Yeah, I understand it on a functional and legal level. It’s just not emotionally satisfying to allow harm as long as people pay money into the public sector to make up for it.
Would be more honest for mods to come out to say there is no real logical argument, nor even application of said flimsy reasoning to other equivalent categories.
1 Like
To be clear: your argument is that under the current wording of the law, there is absolutely zero legal risk eroscripts hosting loli content?
I find that hard to believe.
1 Like
Find me one US site that has had legal trouble from hosting loli content and were forced to remove it
2 Likes
That would be correct, there is absolutely zero precedent that hosting loli content is against the law in the US. I can buy loli content on Amazon, Ebay, and any website from Japan. It then easily goes through American customs. You think they’d be allowing illegal material constantly through the US mail system? Do you think people have to get thing sent through private jets in order to get them into the US? There’s also not a single study that would support any of your claims relating loli to any form of CSEM.
2 Likes
The criteria for a logically valid argument isn’t that there’s precedent. The criteria is that a reasonable person can read the law and come to the conclusion that the dealings of eroscripts could be illegal.
If that’s the case, it is logically valid to remove loli content if the site owners have low risk tolerance. It is also logically valid to keep the content if you have higher risk tolerance.
Not sure which claims you are referring to, must be mistaking me with someone else.
Anyway, this is an argument to change the law, not an argument against the logical validity of eroscripts decision under the current wording of the law.
2 Likes
There is no risk if we are going by US law, sorry for getting you mixed up on that last part.
a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, 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.
Please explain to me how, reading this, no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that the dealings of eroscripts could be illegal.
That is the bar you need to reach before you can claim there is “no risk”.
1 Like
In order to “depict a minor” it would need to be identifiable as a minor. Any reference of a “minor” requires it to be real. This would mean a real person. That would qualify it for CSEM. When talking about the obscenity clause you get into a swamp of free speech laws. It boils down to the court could make anything count as “obscene” which would never actually happen at this point in society. Due to how free speech is seen right now and the insane amount of common sexualization in the US it would lead to a crazy domino effect if actually enforced. Definition: identifiable minor from 18 USC § 2256(9) | LII / Legal Information Institute
minor | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.
3 Likes
This is simply not true. Read my link again:
It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
Yes, this is called the three-part Miller test. And yes, court has rules multiple times that obscenity is not protected by free speech. I personally wouldn’t want to sit in court so a random jury can decide whether kindergarten-gangbang-extra-long.mkv is obscene or not. The US juridical system doesn’t exactly have the best track record for logical verdicts.
I don’t really see how this is relevant. The criteria the site owners are applying isn’t whether they are right or wrong should such a case make it to the supreme court, it’s whether they face reasonable risk of legal action. Although I don’t exactly agree with their decisions, I can’t deny removing loli content reduces the probability of legal action, and that is all that matters to make their argument logically correct.
1 Like
US citizens have literally been convicted of the crime of possession of obscene sexual depictions of fictional minors. It’s illegal by the wording of the law as interpreted by (some) US courts.
It’s not a serious crime that people in the US are convicted of by its own; it’s a crime that adds on charges to worse crimes. But it’s wrong to say it’s not illegal if people have been charged with it and found guilty.
1 Like
Just to note I am replying to something I saw in the site update thread in an effort to bring the debate occurring over there to occur over here where it’s meant to be from what I understand.
Did they just used the argument of "You loli creator reported other loli creators so your own posts gain more attention or sell more!" Against the @souleaterblaze whom got more than just their mega reported and wiped?
Wat…by their logic as soon as those cartoons are realistic then there would be a problem since it’s not a problem because it’s not realistic is what they said.
When did they deny that there has to be…? They were replying specifically to your sentence of having to draw an line by saying where they draw their line…?
2 Likes
a cartoon can be drawn to look realistic so you’re wrong.
oh yeah i reported my own mega account.
you’re in denial.
2 Likes
This is the definition of an unserious and histrionic claim. No one has taken away anyone’s freedoms. Each of the people complaining that are still free to post loli/shota/kiddie stuff elsewhere. They are free to start their own website as well. Claiming that “their freedoms have been taken away” is ridiculous overreach, born from thinking they are enititled to another’s time or platform, and laziness that keeps them from just creating their own space.
