be perceived as anywhere from:
"...The Naturist documentaries and books that we sell are legal in every city, every state and every county inside the United States. They are protected by the First Amendment and are not subject to local obscenity laws or ordinances. The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since 1958, when the Supreme Court vacated a Court of Appeals finding that Sunshine & Health magazine could be obscene (Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, Postmaster General, 355 U.S. 372). The right to depict adults and children in innocent nude poses has been upheld without a pause for 41 years. In case after case, the Supreme Court and lower courts have always upheld the constitutionality of "nudity without more," specifically referring to the nudist depiction as a fully constitutional form of expression. Our documentaries are widely sold in all of Asia, Europe, South America, Canada, Australia and Africa. The only exception may be countries where nudity of any kind is banned.
....Naturist company that so carefully and rigorously evaluates content to insure compliance with U.S. law. Not only are our DVDs reviewed but we also pay for regular legal written updates on U.S. case law. Where there is any doubt we err on the side of caution. ...June 19, 2008 by the nation’s leading expert in laws pertaining to Naturist content. We also now have legal counsel on retainer in Europe. We have been shipping daily to our many European customers for many years. Some of our films have been rated by the Australian Film Board and receive the general equivalent of a PG rating here in the U.S. We have been shipping daily to Australia and New Zealand for many years as well. Portrayals of Family Naturism in film continue to enjoy the same legal protection that they deserve and that they have since we began selling them."
TO (drum roll please):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore>
It's not so simple that you can bring your copy of Brooke Shields Pretty Baby or The Tin Drum from your local DVD store, library loan, or recorded broadcast from your local Cable TV provider and just say "I rest my case" to make sure your Asian sex doll or hentai gets delivered.
Posted 6 years ago # -
so i cant have naked pictures of suou from darker than black on my computer?
Posted 6 years ago # -
What's with the walls of text lately? Can't you state your point and reference it in a succinct, user-friendly manner?
Posted 6 years ago # -
I think to sum up olde skools post we're golden. Speaking of who else thinks we should celebrate by making an annual loli fap day.
Posted 6 years ago # -
SaruDa said:
What's with the walls of text lately? Can't you state your point and reference it in a succinct, user-friendly manner?No stupid, because then we just end up hearing losers like you bitch about unsubstantiated claims.
Kudos to olde-skool for that very effective post.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Sukunai said:
No stupid, because then we just end up hearing losers like you bitch about unsubstantiated claims.
Kudos to olde-skool for that very effective post.
If by 'very effective' you mean that 20% of the readers here actually read it >_> It's not our fault that an old priest like you enjoys reading endless scrolls.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Nothing wrong with reading... It does a body good.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Sorrior said:
Nothing wrong with reading... It does a body good.It doesn't help that I don't have much interest in the subject...Even though it would affect me personally >__>
Posted 6 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.