loli and legality

[gwo]

This is my first post(aside from the introduction section) so bear with me when I tell you this. Also, forgive me if this isn't the correct forum to post it in. My thinking is since it involves the stuff we like(coupled with a certain imgboard's disappearance for a bit due to issues with advertisers), I'd like to ease people's fears.


It has just been made official by the Supreme Court, once and for all, that lolicon is LEGAL. Go to Wikipedia and look up United States v. Williams

Here it is for those who are too lazy to go :

United States v. Williams
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___ (2008) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of CP [1] (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did not in fact possess CP which to trade.

The Court overturned a decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the statute was facially void for overbreadth and vagueness, having reasoned that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions[2] and that banning "the collateral speech that introduces such material into the CP distribution network" does not in fact criminalise a "substantial amount of protected speech."

Important Notes/Dicta(THIS IS THE ONE THAT AFFECTS US)

The Court further stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) would not be construed to punish the solicitation or offering of "virtual" (computer generated/animated) CP, thus comporting with the holding of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

The Court assured a worried nation that "But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual CP is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated CP will be as available as ever." (emphasis supplied) Williams at 17.

United States v. Williams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some weren't exactly impressed by this ruling but nonetheless :

It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will revisit the virtual issue, Robert Corn-Revere, an attorney with Davis Wright Tremaine, told TechNewsWorld. "One thing remarkable about this ruling is the consensus view of the Court that CP is restricted to actual children."

E-Commerce News: Must Read: US Law Aims to Catch Up With Tech - and Misses

The one in bold pretty much says that the decision will stand and that's that. I, for one, am pleased. Of course I always feel uneasy whenever they lump lolicon with CP(which it isn't in any way shape or form!!)

Thoughts??

[Longbowwing]

Alot of people still mix them up even with these laws establish. Also some people cannot stand these pics, not even taken a look for only a few second. Then they usually rush toward a conclusion and act without reasons.

Just Because they think Lolicon and CP have no differences. Also for their POV, they may think we are trying to dodge the laws. So they don't like it, then they will act for the law. While they shouldn't do that.

[gwo]

Originally Posted by Longbowwing

Alot of people still mix them up even with these laws establish. Also some people cannot stand these pics, not even taken a look for only a few second. Then they usually rush toward a conclusion and act without reasons.

Just Because they think Lolicon and CP have no differences. Also for their POV, they may think we are trying to dodge the laws. So they don't like it, then they will act for the law. While they shouldn't do that.

True but this current development pretty much shuts the door on any possible prosecution(or persecution in our case) of those who simply have lolicon and nothing else.

Whatever they may believe or think about these HARMLESS Pics, the Supreme Court was quiet clear in its ruling.

Lolicon is here to stay and that's that.

[Longbowwing]

Originally Posted by gwo

True but this current development pretty much shuts the door on any possible prosecution(or persecution in our case) of those who simply have lolicon and nothing else.

Whatever they may believe or think about these HARMLESS Pics, the Supreme Court was quiet clear in its ruling.

Lolicon is here to stay and that's that.

Well, we have perfect example here. Even though the court put a borderline. There are some people still didnt really like it. So they push pressure on us. Just like in this advertisement case.

[cyal8erloser]

Lolicon is a form of artwork and more of a personal interest in the style. Seeing as it isn't child pornography, and doesn't use real children.

There really isn't much to be done against it. It isn't a way to get child pornography just because you don't have the real thing. So, logicaly the law really has nothing that could be considred of true harm to anyone, or violating any law.

Though that does not mean it will have some negative feedback and negative views on it. I'd see why most companies would not wish to be associated with something like lolicon. As it isn't easily explained or something people wish to hear about.
While that does solve some issues, a good deal of problems will still be connected to it.

[jck_ktch]

"A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children."

This little caveat causes a lot of gray areas. First, note that it makes no mention of medium. Many people assume CP can only be photographs, but what of drawings of real children or drawings made from CP? Still CP and still quite illegal. The second issue is this:"the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe..." No matter how crude or stylized a drawing may be, if the presenter signifies that the source was an actual minor then it may still qualify as CP.

Now, I believe that 99% of the images in the loli gallery fall under the category of protected speech because they are obviously works of imagination. However, there are a few images that I have seen that could pass as drawings of real children or taken from CP photographs. To me they seemed a bit too real and made me extremely uneasy. If and when the loli gallery returns I'd be glad to see it come back without those images.

[gwo]

Originally Posted by jck_ktch

"A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children."

