Plagued Lolicon/Shotacon Defense Force - The people who jerk off to cartoon children and won't ever shut up about it

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Now going back to the new law bill ...
some clown dmed me and said the Simpson won't be allowed in texas because of it
I BEG YOUR PARDON what ?
View attachment 7093661
The bill specifically mention sexual content...what kind of Simpson you watch bro ?
New hidden pedophile go hunt my pretties: https://x.com/throwaway005992
archive : https://archive.is/l6lMK
1741998204935.png
1741998294760.png
 
Last edited:
  • Autistic
Reactions: Rux
Make this a federal law then make an anti-CP department that just hunts down lolicons on twitter/bluesky/etc and posts about who they catch. The Democrats that just blindly pick whatever the opposite of what Trump does to believe becoming open AI child porn defenders would be too good. They would probably try to filibuster this law too.
 
Not that this isn't a good step in the right direction, but does this apply to all drawn depictions or just AI specifically?

This would likely create a free speech claim in court if it applies to every horny degenerates doodles.
Is there any place to actually read the text of the bill? I can't find it.
 
Now going back to the new law bill ...
some clown dmed me and said the Simpson won't be allowed in texas because of it
I BEG YOUR PARDON what ?
View attachment 7093661
The bill specifically mention sexual content...what kind of Simpson you watch bro ?
i mean in theory if someone wanted to go full retard they could claim that the children in the simpsons are far too sexual and that pedos watch the show to live out fantasies of some kind.

i dont think it would work but unless this new law is written well enough people will abuse it for the dumbest shit possible along with trying to push more censorship on what is and is not allowed. but i guess that will be for the courts to decide which is the best course of action i think.
 
Apple already openly started going thru their users' pictures to see if there is any illegal material and send your data to police if they find anything. If you own Windows, you likely didn't disable telemetry settings that are build in, so your data is regularly being send to their datacenters for analysis. If they find anything illegal, guess where they send that data?
If I recall correctly, this was about iCloud and their cloud storage services. They used a service to detect known CSAM hashes. Same thing Discord has, where (at least from what I heard from a YouTube video) posting a popcorn GIF could ban your account. From what I've heard, the iCloud thing could be easily circumvented by turning off iCloud or the image backup feature. Google however has machine learning to look at images (thus the one case of some kid's father sending pictures of their child's rashes to the doctor, and that locking his account as a result).
 
i mean in theory if someone wanted to go full retard they could claim that the children in the simpsons are far too sexual and that pedos watch the show to live out fantasies of some kind.

i dont think it would work but unless this new law is written well enough people will abuse it for the dumbest shit possible along with trying to push more censorship on what is and is not allowed. but i guess that will be for the courts to decide which is the best course of action i think.
I believe one of the few instances where lolicons got arrested for actual lolicon and it making the news was some Australian man that was caught saving hundreds of images of Lisa Simpson, so if nothing else this has legal precedent.
 
I distinctly remember some lolcow or another shouting far and wide that the farms had "child porn" and trying to get the site in trouble, because some user posted a (not very explicit at all, like a shadow on the wall or something) loli gif as some sort of shitpost.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of expanding the range of computer files that someone could get in legal trouble for under any pretense. Remember, theres ACTUAL illegal shit getting posted on Facebook or Twitter or Tiktok and they always get a reasonable understanding of CDA 230, but smaller sites do not necessarily fare as well. I'm pretty sure that actual KF isn't going to fall prey to a hecklers veto over some user posting loli, but smaller sites could.

I honestly prefer the older state of things where the only illegal things you could conceivably just download on your computer and get arrested for is classified military intelligence, and images/videos which are the product of real life abuse of a child. Remember, originally the legal theory to justify banning this was to prevent people from successfully profiting off it, and therefore stop them from abusing children. The logic that something can really be banned from even private ownership for simply being too obscene is largely obsolete in modern law.

I don't like seeing this "too obscene to exist" way of thinking come back because its basically a thought crime, and it's very opportune for selective enforcement, or evidence planting.

Yeah yeah, I know, ironic username. But its weird seeing KF celebrate internet censorship of any kind.
 
If anyone's bored, here's the tweet announcing the passing of Senate Bill 20 in Texas which bans all Ai-Generated child porn, including animation and cartoons. All the replies are just coping and seething about their precious little girl porn now qualifies as criminal on US soil!
View attachment 7092106
The salt is FLOWING
Rope all lolifags, degenerates belong on the cross
grok_image_g9dszn.jpg
 
I distinctly remember some lolcow or another shouting far and wide that the farms had "child porn" and trying to get the site in trouble, because some user posted a (not very explicit at all, like a shadow on the wall or something) loli gif as some sort of shitpost.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of expanding the range of computer files that someone could get in legal trouble for under any pretense. Remember, theres ACTUAL illegal shit getting posted on Facebook or Twitter or Tiktok and they always get a reasonable understanding of CDA 230, but smaller sites do not necessarily fare as well. I'm pretty sure that actual KF isn't going to fall prey to a hecklers veto over some user posting loli, but smaller sites could.

I honestly prefer the older state of things where the only illegal things you could conceivably just download on your computer and get arrested for is classified military intelligence, and images/videos which are the product of real life abuse of a child. Remember, originally the legal theory to justify banning this was to prevent people from successfully profiting off it, and therefore stop them from abusing children. The logic that something can really be banned from even private ownership for simply being too obscene is largely obsolete in modern law.

I don't like seeing this "too obscene to exist" way of thinking come back because its basically a thought crime, and it's very opportune for selective enforcement, or evidence planting.

Yeah yeah, I know, ironic username. But its weird seeing KF celebrate internet censorship of any kind.
If you liked eating your own shit, would you tell anyone about it?
 
Back