wait is that really koopakoot?(Ik I kid)
But seriously, this is getting very strange now :/

Personally here's my motto: If he/she is in legal age, go for it. if not, don't do it.

Watch your fucking mouth, UrbaneVirtuoso, you're gonna offend someone!

Jesuszilla said, October 20, 2014, 04:19:56 am

Watch your fucking mouth, UrbaneVirtuoso, you're gonna offend someone!

Attention Everyone: The "Fucking Jesuszilla" Law is now in effect.

All posts hereforth must contain at least three fucking uses of the word "fuck".

This marks Hoque's second conviction regarding possession of drawn child pornography. He was prosecuted in 2008 for possessing "Tomb Raider-style” computer-generated pictures of fictional children. A jury convicted him on six counts of making “indecent pseudo-photographs” of children, another first in the U.K. Hoque denied these charges but was required to complete a sex offender treatment program.

it doesnt matter, the law is made so that if it appears to be underage it is assumed to be underage. thats why apparently most people who draw cartoon porn (outside of japan, where loli porn is legal) make sure they denote their characters are over 18 if there is any ambiguity.
if you really didnt want your over 18 porn to be confused as child porn, you would take steps to make sure its not. otherwise youre inviting it.
on yoko, yeah in japan it doesnt matter, cause they dont have laws on it.

Gaza Haganer said, October 20, 2014, 04:36:45 am

it doesnt matter, the law is made so that if it appears to be underage it is assumed to be underage. thats why apparently most people who draw cartoon porn (outside of japan, where loli porn is legal) make sure they denote their characters are over 18 if there is any ambiguity.
if you really didnt want your over 18 porn to be confused as child porn, you would take steps to make sure its not. otherwise youre inviting it.
on yoko, yeah in japan it doesnt matter, cause they dont have laws on it.

Well, actually, most laws are there to prevent victimization of specific individuals. In this case the individuals were completely imaginary and no real person was victimized.

I also accept that some men only get turned on by Hentai and not real women. I can't say that the situation automatically creates that kind of environment, and in this guy's case, it really seems like he's more dedicated to imagery than actual children, but there could easily be a loophole used by predacious individuals to encourage their thrills.

Jerl said:
Loli is illegal in many countries.  From what I remember, it's illegal in most countries in the middle east, as well as Australia and a few countries in Europe.  I don't remember much more specific than that.

Gelbooru is hosted in the US.  Loli isn't illegal in the United States, and the Supreme Court has overturned guilty rulings on cases where people were prosecuted for it citing the first amendment, however it's a slightly grey area.  Nevertheless, I can pretty much guarantee that the FBI knows of the existance of Gelbooru and Danbooru and other such sites, and if it really were a problem we would have been shut down or forced to disallow loli.  As it stands, as long as you don't do something stupid for them to try and add it on as a secondary charge while prosecuting you for, you should be fine.

If you do something stupid and they try to add it on as a secondary charge, however, be prepared for the jury to find you guilty in a heartbeat unless the judge throws the charges out.  In fact, if such a thing were to happen, you should be prepared to take it all the way up to the supreme court.  And, of course, even if the charge is thrown out, it's likely that they will attempt to use it as evidence against your character when prosecuting you for whatever it was that ended up with them searching your computer because of.

What you should take from this is that if you enjoy loli, you should use it as a solid reason not to do anything stupid.  Do not break any laws that might make them search your computer.  Of course, you shouldn't break any laws that would make them search your computer in the first place, but use this as added motivation to keep yourself clean.

You know, I wonder. Can the argument be posed that, "No one can say whether or not these are children's features?"

When maximilianjenus raised the question of legal websites that depict this stuff, it immediately brought me back to REAL LEGAL pornstars who look like children. Remember the infamous Lil Lupe case; and she's extremely popular.

I wonder if that denotes a double standard if it is only based on "features"? Should this mean that it should be illegal to look at pornstars who look "young"? Can it be argued that this too creates a situation where fetishists can be driven to pursue their desires? Seems that way to me.

Unfortunately this sort of how Australian law works in terms of who and who isn’t of legal age in pornography. It doesn’t matter what their birth certificate says or the legal paperwork the production company has on file, if you look under 18 (and seriously, that’s incredibly subjective), it’s illegal. It’s poorly designed legislation by politicians who fear a backlash from voters if they outright ban porn, but want to put enough hurdles in the way so distributors find it difficult to release material.

The outcome is that people are criminalised and labelled as sex offenders (and paedophiles) for owning pornography that people in other western democracies can freely buy and own with out consequence.

There are some subtle differences though, and the UK is considerably stricter than Canada and the US (any sexually explicit depiction of a character implied or stated as being under 18 is illegal, compared to North America where the character actually has to LOOK underage), while Australia is considerably more relaxed (the depiction is illegal if a reasonable person can't distinguish between it and a photograph).

hey, [e] can you rename the thread? or i will do it for you if you want. i want to avoid more shitposts related to the joke. it hasnt worked well

Gaza Haganer said, October 20, 2014, 03:13:35 pm

Star Fucker said, October 20, 2014, 08:45:08 am

Gaza Haganer said, October 20, 2014, 04:56:10 am

the rationale is that indulging in pornography of little children (andd these drawings will apparently depict VERY young children) implicitly means you are okay with this happening with children. they may not be real, but they are still children.

I don't agree with this point of view. To me, it's basically the same as saying "if you like violent movies or killing people in a GTA game, this implicitely means you're okay with people getting killed (which is an opinion and you can't be punished for thinking X or Y deserves to die) or even killing people (which is obviously false since all GTA players don't go on a killing spree)".

THere's a huge difference to me between fiction and reality (captain obvious to the rescue...). I can laugh when seeing a movie about someone being tortured or cut to pieces, enjoy violence, etc. but this is only because I know it's entirely fictional. The same thing would happen for real, I'd be disgusted.
It could be the same for these loli mangas.

i understand the gaming angle i just want to see some sources that no correlation has been found between looking at lolicon and actual sex abuse or tendencies

How do you even prove that to begin with? What kind of study can one perform in order to prove such thing? Are you going to grab 10000 random people and check their criminal record if they have ever abused somebody and then if the answer is "No", ask them if they have Magica Madoka porn? Who's going to say "Yes" to that kind of surveys when you have silly laws like these?

Gaza Haganer said, October 20, 2014, 03:13:35 pm

i understand the gaming angle i just want to see some sources that no correlation has been found between looking at lolicon and actual sex abuse or tendencies

wikipedia on fictional child abuse states that there is not a single study that can correlate them. I am quite positive the original danish report is written in danish, so I am not sure how useful it would to find the actual article compared to english articles talking about it.

http://cphpost.dk/news/report-cartoon-paedophilia-harmless.2255.html
http://therealosc.blogspot.mx/2012/07/all-images-are-harmless.html

from what I get is that this study was made so the link could be proved as it was ordered by a conservative party, but such link could not be found.
google Sexologisk Klinik cartoon or Lars Barfod cartoon