This little caveat causes a lot of gray areas. First, note that it makes no mention of medium. Many people assume CP can only be photographs, but what of drawings of real children or drawings made from CP? Still CP and still quite illegal. The second issue is this:"the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe..." No matter how crude or stylized a drawing may be, if the presenter signifies that the source was an actual minor then it may still qualify as CP.

Now, I believe that 99% of the images in the loli gallery fall under the category of protected speech because they are obviously works of imagination. However, there are a few images that I have seen that could pass as drawings of real children or taken from CP photographs. To me they seemed a bit too real and made me extremely uneasy. If and when the loli gallery returns I'd be glad to see it come back without those images.

I know exactly what images you are referring to....I couldn't bring myself to save them 'cause it looked a bit too real for my taste. I also hope in the future that when indeed the loli gallery makes its inevitable return that those types of pics are filtered out also.

My guess is that's probably what is causing issues with this board. This recent ruling will save all the legit lolicon/toddlercon stuff but I'm sure the advertisers would like for any of the realistic images to vanish forever, and I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. Those pics have no place here...

[gwo]

Here's something else to munch on (in a figurative sense)...
Note that this was done in '06 but it's interesting to read nonetheless...

Some Q&A as posed to a attorney about the new law (A REAL ATTORNEY!)

The question and source!!!*********************

Does the New Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (HR 4472) Prohibit the Online Fetish Known as Lolikon or Lolicon?

Does the New Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (HR 4472) Prohibit the Online Fetish Known as Lolikon or Lolicon?



“Before I ask my question I want to be perfectly clear on this situation. I am not here to discuss what you may or may not find morally right or wrong. I want the a clear simple answer that is easy to understand and is black and white.

Recently the US Congress passed a new bill, the bill was called the “H.R. 4472: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006″.

Many people online have been having a hard time understanding what this law actully prohibits and need to know the facts. Does this law in fact make the online fetish known as “Lolikon” illegal or not in the USA? ”



The answer from a real legal aspect!!**********************


Well, first, let’s assume that you are taking “Lolikon” or “Lolicon” to refer specifically to animated characters. While some use the terms “Lolikon” and “Lolicon” to mean a real child (usually girl) either online or not, whom one finds attractive or with whom one is involved, it’s clear that wherever a real child is used in an inappropiate act, it is prohibited by all sorts of laws, not just the new Adam Walsh law. So for that reason, I assume you are referring to whether the viewing, creation, or storage of animation of loli girls in explicit acts is prohibited by the Adam Walsh Act of 2006.

While generally one would assume that such activities would not be prohibited under a law, it is easy to see why there is some confusion. That is because the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (HR 4472) contains language talking about “simulation” in general, and about strict record keeping even if there is simulation of an act within a computer generated image.

Of course, this is a brand new law, and no part of it has yet been tested, however, as I read the law, the simulation part still refers to and requires a real live person. In otherwords, it is protecting against the situation where someone takes the image of a real child, and then manipulates that image to simulate an explicit act with that child.

Again, this has to be tested, and I’m sure that it will be, but provided that the Lolikon or Lolicon in question are truly animations, and not based even remotely on a real person, then the existence of them alone should not trigger the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

However, that said, causing a child to view such an animation - even online - would certainly do so.

>>> Thoughts on this?

[wildchild]

Originally Posted by jck_ktch

"A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children."

This little caveat causes a lot of gray areas. First, note that it makes no mention of medium. Many people assume CP can only be photographs, but what of drawings of real children or drawings made from CP? Still CP and still quite illegal. The second issue is this:"the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe..." No matter how crude or stylized a drawing may be, if the presenter signifies that the source was an actual minor then it may still qualify as CP.

Now, I believe that 99% of the images in the loli gallery fall under the category of protected speech because they are obviously works of imagination. However, there are a few images that I have seen that could pass as drawings of real children or taken from CP photographs. To me they seemed a bit too real and made me extremely uneasy. If and when the loli gallery returns I'd be glad to see it come back without those images.

if you see an image that looks to real please report it and i will deal with it.

that goes for everyone. if anyone see's an image that they are worried about please report it and i'll use my best judgement in determing if it needs deleted

thank you!

[Rivilyn]

It reminds me of the rest of the "obscenity" issues..

A city near here has a court battle going on where undercover police went into an adult video store and filed obscenity charges against them. They're trying to shut them down right now.

Seems very ludicrous to me. It was an adult store, and never tried to hide that. Did they expect videos of My Little Pony?