You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

17
33

[–] escapefromredditbay [S] 17 points 33 points (+50|-17) ago 

there wasnt CP though.

and, i swear on my honor, ive seen it in voats IRC channel, that SHE honestly cant see the difference between loli and real CP.

32
-19

[–] Kaysic 32 points -19 points (+13|-32) ago  (edited ago)

the difference between loli and real CP

Because there is no fucking legal difference. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, legally it is child porn and cannot be hosted on Voat's servers (only a few countries don't consider fictional depiction to be CP, Japan being foremost).

Jesus Christ, I swear the "LOLI ISN'T CP REEEEEEE" argument does nothing but make me want to find loli to report out of fucking spite!

1
7

[–] ripfreespeech 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

I'm fairly sure for one it's a fuzzy issue whether lol is legal in the US.

But we have seen recently that there are a great number of pedophiles who don't want to harm children and stave off the urge to do so. What's the harm in letting them vent by beating off to cartoons that harm noone?

If you think depicting that is bad then perhaps you feel the same way about murder and the gta games?

Come on man, it might not be for you and me but it's not black and white, get off your moral high horse.

0
5

[–] JohnQCitizen 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It's a fucking drawing. Who, may I ask, is sexually abused when you draw something? Hell, you could say the character is hundreds of years old, as in Dance of the Vampire Bund.

1
2

[–] escapefromredditbay [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

by which countries laws?

1
1

[–] theGozarian 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Because there is no fucking legal difference.

First off I think loli is creepy and weird. But when I get home later I can hop on the Nexus and provide examples of cases where it was argued, successfully, that because of there being a lack of a victim it is protected free speech possess and host. Whorley does not apply because the issue was because of his previous conviction. Handley was charged not for possession of viewing loli but for transporting obscene materials through interstate commerce. It had nothing to do with it being Cp but transportation of explicit materials.

So yea, for sure morally repugnant and creepy but there is a complete and utter lack of any precedence of successfully prosecuting people for viewing or hosting loli with all cases I have seen failing or only being prosecuted because a specific set of circumstances. I would call that a pretty easily identifiable legal difference.

[–] [deleted] 41 points -20 points (+21|-41) ago 

[Deleted]

7
20

[–] escapefromredditbay [S] 7 points 20 points (+27|-7) ago 

there was no real CP in that case.