If you want to publish an article in my magazine, and I don’t agree with your point or don’t think it is appropriate content for my readers, or simply don’t hink it is written well enough, I don’t have to publish it. You can’t force me too. And my refusal does not consititute a negation of freedom of the press or freedom of expression.
2 Likes
bruh, just gonna quote my post from the last thread because i can’t be fucked typing it again, but for the love of god stop quoting that law when you clearly have no clue how it’s written.
As for the mods. There are still a bunch of unanswered questions that keep getting lost in the argument shitstorm, so I’ll repeat them here.
-
- Is it possible to simply unlist posts so they are no longer searchable, but they still remain on the site if you have the URL?
-
- After the ban is finalized and content is removed, what about people who come here looking for it without knowing about the ban and simply ask, can we link alternate forums, mention places to go find it elsewhere and whatnot like All The Fallen.
-
- What about other age related content involving real actors, loli JAV’s, ageplay roleplay etc.
-
- Are the goalposts ever going to shift for what is and isn’t allowed? Will you make a commitment to not extend this ban in the future?
-
- Are you still considering host migration and will that stop this ban?
2 Likes
I was talking about the law, not about eroscripts decision to ban the content. If the law bans anything it, by definition, reduces freedom.
And your magazine example, if I can’t force you to publish an article in your magazine, it by definition impacts my freedoms. And that’s fine, freedom is not absolute, it has to be balanced against all other things citizens want.
I have a problem when freedoms are taken away based on false or unsubstantiated arguments. You should, too.
1 Like
I simply don’t agree that A) “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;” is an absolute defense in a courtroom, and B) section 2252A as anything to do with the obscenity law I cited.
And the court has agreed with my interpretation in the past, from wikipedia:
The first major case occurred in December 2005, when Dwight Whorley was convicted in Richmond, Virginia under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive and distribute “obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males”.[136][137] On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, consisting of 20 years’ imprisonment.[138] Whorley appealed to the Supreme Court, but was denied certiorari, meaning the appeal was not heard.[139][140][141]
I always love it when people rudely disagree with me and evidence to the contrary can be found on fucking wikipedia.
God I hope you don’t get all your info from Wikipedia.
David Whorley was a previously convicted felon on counts of possession of child porn and he was under supervised probation including monitoring his computer and internet usage.
He used a fucking government computer to access emails with loli hentai, which then caused his probation officers to probe further and they found he had been downloading real child porn again.
He was also found violating his probation conditions, which including not viewing any pornography whatsoever.
People always use this case since he tried really hard to defend himself and so there’s a lot of details pertaining to the miller test and the (then new) protect act, but this guy would never have been arrested in the first place if he wasn’t a former felon, on probation, breaking that probation and also still downloading child porn.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-4th-circuit/1431669.html
but like, blah blah, US law. The moderaters could just, y’know, change host countries.
2 Likes
Ah shit same with like all the other examples
1 Like
David Whorley was convinced of:
(1) knowingly receiving on a computer 20 obscene Japanese anime cartoons depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462; (2) knowingly receiving, as a person previously convicted of receiving depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, the same 20 anime cartoons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1);
He argued that:
1466A(a)(1) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as applied to cartoons, because cartoons do not depict actual minors.
The court ruled that:
We also reject his arguments […] that cartoons depicting minors in sexually explicit conduct must depict real-life minors to violate § 1466A(a)(1).
Whether or not David Whorley did plenty of other shady shit isn’t relevant. The court was asked for an explicit answer to the question whether 1466A (obscenity) requires the depicted minors to be real, the answer is that it isn’t. If it was, the court would have ruled guilty for violating probation, misusing government property, and not guilty for 1466A.
I understand that eroscripts can change host countries, probability of legal action is low, David Whorley did plenty of other bullshit, etc etc. But that’s not what my argument was about. My argument simply was that 1466A doesn’t require depicted minors to be real.