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.
I live in a country where grocery clerks aren't trusted to make a distinction of a man who is 75 asking for cigarettes because he actually might be underage, and they have to demand I.D. And now we are asking people to be able to tell the difference between a 19 year old and a 17 year old?

Good luck with that.
 
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Autistic
Reactions: Bioniclelover, TreatedSilk04, Gravemind and 2 others
WelperHelper99 said:
It can still be a cartoon. They would not write cartoon into the law if not. They write it that way due to the nature of obscenity laws in the US.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but the wording of "virtually indistinguishable" and "actual child" would make most cases prosecuting a "cartoon" a stretch. Then there's "artistic merit" thing mentioned earlier. You'd also need a prosecutor to interpret it that way and a jury to side with them. It's certainly not impossible but it's a huge long shot and would probably lead you into a 1A legal minefield. Don't even get me started on the "reasonable doubt" standard.

It's actually a really well-written law in that regard. Because it's slightly open to interpretation but not by much, and the core reasoning is pretty sound and something almost everyone can agree on.

I guess it's still funny in that everyone freaking out about it just committed a major self-own, showing they didn't understand the bill in the best case, and in the worst case... uh, yeah. Gross.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Toji Suzuhara, 306h4Ge5eJUJ and 4 others
Smithfield Ham said:
The language of the law explicitly states the offending content has to be "virtually indistinguishable" from an actual child. In other words, it has to look realistic. IE, AI generated CP, traced photos and possibly photorealistic illustrations.
Click to expand...
That's a different bill (SB 1621) that expands the existing child pornography offense:
1742135449912.png

It changes Section 43.26 and states that the definitions only apply "in this section".

The "virtually indistinguishable" definition does not apply to the offense in SB 20, since that will be part of a different section (Section 43.235). This section does not mention a "virtually indistinguishable" requirement:
1742135590381.png

So essentially, SB 1621 changes the existing CSAM law to include virtually indistinguishable depictions. SB 20 on the other hand creates a new law which outlaws obscene depictions, whether they are virtually indistinguishable or not. They are 2 separate crimes.
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: xn--mck1c, Blue Cheese Salad, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 9 others
Nigga Bullshit said:
That's a different bill (SB 1621) that expands the existing child pornography offense:
View attachment 7098930

It changes Section 43.26 and states that the definitions only apply "in this section".

The "virtually indistinguishable" definition does not apply to the offense in SB 20, since that will be part of a different section (Section 43.235). This section does not mention a "virtually indistinguishable" requirement:
View attachment 7098932

So essentially, SB 1621 changes the existing CSAM law to include virtually indistinguishable depictions. SB 20 on the other hand creates a new law which outlaws obscene depictions, whether they are virtually indistinguishable or not. They are 2 separate crimes.
Click to expand...
I'm not a legal expert but I think this law does get its definition from SB 1621 but I'm not legally knowledgeable enough to understand for sure. It'll be interesting to see what legal experts say about this if they look at it.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, 306h4Ge5eJUJ, taxisguy and 1 other person
Regio Consiglio said:
Fat trans ugly incestuous shotacon, this is an incredible jackpot
[A]
View attachment 7098869
View attachment 7098903View attachment 7098905
Click to expand...
Wait isnt oliver technically a few month old since he's half alien grass-hopper?

Wtf is wrong with trannies.
Edit: everything is wrong with this particular one more to come.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
Reactions: Gleen Japan, not william stenchever, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 5 others
Generalbutnaked said:
in other news our fav fag has open back again his x https://archive.ph/57m0jView attachment 7098762View attachment 7098767
View attachment 7098776View attachment 7098778
Click to expand...
Oh look, it's another episode of "Naked little girls are not my disgusting fetish ACKTSHUALLY, they are a symbol of oppressed speech!"
Kiwisee said:
I ain't judging over here, that series is a pretty fun ride once you get past the first first couple of chapters. If only because its fun watching GS himself come up with increasingly more intricate ways to kill goblins.

But, that series can be traumatizing as hell for a young kid to read. You'd think school boards would have read the first two chapters to see that it isn't suitable for kids to read.
Click to expand...
If it's not "white supremacist propaganda" then they don't care.
Smithfield Ham said:
Possibly, but the wording of "virtually indistinguishable" and "actual child" would make most cases prosecuting a "cartoon" a stretch. Then there's "artistic merit" thing mentioned earlier. You'd also need a prosecutor to interpret it that way and a jury to side with them. It's certainly not impossible but it's a huge long shot and would probably lead you into a 1A legal minefield. Don't even get me started on the "reasonable doubt" standard.

It's actually a really well-written law in that regard. Because it's slightly open to interpretation but not by much, and the core reasoning is pretty sound and something almost everyone can agree on.

