- Joined
- Feb 13, 2022
I won't take 'both' as an answer, it's either one or the other.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Everyone on the internet is a boy, there are no real girls here.I thought you were a cat girl not a cat boy. I feel lied to
but in the US lewd loli drawings are protected by the first amendment
That's because cute crossdressers are a paradox.You clearly never seen a cute femboy before
Neko rights? More like that ain't right!gender: neko so it's neither male or female actually
That's a misleading headline. Dude also downloaded the real deal. There is a previous supreme court ruling on the matter that hasn't been challenged yet and as far as I know he is the only dude that has gone down for drawings. He probably wouldn't have been charged with those if he hadn't had the other stuff. Rackets even talked about it one time. Cite me a case in the subsequent 16 years and I will reconsider.
Because everyone you don't like on the internet is a pedophile, a Nazi, or both. I didn't make the rules. That's just how it is. Thanks to that there are too many discussions on each topic. Heil Hitler!Why does the internet turn everyone into an expert in pedophilia laws?
This dude was also charged with possession of actual child porn but that was dropped in exchange for him pleading guilty to obscenity charges related to the comics.That's a misleading headline. Dude also downloaded the real deal. There is a previous supreme court ruling on the matter that hasn't been challenged yet and as far as I know he is the only dude that has gone down for drawings. He probably wouldn't have been charged with those if he hadn't had the other stuff. Rackets even talked about it one time. Cite me a case in the subsequent 16 years and I will reconsider.
The article also states pretty clearly that he was also sentenced over loli.That's a misleading headline. Dude also downloaded the real deal
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), and similar cases clearly states that most sexual material re: children, fictional or otherwise, has no 1st amendment protection except in cases with "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Re: Supreme court case, which is it? The only one which I think might be close to what you are saying is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). But again, like the article states, people are still arrested over loliThere is a previous supreme court ruling on the matter that hasn't been challenged yet and as far as I know he is the only dude that has gone down for drawings.
Yes.nigger are you seriously comparing gays to pedophiles?
Really? So explain why almost all pedophiles are male homosexuals who prey on boys? Also, explain why homosexuals spend so much time grooming teenaged boys?At least gays have the decency to fuck men their own age.