I think both are abhorrent, but banning either violates the first amendment and opens the door up for censorship of shit with actual artistic merit. The Turner Diaries has been legally challenged in the US and the challenges shot down every time.
I also think we need to worry about banning child marriage first, since that's still legal in most states. Lolicon is disgusting but banning it wouldn't do a damn thing to help actual abused kids the way banning child marriage would.
I also think we need to worry about banning child marriage first, since that's still legal in most states. Lolicon is disgusting but banning it wouldn't do a damn thing to help actual abused kids the way banning child marriage would.
First ammendment. That's why the legal challenges to the The Turner Diaries have always been shot down in the US.
Child marriage should be banned and has no constitutional protections, but good luck getting the GOP on board that since they're the ones fighting to keep it legal. I think everyone that can join the fight to ban child marriage should though. I know many bills in many states have been proposed to ban it (or even just set a minimum age in states with none like Wyoming), but Republicans have successfully killed them in most states. Look up the situation in your state and where your legislatures stand and vote accordingly.
Alternatively, move to Canada, where lolicon and the Turner Diaries are both banned.
I was talking about lolicon and child marriage. In regards to the Turner Diaries, there’s more of an argument there because it’s text. The first amendment protects words not images.
I was talking about lolicon and child marriage. In regards to the Turner Diaries, there’s more of an argument there because it’s text. The first amendment protects words not images.
Given the link between the Turner Diaries and actual terrorism, including OKC, I think text or not its still pretty comparibly deplorable to lolicon. Especially since that's supposedly where McVeigh got his fertilizer bomb recipe.
Child marriage should be banned and has no constitutional protections, but good luck getting the GOP on board that since they're the ones fighting to keep it legal.
Misleading, they're fighting to keep it legal for minors can marry each other (which I don't necessarily support either, but it's a far cry from the image you're trying to paint of a bunch of elderly predators marrying babies).
I know many bills in many states have been proposed to ban it (or even just set a minimum age in states with none like Wyoming), but Republicans have successfully killed them in most states.
Because of the aforementioned reason. If they could come to a compromise on that issue then it'd be resolved, but neither side seems interested in working together on anything anymore, especially Democrats.
Even if said "link" existed, which is dubious, it wouldn't change that it's just fiction; you'd have to therefore ban all realistic crime fiction to be consistent. There's nothing special about thst particular work which incites violence.
Misleading, they're fighting to keep it legal for minors can marry each other (which I don't necessarily support either, but it's a far cry from the image you're trying to paint of a bunch of elderly predators marrying babies).
Given the link between the Turner Diaries and actual terrorism, including OKC, I think text or not its still pretty comparibly deplorable to lolicon. Especially since that's supposedly where McVeigh got his fertilizer bomb recipe.
Hey you gremlin faced retard. Attempt to defend your position on lolicon without bringing up thr turner diaries. You can't do anything without deflection. You've mentioned the turner diaries in a hundred posts now. Try and make your pro loli argument without doing it. You can't.
Hey you gremlin faced retard. Attempt to defend your position on lolicon without bringing up thr turner diaries. You can't do anything without deflection. You've mentioned the turner diaries in a hundred posts now. Try and make your pro loli argument without doing it. You can't.
First amendment and censorship of obscene fictional materials opens the door to censorship of shit with legit artistic merit, especially since that's exactly what happend in the past like with the Comic and Hays codes.
It's not really pro-loli since I think loli is disgusting, but anti-censorship and opening the door for shit that's been a problem historically (and continues to be a problem since fundies are still trying to ban books that get their panties in a wad because they have gay people or talk about racism or w/e).
Unfortunately you don't seem to understand complex, nuanced issues and the history behind them and just leap to extremes.
The first amendment doesn't protect cp cartoons. Just like it doesn't protect bomb threats or libel and slander. But it's nice to see you have no argument other than "muh turner diaries!". You are a pedo.
Then put it before the Supreme Court (also stop watering down terms meant to describe abuse of real children, its bad enough terms like gaslighting and grooming basically mean nothing now).
Then put it before the Supreme Court (also stop watering down terms meant to describe abuse of real children, its bad enough terms like gaslighting and grooming basically mean nothing now).
Then put it before the Supreme Court (also stop watering down terms meant to describe abuse of real children, its bad enough terms like gaslighting and grooming basically mean nothing now).
You're saying that because you sympathize with troons that groom kids. Every time there's a thread about one you jump in with "Oh yeah, what about catholic priests hmmm!?" All you know is whataboutism and deflection. Your personality is as foul as your appearance. The only cosplay you should be doing is meg griffin.
You're saying that because you sympathize with troons that groom kids. Every time there's a thread about one you jump in with "Oh yeah, what about catholic priests hmmm!?" All you know is whataboutism and deflection. Your personality is as foul as your appearance. The only cosplay you should be doing is meg griffin. View attachment 5646369