I guess it's still funny in that everyone freaking out about it just committed a major self-own, showing they didn't understand the bill in the best case, and in the worst case... uh, yeah. Gross.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that this is likely just going to be used to slap another charge on someone caught with real CP, not go after someone who saved 17,000 images of a naked cartoon character. If they have pictures of real children, we can assume they keep "hardcore" pics of realistically drawn cartoon characters or AI generated images as well, ie what this bill describes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TreatedSilk04
Smithfield Ham said:
Possibly, but the wording of "virtually indistinguishable" and "actual child" would make most cases prosecuting a "cartoon" a stretch. Then there's "artistic merit" thing mentioned earlier. You'd also need a prosecutor to interpret it that way and a jury to side with them. It's certainly not impossible but it's a huge long shot and would probably lead you into a 1A legal minefield. Don't even get me started on the "reasonable doubt" standard.

It's actually a really well-written law in that regard. Because it's slightly open to interpretation but not by much, and the core reasoning is pretty sound and something almost everyone can agree on.

I guess it's still funny in that everyone freaking out about it just committed a major self-own, showing they didn't understand the bill in the best case, and in the worst case... uh, yeah. Gross.
Click to expand...
Nigga Bullshit said:
That's a different bill (SB 1621) that expands the existing child pornography offense:
View attachment 7098930

It changes Section 43.26 and states that the definitions only apply "in this section".

The "virtually indistinguishable" definition does not apply to the offense in SB 20, since that will be part of a different section (Section 43.235). This section does not mention a "virtually indistinguishable" requirement:
View attachment 7098932

So essentially, SB 1621 changes the existing CSAM law to include virtually indistinguishable depictions. SB 20 on the other hand creates a new law which outlaws obscene depictions, whether they are virtually indistinguishable or not. They are 2 separate crimes.
Click to expand...
I see. This is becoming a lawtist thread very quickly. Kek. In any case Jouros still cant read the law they're fear mongering about. I like that we do more research than idiots that get paid.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Toji Suzuhara, The Foxtrot, Nigga Bullshit and 2 others
Kiwisee said:
The fact that there were schools even letting Goblin Slayer be available for school kids to check out is just plain negligent.
Click to expand...
It's reminiscent of video rental stores having Ninja Scroll and hentai titles being in the kids' section. The only difference is we have Google now, there is no excuse for school librarians to not do a three-second Google search on a title to see if it should be in a middle school.

But these are the same schools allowing gay/queer porn and shit into their classrooms, so Goblin Slayer honestly fits right in. Might actually be less harmful to the kids in the long-run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chandelier, UERISIMILITUDO, TreatedSilk04 and 2 others
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Islamic Content
  • Horrifying
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Grimoire Canthari, Linoone, Adachi The Lurker and 10 others
WelperHelper99 said:
I see. This is becoming a lawtist thread very quickly. Kek. In any case Jouros still cant read the law they're fear mongering about. I like that we do more research than idiots that get paid.
Click to expand...
KF has been superior to most journalists for a while now. These people don't even do the bare minimum.

The author of that article said that the offense is a state jail felony and that it carries a minimum of 5 years in prison. That is wrong. The penalty for a state jail felony is 180 days to 2 years in jail. I found this on Google in less than a minute: search "state jail felony texas". He couldn't even be fucked to do that.

Then again, I wouldn't expect any ground breaking journalism from this guy:
1742138565107.png
 
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Winner
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Markass the Worst, T-21 and 6 others
SugarKane said:
Wait isnt oliver technically a few month old since he's half alien grass-hopper?
View attachment 7098979
Wtf is wrong with trannies.
Edit: everything is wrong with this particular one more to come.
Click to expand...
@LavenderMenace i don't want to bump your tread with multiple account to check on but this tranny has a secret discord and some other SERIOUS problems worth exposing.
Your call.

Edit: I gazed at this abyss, and it gazed back retarded and hella fucking gay.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwisee
I hate lolis in my anime. I hate their stupid fucking high-pitched chirping noises. I hate they have a body of a little girl and claim they are bilion years old vampire or some other gay shit. Anyone who defends Loli idiocy should be hanged by the balls. What's wrong with your brain, when you hear that little high pitched ONEEESAAAAN your dick gets hard. It's literally just an imitation of a child and by proxy, you get a hard on by a proxy child, you fucking PDFile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nameless One, Mifepristone, Linoone and 9 others
Blue Cheese Salad said:
I find it interesting that even when they have their own safespace where they can't be bullied and they can be their pedo selfs in peace, all they talk about are "antis".
Click to expand...
OH GOD I hate what i've found make it stop...
New worthy lolcow award....... Absolutely vile.
Diddler and brother (sister ?) fucker in one cursed package deal.
Ggyc_zjWgAABazb.jpg
*Queue Homelander theme*
 
Last edited:
  • DRINK!
  • Like
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and Kiwisee
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Nameless One, Linoone, Markass the Worst and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back