Here we go again with discussing animated depictions of raping little girls and boys.
Is it CP? No, CP harms real children. Is it very bad? Yes, yes it is. It's just a weird thing that language is not very good at defining. Maybe pseudo-CP would accurately describe it.
pornography has never been protected by the First Amendment
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was a literal landmark SCOTUS case about the very topic (child porn) that said in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment says a person should never have to prove their speech is lawful, the government must prove it isn't and that it must do so in concrete and specific terms instead of "general wide net" ones.
Which is heavy in citing New York v. Ferber, another relevant SCOTUS case, that says that one of the biggest illegalities of child porn is the real damage it does to actual children by its creation and in doing so it has zero protections under any speech or law, even if it isn't "obscene."
Its all degenerate and anyone talking about it should be bullied and shamed out of any conversation, but the stance of those who are supposed to define the Amendment itself has consistently been "the government has no right to say shit unless its very specific."
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was about overbroad language in the CPPA. It did not contradict the key point of Miller v. California: the government is allowed to restrict obscenity.
A statute that targeted obscene, pornographic depictions of children with enough specificity to avoid ensnaring the works cited by the court (Romeo and Juliet productions, American Beauty, etc) would be constitutional.
Japanese people have their unique take on porn, but just like anime itself, that's a result of cultural exchange with the US. The advent of hardcore pornography is a postwar event, despite cameras existing for a hundred years prior.
Here we go again with discussing animated depictions of raping little girls and boys.
Is it CP? No, CP harms real children. Is it very bad? Yes, yes it is. It's just a weird thing that language is not very good at defining. Maybe pseudo-CP would accurately describe it.
It's a complicated subject but it's important to note that:
A, pornography has never been protected by the First Amendment
B, pornography as we know it today is essentially a creation of Jews
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was a literal landmark SCOTUS case about the very topic (child porn) that said in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment says a person should never have to prove their speech is lawful, the government must prove it isn't and that it must do so in concrete and specific terms instead of "general wide net" ones.
Which is heavy in citing New York v. Ferber, another relevant SCOTUS case, that says that one of the biggest illegalities of child porn is the real damage it does to actual children by its creation and in doing so it has zero protections under any speech or law, even if it isn't "obscene."
Its all degenerate and anyone talking about it should be bullied and shamed out of any conversation, but the stance of those who are supposed to define the Amendment itself has consistently been "the government has no right to say shit unless its very specific."
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was about overbroad language in the CPPA. It did not contradict the key point of Miller v. California: the government is allowed to restrict obscenity.
A statute that targeted obscene, pornographic depictions of children with enough specificity to avoid ensnaring the works cited by the court (Romeo and Juliet productions, American Beauty, etc) would be constitutional.
I'm pretty sure no jewish people were involved in the creation of La Blue Girl.
Japanese people have their unique take on porn, but just like anime itself, that's a result of cultural exchange with the US. The advent of hardcore pornography is a postwar event, despite cameras existing for a hundred years prior.