its just bs. theres only been 6 cases published of that law being used and its always been against a known pedo that also had cp on their pc. im not surprised.
2 Likes
That is CP law. You forgot about obscenity law.
The obscenity law is the one i was referring to in which it says
If the material is “indistinguishable from a minor”
You didn’t read the law, otherwise you’d know that and wouldn’t make such a obvious mistake…
if you can distinguish a loli from an actual minor than that is not obscene. and this is why many sites can share hentai and the government doesn’t give a fuck. only credit card companies do.
and that in a nutshell is why this ban is not only a waste of time and effort but its also just being brought out of rash paranoia.
and the cherry on top of all of this is if the hentai doesn’t look like a prepubescent character its not only staying but the loli tag being removed from those posts.
which means all these people who dislike loli content are not only going to get to see it and be unable to mute it because of the tag being gone, but more loli content will be posted and if it looks like a character that is not prepubescent it will stay and be deemed no longer loli.
so this ban is literally counter intuitive. and it will actually make the site worse by making people who dislike the content forced to see it and be unable to mute the tag that no longer exists.
the perfect karma for what they caused by reporting mega accounts over this bullshit. i hope you all enjoy the fruits of your labor.
3 Likes
So you are quoting from the obscenity law from under (b)Additional Offenses but you decided to completely ignore the (a) General.
I will consider your participation here in bad faith and stop further discussion.
so many wannabe attorneys and lawyers here smh
i was quoting this.
which i was quoting from another user this is my mistake. i did not read this specific law. i read the obscenity one.
18 U.S. Code § 2256 - Definitions for chapter
“For the purposes of this chapter, the term—”
“(11) the term `indistinguishable’ used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.”
2 Likes
In 18 U.S. Code § 1466A there’s also
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
If this sounded familiar, that’s the 3rd prong of the Miller Test you’ve once brought up in another topic of yours.
In regards to US law and case precedent it’s clear that obscene graphic depictions of fictional minors is illegal. This obscenity law has so far been used to add on to more severe crimes (actual CSAM).
It would appear that it is illegal, but low priority for law enforcement.
Personally, I live in Sweden where precedent was established in the highest court that criminalizing fiction violates freedom of speech. A supreme court justice argued that it would go against proportionality to do so.
Only if a court finds it likely that an actual minor was used to produce such a depiction would it be classified as CSAM and therefore illegal (but contextually defensible, such as in the precedential case where Simon Lundström was in possesion of digital Japanese loli art as part of his profession as translator and 1 image among 51 was judged to be CP).
2 Likes
With the removal of the loli tag, there’s a possibility that people who don’t want to see that content might inadvertently come across it, so we need to address this issue. Do you have any good suggestions?
Additionally, the removal of content is at the discretion of the moderators, but if those moderators have a strong dislike for loli and shota content, can we be sure that their decisions to delete content aren’t influenced by personal preferences?
Everyone seems to enjoy legal arguments, but let me say this boldly:
The following is my opinion. Discussion about my opinion is meaningless.
‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’ Although I am non-religious, I like this saying.
I will repeat it as many times as necessary: while it may be considered immoral, loli and shota are fictional creations. I believe everyone has had immoral thoughts, not just limited to loli and shota. I think this hypocritical and conservative law seeks to police those thoughts.
Why are games and movies that depict murder and crime allowed, but fictional images of loli and shota are not?
No one can answer this question consistently, because the law is wrong.
3 Likes
not going to lie, I had no idea this page even existed. I would have thought the site-wide rules post would mention it, but I guess not.
also having a laugh at this:
- You may not submit content to the forum that … infringes anyone’s intellectual property rights
1 Like
There is a big issue with CSAM, or at least the automatic detection of it as there have been a lot of cases where a “reviewer” from a site (think big social media for example) reports the not-CSAM image and it gets sent to the central database to which everyone checks from. It then leads to a wave of false banning across the internet, and there is most likely no way to undo it.
The person uploading loli content will get punished accordingly, its not about accidental eventuality. The moment you aknowledge that in a site (or this one) revolving around masturbation with a device, you or content creators posting loli beatoff videos that depict the art in a sexual manner give stimuli towards it. that is literally proving you link sexuality with said art. It has nothing to do with any artistic freedom or accidental exposure. The law is always a moral guided system. How can you proclaim that suddenly because we uphold one morality we cant uphold the other? Like i said, i think these people need help. The concept of loli or shota is in itself not illegal but you posted this on a website that beats you off brother.
Get some help.
we’re all on a site to beat off to porn. we all should get some help and touch grass.
but in all seriousness no one gives a shit lmao
2 Likes
Pretty sure @Hentai_Scripts meant that now that the tag is gone there’s nothing preventing the overly zealous puritans from coming across content that is loli adjacent but has been deemed ok by mods but not morally correct by some holier than thou jackasses.
A lot of posts were tagged “just in case” so that people would leave us alone.
6 Likes
This should definitely be addressed, personally it is content I don’t want to see (I had the tag blocked, no morality discussion just not something I want to see). If it’s not an outright ban, there should still be a way to distinguish it from other hentai.
4 Likes
yeah there is. its called loli.
unless theres another term i am unaware of.
maybe we could use the word moe?
Oh! Want to discuss? It’s fine. I love discussions.
First of all, my aforementioned opinion is not about uploading to this site or any other.
I am taking issue with the law itself.
So, to the main question, what is wrong with linking Lolita and Shota to sexuality?
Isn’t it the people who say it’s wrong who are confusing Lolita and Shota with child pornography?
It is because of this confusion that the wrong laws are enacted.
To be clear, I am sexually aroused by loli, shota, and other niche two-dimensional pictures, but not by any real-life child pornography.
In other words, it is a very specific fetishism. It just happens to be a picture of a loli or shota.
I wouldn’t waste your time arguing with these people
4 Likes
I didn’t know there was such a tag. I would like to make use of it.