Civil Liberties <Where?>

[PBParrot]

And anybody who opposed said measures will be labeled a pedophile. Now I think I remember something like this from History class... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare

Now don't get me wrong I think exploitation of children is despicable and should be punished severely. But when someone receives it without requesting it or where its animated that should not be a crime at all.

 

[Draciot]

I want to preface this post by saying I do not in any way condone the abuse or molestation of children.


From what I understand, lolicon and similar (animated/drawn) products are legal in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#United_States

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.[73] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."

On December 19, 2008, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, under presiding Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, ruled that the PROTECT Act of 2003 does apply to cartoons of child pornography, stating that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists". However, this appears to be in defiance of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling on the PROTECT Act. The 4th Circuit may have done this in order to persuade new justices on the Supreme Court to ignore the Supreme Court's prior precedent in regards to the PROTECT Act. Attorneys for the defendant (Dwight Whorley) say that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, asking them to re-iterate their prior verdict on the PROTECT Act.[85] He was sentenced to 20 years in jail for the possession of 20 anime.[86]

Dwight Whorley also possessed real child pornography. No one in the United States has ever gone to prison for only possessing lolicon/drawn cp. On the other hand, if you like lolicon stay away from Australia. Alan John McEwen was recently convicted for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography, because he had some Simpsons porn. The punishment was rather light, but that will still follow him around for the rest of his life. Link: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html


The following quote is from a website which I cannot link to, because it has links to adult content.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Lolicon illegal in the USA?

"Recently in America there's been quite some furor over the legality of fictional, illustrated depictions of sex involving children. Uncertainty may be reaching a boiling point because of recent federal government attempts to study the accessibility of pornography to minors and Google's refusal to submit search results that may include personal, private information, to a government inquiry. I'm neither a lawyer nor a specialist on observing judiciary or legal proceedings. In observation of the precision of the question, I'll avoid injecting subjective opinion. With those stipulations in place I'll state that as far as I'm aware, Japanese lolicon art is still legal in America on a broad, nationwide scale.

The Child Online Protection Act of 1998 was designed to protect children from being exposed to online pornography. However, in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, and 2004 the act was consistently struck down as unconstitutional and "too broad" by federal courts. More recently, the PROTECT act of 2003 (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today) is designed to, "Revise and strengthen the prohibition on 'virtual' child pornography," and, "Prohibit any obscene materials that depict children" (Dept. of Justice memo). The loosely defined principle that the PROTECT act of 2003 prohibits computer-generated child pornography and illustrated lolicon has led numerous people to assume that lolicon is now illegal in America.

However, examination of the literal PROTECT act, and awareness of the previous judicial bans on enforcement of prohibition of fictional depictions of child sexuality paint a different story. Although the PROTECT act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 30, 2003, the 2004 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union Supreme Court ruling once again determined that a ban on fictional illustrations is unconstitutional. Furthermore, section 504 subsection 1466A of the PROTECT act of 2003 clarifies that "drawing" or "cartoon" visual representations of child sexual abuse must depict a minor involved in sexual activity, be obscene, and lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" in order to violate the law. Beside the fact that the US Supreme Court has already determined this section of the PROTECT act to be unconstitutional, imported Japanese lolicon art would still have to be legally proven "obscene" and lacking in "literary, artistic" value in order to be deemed illegal. To the furthest extent of my knowledge, that has never occurred on a federal level in America.

So as far as I'm aware, the national legal status of imported Japanese lolicon art in America has not changed. It's still legal to sell and own because it is a form of free speech protected by the constitutional First Amendment. The belief that the legal status of lolicon art in America has changed, I suspect, is based on a superficial understanding of the 2003 PROTECT act, without research of its finer points or its execution." - John

This person is smart as hell and so far has proven 100% correct. I myself, will challenge this law as it IS unconstitutional, even though in reality it does not pertain to lolicon appropriately enough for a law suit. Swiftly and intelligently, lolicon shall continue to be legal and popular.

I've seen testimonials from people who have shown their collection of lolicon to the FBI and were told it is completely legal. So for the time being, I'm pretty sure you only need to worry if you have the real thing.

 

[Mirewen]

So it's stooping to not only trying to find nudie pics of kids... but also drawing them? FFS, how can this NOT be seen as deviant?