You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

10
1

[–] Kaysic 10 points 1 points (+11|-10) ago  (edited ago)

It is not a fuzzy issue.

US Code 1466A:

(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:
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or

...
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

...
(f)(1) the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means

(Emphasis mine)

Now, the workaround that most sites use is "Oh, she only looks young but she's really 18," but that defense really only protects you from ISP monitors and doesn't stand up in court. (See page 7 of the Handley casefile, B.1. ¶2 onwards).

Most important, however, is that there is precedent for the prosecution of lolicon as child porn. See United States v. Whorley and United States v. Handley; both cases involved the possession of child porn, of which lolicon was counted among the charges. While no one to date has been charged solely on grounds of owning lolicon manga, personally I see that more of an issue of court resources (can't catch everyone, so you go after the big offenders that are easier to get).

Finally, though, I find it hilarious how you immediately try to turn this into a moral argument, as if that's some sort of defense. I don't give a shit if you think you can justify that bullshit with "but victimless crimeeeeee" nonsense - my point is that it breaks the law, breaking the law is what gets servers shut down, and servers getting shutdown makes for unhappy users. You may disagree with the law, but bitching at people for abiding by it is quite literally the stupidest argument you could possibly make, akin to hood rats getting mad at a person willing to testify against a murderer.

And, y'know what? Yes, it fucking is a moral black and white. Fuck your uneducated moral relativism. If pedophilia is a "natural urge," then it is a mental illness that should be treated with therapy and medication, not fucking moderation. You don't "stave off" a crackhead's urges by giving him "just a little bit." You don't "stave off" a psychopath's murder impulse by giving him squirrels to mutilate. Especially when there isn't a fucking scrap of scientific evidence to indicate that's even effective!

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?

5
10

[–] Kaysic 5 points 10 points (+15|-5) ago  (edited ago)

United States (Code 1466), all EU member states (Directive 2011/92), Canada (C-46 163.1), Russia (can't find an English source), and more.

As far as I'm aware, the only country where it isn't illegal (where one might realistically host servers for a website this large) would be Japan.

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.

3
-2

[–] Kaysic 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago  (edited ago)

complete and utter lack of any precedence

  • The only cases in which the lack of a victim has made a difference were in those made against the Child Protection Act of 1996, which only had provisions for "appearing to depict minors" rather than banning fictional characters outright. Fictional characters are explicitly said to qualify as depiction of child pornography under 18§1466A(c) (quoted below)
  • Whorley's prior conviction was used as a qualifier for "knowingly" as part of 18§1466A(a)1. The point still stands that he was convicted on 20 counts of child pornography in the form of cartoons of fictional characters. His prior conviction was not necessary to prove violation of the law, it just made it simpler - he could've been a straightlaced citizen and it still would've led to conviction.
  • Quit your bullshit on Handley. One of his charges was on distribution through mail. The other four charges were for possession/transfer of child porn. Especially notable is how every single objection to the Constitutionality of the PROTECT Act was struck down - and this is in 2008, meaning that this case takes priority over past precedent (such as Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition (2002))

18§1466A(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense — It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.