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.
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
We already had a supreme court ruling on this exact question, only a decade or so ago. The answer was no, without a victim you do not have CP, or a crime. Even 100% life like CG. As nauseating as that sounds, it was unquestionably the correct call. It really is a nightmare scenario but the reality of laws and freedom. Just like with guns and shootings.. the price of freedom. Freedom is not a utopia or even pretty sometimes.
Click to expand...

Since people are having such a hard time believing this:
The Court concluded that the "CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers engaged in sexual activity, a "fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages." Such depictions include performances of Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare; the 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann; and the Academy Award winning movies Traffic and American Beauty. "If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work's redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene."
Click to expand...
Thus, the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA "records no crime and creates no victims by its production." Ferber did not hold that child pornography is "by definition without value", but that it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever value child pornography might have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.
Click to expand...
 
  • Autistic
  • Dumb
  • Lunacy
Reactions: a vending machine, John Shedletsky, Next Door Jimmy and 5 others
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
We already had a supreme court ruling on this exact question, only a decade or so ago. The answer was no, without a victim you do not have CP, or a crime. Even 100% life like CG. As nauseating as that sounds, it was unquestionably the correct call. It really is a nightmare scenario but the reality of laws and freedom. Just like with guns and shootings.. the price of freedom. Freedom is not a utopia or even pretty sometimes.
Click to expand...
That's just a lie about the law. I can't say that any nicer. Life like CSAM is still CSAM. You can cut out a child's head from a magazine, stick it on some porn star in a playboy mag and that counts because it serves the same purpose
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: PipPipCheerio, Next Door Jimmy, Hanged Man and 10 others
Are we really doing this?
I don't know how you do it Null, i would have lost patience a long time ago, man.
There really some Anons defending the possession of csam...be it ai or drawn?
What do people don't get? People who get off to minor represented characters are pedo's !
Be drawn real or ai
IT STILL MADE TO BE A KID
What so hard to understand.
It normalises the criminal behaviour until ((fake)) is not enough along other fucked up shit.

Edit: yes I'm an esl ....but can we fucking keep on subject ? Not everybody got an English lexicon up their arse ....some people are born in non-English nations ....
 
Last edited:
  • Feels
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: fat_rat_on_the_grass, AI generated waifu, Mifepristone and 8 others
SugarKane said:
@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.
Click to expand...
Yes! Please investigate it! You do not need my permission to post about findings!

This thread is being watched by lolisho fags RIGHT NOW! Whatever findings you have, post it! Make sure to archive before posting and DONT POKE THE COW!
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Figger Naggot, fat_rat_on_the_grass, secret watcher and 14 others
In Mr. Plinkett voice.

Scenarios where using violence or being violent doesn't make you a, psychopath, bastard, bad person, evil.

-Wild animal attacks you
-Wild animal attacks your family
-Wild animal attacks your pet
-Wild animal attacks a child
-Burglar breaks into your house
-Psycho attacks you
-Psycho attacks your family
-Psycho attacks your pet
-Psycho attacks a child
-Muslim approaches you or your family or white women or child.
-Killing other players in a videogame to gain points to level up or win a match

Now lets do the same with:
•masturbating to children( its a drawi- Fuck you, its achually ten thous- Fuck you, its not a real chi- Fuck you)
•having sexual intercourse with children.

-Such scenario does not exist.

I'm a bit late to the discussion but I had to post this after seeing the lolicon defense squad on Kiwifarms of all places.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: secret watcher, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Kiwisee and 3 others
SugarKane said:
Are we really doing this?
I don't know how you do it Null, i would have lose patience a long time ago, man.
There really some Anons defending the possession of csam...be it ai or drawn?
What do people don't get ? People who get off to minor represented content are pedo's !
Be drawn real or ai
IT STILL MADE TO BE A KID
What so hard to understand.
They can't understand that it normalises the criminal behaviour until ((fake)) is not enough along other fucked up shit of course.
Click to expand...
eslGOD
 
lolcow yoghurt said:
You can defend yourself or hunt to feed yourself with a gun.

There's no upside to drawn CP.
Click to expand...

Speech and freedoms don't need to justify their existence.. Our entire society and concept of freedom (legal and otherwise) is setup based on that principle. It doesn't need an upside.. The government needs a compelling reason, beyond how icky it makes us feel, to restrict or ban it.. Let alone send someone to prison for years over it. There is no getting around that. Once you invert or reverse the concept of rights and protections like that, everything falls. All of our rights hinge on the concept.

Also.. there is no such thing as drawn or fictional CP. At least not in a legal sense.

Like i said before.. CP can get fucked, the broad effects on fictional drawing in general, especially the new witch to hunt in the form of "minor characters" (<18) is a much more worrying aspect. But it all requires defending sadly. Demands it in fact.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Totally not a red flag, Mortan Shekelstorm, xn--mck1c and 12 others
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
This is the "fictional violence causes real violence because a few people who did real violence did virtual violence too" argument all over again..
Click to expand...
Then you misunderstand. The causality goes backwards. Someone jerks off to lolicon because he's a pedophile. It's not like the lolicon reaches out of the monitor and forces people to look at it.
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
Once you invert or reverse the concept of rights and protections like that, everything falls. All of our rights hinge on the concept.
Click to expand...
Really? I don't see how this bill does anything like that.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Ballsack Pussylips, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, pikachudidnothingwrong and 8 others
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
The government needs a compelling reason, beyond how icky it makes us feel, to restrict or ban it.. Let alone send someone to prison for years over it. There is no getting around that. Once you invert or reverse the concept of rights and protections like that, everything falls. All of our rights hinge on the concept.

Also.. there is no such thing as drawn or fictional CP. At least not in a legal sense.

Like i said before.. CP can get fucked, the broad effects on fictional drawing in general, especially the new witch to hunt in the form of "minor characters" (<18) is a much more worrying aspect. But it all requires defending sadly. Demands it in fact.
Click to expand...
1742144944840.png

You cannot fucking make this shit up.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Linoone, John Shedletsky, secret watcher and 12 others
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
only a decade or so ago
Click to expand...
This is stupid and too long but here we go.

Supreme Court(cucks) ruled that computer-generated CSAM involving adults who look like minors or virtual imaging is protected speech. HOWEVER IT IS NOT AN UMBRELLA PROTECTING ALL CSAM.(see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002))

Morphed CSAM: Involves an identifiable child’s image morphed into a CSAM image, as seen in U.S. vs. Smelko, U.S. vs. Tatum, U.S. vs. Mecham.

Photorealistic CSAM: Machine Learning (ML)-generated virtual CSAM indistinguishable from photographic CSAM, regardless of the training data.

Abuse-trained CSAM: Virtual CSAM created by learning from real CSAM datasets.

To gloss over two decades of pedo jailing, the FBI(cucks) have successfully been convicting morphed csam as well as abuse-trained CSAM for over two decades(gods work). So the only question to even possibly ask, if you're a knower, is "What about muh victimless csam free range gluten free Yada yada"

As seen from the morphed Csam convictions, a victim isn't necessary for the csam to be not covered by the first amendment(U.S. v Mecham again). If your "free speech" depicted an "actual child" then it isn't covered. That's the current redline(that only pedos whine about)

It's important to note that the SC(supreme cucks) can just overturn that shit if they want, but anyways now we're all caught up on the current federal rules
 
  • Informative
  • Disagree
Reactions: UERISIMILITUDO, pikachudidnothingwrong, lego racers and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back