Speak for yourself, retard.
Ah, yes, I forgot you have the Shinigami eyes of "seeing which people in public have Kiwifarms accounts".
why do you believe that banning fistfights will not lead to banning hugging but banning child porn will lead to... something bad(?) why is the slippery slope argument acceptable in cases where you want it to be and not the case i proposed?
competing for control of the law and therefore society is the definition of political engagement. i am aware. that is the point of it.
These people think that nude photos of children should be illegal and is not free speech, but if you trace it it is somehow fine to them?
if the government decides that lolicon is illegal nationwide, then it's one thing I can say the government did right.
That's what courts and juries are for and always have been. To decide if a case of obscenity fits the law or not. The "I know it when I see it" test is frightingly effective in all the right ways
the autist is a sonic fan. imagine my shock
The "taste" in question is depictions of minors engaging in sexual conduct without any literary, artistic, historical, educational, or scientific merit, by the way.
In other words, anything but PORN. Specifically underage PORN
you know, it's been pretty interesting seeing these "people" die on the "lolicon is free speech" hill
If you think banning one type of drawing is where it stops, you're being naive. Laws that criminalize fiction based on moral panic set a precedent for broader censorship. Once you let the government decide which 'offensive' speech is too dangerous to exist, don't be surprised when they expand that power to things you do care about.
The difference is intent and precedent. Banning fistfights isn’t about criminalizing all physical contact, it’s about preventing bodily harm. But banning lolicon isn’t stopping any real harm, it's criminalizing fiction, which opens the door for any 'offensive' media to be banned under the same logic. The slippery slope here is real, governments already abuse 'protecting children' as an excuse for mass surveillance and speech restrictions. Meanwhile, nobody's arguing that banning boxing will somehow outlaw high fives.
Then just say that, you're fine with the government policing what people can draw. Hope you’re just as enthusiastic when they decide to ban edgy humor, violent video games, or whatever else some future moral crusader decides is dangerous. You don’t get to pick and choose which freedoms are okay to sacrifice.
Anybody can make this agrument about why any piece of media that isn't 100% postive should be banned.
The difference is that pornsick men who masturbate to lolicon are pedophiles, and will probably rape children. So yes it does stop real harm.
I've been saying it for the past 16 pages. I'll be waiting for when the government decides to go rogue against its own people. So, you can jerk off to your underaged body pillows.
nigga we're talking about lolicon.
lol the "lolicon isn't real" defense
yes, in the UK. not trump's America
this is a retarded comparison
Where’d you learn how to draw naked kids there bud?
That remains to be seen in this case. As I've said previously, the law is generally enforced based on interpretation by a given judge.
That's also why I've repeatedly said that this bill doesn't matter until something actually happens from it.
4chan
I might be retarded, but I'm also only looking at this thread at this point when someone I haven't Ignored (like you) quotes me in it. I have this hope that someone posting here will have an intelligent opinion on the thread's subject.
so you mean more pedophiles?
No. No they can't. We're talking about one very specific thing here that most everyone would find objectionable aside from the people who want to fuck children.
