New Loli Law?

[prh99]

The full of quote that section seems to imply that the depiction must also be obscene. Proving obscenity in the U.S is difficult because you have to establish that the material like any artistic merit. not something easily done for drawing like loli.

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

`(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--

`(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

`(B) is obscene; or

`(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

`(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Then there is also the Supreme Courts ruling that says it's unconstitutional to outlaw such drawings, books, and sculptures etc unless they could be proven obscene because "material which does not violate obscenity laws and which does not exploit real children is protected by first amendment free speech rights" (from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which the previously mentioned Supreme Court ruling upheld). I would also point that 1466A has been on the books since at least the beginning of January 2005 and the recent make not significant modification to it. The biggest change in the law, as it relates to porn, is 2257 record keeping requirements.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html


I think alot of this may been covered at HongFire when they enacted a similar ban on loli. HongFire Loli discussion


wow the timestamp is completely out of wack this time

In HR 4472, nothing regarding cartoon or drawings appears (full text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~c1096zD6wC CAUTION, LONG).
Furthermore: "The prohibitions against computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have also been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996". This was for the PROTECT act of 2003 and it should be valid, even if the actual law is written as cited above, the Supreme Court has maked that part of the law invalid.

[Hentaku]

Yes like the two before me pointed out. That law which you are referring to is old news. It has been taken to court and deemed unconstitutional in the court case "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition."

Section 1466A. Section 504 of the PROTECT Act, P.L. 108-21 (2003), created this section, which makes it a crime knowingly to produce, distribute, receive, or possess, with or without 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 or lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Section 1466A applies whether an actual minor is used or not, but covers only depictions of minors engaged in specified sexual activities, and not in lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area. To the extent that § 1466A applies to non-obscene material produced without the use of an actual minor, it would be unconstitutional under Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Taken from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...dporn.ob.4.pdf

Remember, Congress makes the law, Police enforce the law, Court determines the law. Court says its not constitutional, it is no longer a law.

(7) Obscene
The term "obscene" means, with respect to a project, that -
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that such project, when taken as a whole,
appeals to the prurient interest;
(B) such project depicts or describes sexual conduct in a
patently offensive way; and
(C) such project, when taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I wonder how the lawmakers planned to enforce any laws with "obscenity" when they never define what something of "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is.

Even if loli is legal, it seems to be against site policy.

There are lots of similar laws in the past. They never amounted to much. I doubt this one will. There are logistical difficulities in enforcing ban on drawings, because they are drawings. It's too easy to draw. Kids in classes get bored, and doodle stuff on their notebooks. Production of child porn is a serious charge, what more need to be said?

Jesus god, not the PROTECT Act again. It is made of old and unconstitutional. How long will it take for Datorrents to realize their error?

I am a member representing Renchan. I have looked at the new laws and regulations and they are only definitions for new penalties against sex offenders and new definitions of " computer simulated porn" aka 3D porn. As Renchan is a lolicon community, we have read through these laws thoroughly and do not make a reference to artist "drawn" pictures. This is just a scare. LOLICON IS STILL LEGAL. I read both laws. I have already explained this to three other forums and have seen nobody contradict my post... WHO ACTUALLY READ THE LAWS.

Law HA 4472
Law 2257

Law 2257:
(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.
(h) As used in this section—

(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

(2) “identification document” has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;

(3) the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; and

(4) the term “performer” includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.


All law 4472 is is the following.
National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Reauthorization Act of 2006
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Which just describes new punishments for certain circumstances of rape and child abuse and new regulations for registering sex offenders.

I hope I have qwelled your fears.

Hey you legal geniuses the language in this law that could be construed
as pertaining to drawn loli IS THE SAME AS THAT IN THE LAW ALREADY IN
EFFECT WHICH WAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT!
The new stuff has to deal with sentencing and such, and record keeping
re REAL CP.

In other words, IT AIN'T ILLEGAL!

So bring it back and quit ducking under the bed - no more censorship
by baseless fear!

Included in the new law (HR 4472) is this juicy little tidbit (repeated several times):

Originally Posted by lol Congress

child pornography, as defined in section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code

Now... last I checked, section 2256(8) of title 18 read something like this:

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

"Indistinguishable" and "identifiable" are also defined, but instead of pasting them, I'll just link to it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html

I'm quite sure that's the same definition they were using before this so-called "anti-loli" law went into effect. Also, there are no "extra" bits in the law that pertain to drawings. In fact, the string "draw" appears only once in the entire law... and that's in the word "drawn" in the context of "[...]information drawn from this survey[...]"

And, as already pointed out, the law that's being quoted as the reason that loli content was banned on DaTorrents is the PROTECT Act that was signed into law in 2003... completely old [EDIT]and unconstitutional[/EDIT] news. And, as I recall, the same hullabaloo (i.e. image boards and torrent sites performing mass naked child eve... err, content removal) happened back then.

Geez... one person cries wolf and everyone goes crazy...

Not to be an arse (too late!), but, good, this scared people. Less loli when I Initiate in random downloading