And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it. Heck most of it would even be able to argue an "artistic value" angle to defend themselves with and likely pass in the case of drawn works.
Which is why Ferber specifically states CP doesn't get that protection to begin with. CP harms actual children which means no other questions need to be asked about its legality.
Well, when a Supreme Court justice declines to define a woman, I can't say you're wrong. But a functioning society would easily be able to distinguish artistry from obscenity.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you. And society has extended the definition of art a long way, too. Performances that would once have been obscene are now considered art. There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
That's why I believe Ferber openly states that "CP has negligible artist value, and we don't care regardless." Because people could argue it does and likely win legally because if it didn't then works like Lolita or American Beauty would have to be banned to maintain the consistency.
CP can be easily legislated because it involves real children and society has come together to agree that any involvement from them is damaging. Period. So no arguments can be made against that hard wall.
Which is why the lolicon question is a trap. Since it lacks that one unquestioning brick to anchor to, any attempt to legally fight it will be a losing battle of letting the government have open season to define something undefinable. Which they will absolutely use for them and the other elites' benefit over protecting children.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it. Heck most of it would even be able to argue an "artistic value" angle to defend themselves with and likely pass in the case of drawn works.
Which is why Ferber specifically states CP doesn't get that protection to begin with. CP harms actual children which means no other questions need to be asked about its legality.
Well, when a Supreme Court justice declines to define a woman, I can't say you're wrong. But a functioning society would easily be able to distinguish artistry from obscenity.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you. And society has extended the definition of art a long way, too. Performances that would once have been obscene are now considered art. There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
That's why I believe Ferber openly states that "CP has negligible artist value, and we don't care regardless." Because people could argue it does and likely win legally because if it didn't then works like Lolita or American Beauty would have to be banned to maintain the consistency.
CP can be easily legislated because it involves real children and society has come together to agree that any involvement from them is damaging. Period. So no arguments can be made against that hard wall.
Which is why the lolicon question is a trap. Since it lacks that one unquestioning brick to anchor to, any attempt to legally fight it will be a losing battle of letting the government have open season to define something undefinable. Which they will absolutely use for them and the other elites' benefit over protecting children.