Forum - View topic

NEWS: USA, Japan Propose Limits on Explicit Online Material

Looks like a good ammount of Wikipedia articles might also get hit. Namely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

Still, it also raises an interesting question: what about stuff like Gothic Lolita and all that jazz?

Well of course Ron "95% of blacks are criminal" Paul voted against it, he wouldn't want to break his historic streak of failing to vote with the majority on a bill. The guy's a nutbar, what do you expect?

As to making lolicon illegal, it already is, see SAFE Act of 2003. Remember that Whorley guy with the lolicon on the government computer? Busted for loli. The government hasn't really bothered to go after people for loli, but if they do use the leverage the law provides to make sure someone can't wiggle out of associated kiddie porn charges.

burzmali wrote:

Well of course Ron "95% of blacks are criminal" Paul voted against it, he wouldn't want to break his historic streak of failing to vote with the majority on a bill. The guy's a nutbar, what do you expect? As to making lolicon illegal, it already is, see SAFE Act of 2003. Remember that Whorley guy with the lolicon on the government computer? Busted for loli. The government hasn't really bothered to go after people for loli, but if they do use the leverage the law provides to make sure someone can't wiggle out of associated kiddie porn charges.

But there has been subsequent ruling on behalf of the Supreme Court that ruled the part of "virtual" CP as unconstitutional since the meaning was too broad and vague, and the fact there were no victims involved in 2006. The issue of lolicon legality is pretty vague at best.

Well of course Ron "95% of blacks are criminal" Paul voted against it, he wouldn't want to break his historic streak of failing to vote with the majority on a bill. The guy's a nutbar, what do you expect?

As to making lolicon illegal, it already is, see SAFE Act of 2003. Remember that Whorley guy with the lolicon on the government computer? Busted for loli. The government hasn't really bothered to go after people for loli, but if they do use the leverage the law provides to make sure someone can't wiggle out of associated kiddie porn charges.

burzmali wrote:

Well of course Ron "95% of blacks are criminal" Paul voted against it, he wouldn't want to break his historic streak of failing to vote with the majority on a bill. The guy's a nutbar, what do you expect? As to making lolicon illegal, it already is, see SAFE Act of 2003. Remember that Whorley guy with the lolicon on the government computer? Busted for loli. The government hasn't really bothered to go after people for loli, but if they do use the leverage the law provides to make sure someone can't wiggle out of associated kiddie porn charges.

It's the PROTECT Act of 2003...

Taking responsibility for the things you allow your name to be associated with. THAT'S integrity.

I certaintly couldn't have done that. Sadly, out of fear I would have disowned the statement immediately and fired as many people as possible to appease the political gods.

mk2000

Actually, the court case preceded Whorley's conviction and the SAFE Act of 2003. Specifically, the SAFE Act of 2003 was intentionally worded to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by lumping in lolicon as "obscene". Since obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment, as long as your loli fails a SLAPS test it's illegal.

On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[49]

Wiki wrote:

On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[49]

That was what I was talking about. Lolicon may not be legal but it isn't illegal either. At this point, it's in a very vague hole right now.

fxg97873 wrote:

burzmali wrote: Well of course Ron "95% of blacks are criminal" Paul voted against it, he wouldn't want to break his historic streak of failing to vote with the majority on a bill. The guy's a nutbar, what do you expect? As to making lolicon illegal, it already is, see SAFE Act of 2003. Remember that Whorley guy with the lolicon on the government computer? Busted for loli. The government hasn't really bothered to go after people for loli, but if they do use the leverage the law provides to make sure someone can't wiggle out of associated kiddie porn charges. It's the PROTECT Act of 2003...

Yup, my bad, the acronyms start to blur after a while. Someone should tell Congress to lay off the Final Fantasy games

fxg97873 wrote:

Taking responsibility for the things you allow your name to be associated with. THAT'S integrity. I certaintly couldn't have done that. Sadly, out of fear I would have disowned the statement immediately and fired as many people as possible to appease the political gods. mk2000

At the risk of turning this into a Ron Paul thread, I'll point out that a racist with integrity is still a racist. But hey, if it wins you votes in the tinfoil and pointy hat crowds...

The American invasion caused the displacement, but it did not cause the prostitution,

that was a combination of Syrian incompetence in dealing with the refugees

s and the climate of the region in which those people fled.