They are both called "pedos" according to these zealots and according to laws like the ones that Texas is trying to push, and that they are increasingly trying to make this opinion in to law by giving anime characters the same human rights as real people. .
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (173)
sorted by:
You may as well attest that National Geographic photos of topless natives are pornography. We all know the difference between Goku's caricature and erotica.
Child Porn is a strict liability crime.
If the law or legal officials declare an image as child porn (which is subjective) then just having it on your computer is enough for a conviction.
"Your honor, our legal process identified one pornographic image on @The_Shadow_of_Intent 's computer. It was a full frontal nude of a thirteen year old boy.
There is no question that this image was on his computer, therefore he is guilty."
Your only defense in this case is to admit that you did have an image of a nude boy, and then argue that it is a) a drawing, and b) not porn.
Under laws like this, the court does not have to accept your arguments.
Remember, this is strict liability. Someone sending this image to your email is sufficient to see you charged.
So, how keen are you to place yourself in this position, fully trusting that the legal process will produce a just result?
Any legal sanction on lolicon should be avoided for the above reasons. I'm speaking to the de facto definition of porn, although I just realized this thread was mostly about the legality of it.
This thread is a discussion of new, proposed laws. About half the respondents are for it.
My point, as illustrated in my first response to him, isn't that I believe there is no difference. Its that the difference is meaningless to the people who push these kinds of laws, and that they and the law will err on the side of "its all bad."
I know the difference between a small chested woman and a child, but for some reason Australia said there wasn't one. You can tell something like Uzaki is clearly just a short college girl, but we had a mass kerfluffle that she was clearly a loli.
Also, I'd wager topless natives are not as common as they once were in those magazines and those specific magazines are for sure no longer allowed in schools because of the same issue I'm talking about. People changed the culture by expanding what they found offensive, and now we do not have nuance. Its all evil and bad to them.