Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forum Rules and Advice

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Re: Forum Rules and Advice

    Originally posted by aika View Post
    C: Unbendable Legal Rules

    1) No posting of illegal material. This includes but is not limited to nude pictures of people of questionable age, and (real life) bestiality pictures.
    2) The posting of pictures that depict underaged characters (or characters that appear underaged) in sexual situations is not allowed on this forum. It is illegal in the country this server is hosted in.
    It has been asked of me where exactly in the United States law is loli/shota illegal

    Originally posted by ToxicShock
    Originally posted by USER
    Hey Toxic,

    Got into an argument on the limitations and reasoning for prohibiting all things loli and shota here on ULMF. So, I began to look through the FAQs and the the rules for posting, and while there was plenty to be said that posting such content was against the rules, the hard reasoning for WHY such content was against the rules was limited to, basically, 'because it is illegal', but I could find no law or statute that directly stated that such content was illegal within the FAQ or the rule posts that would explain why such content is not allowed.

    While I understand that there is something of a grey area with people being able to argue that an artist's rendition of a body type may or may not be interpreted as underage, I thought I would bring up the point that there isn't any open and shut reasoning for why such content isn't allowed, being that the website is hosted in the US, at least in what I could find.

    Anyway, the point of this message was that I thought it would be helpful to show posters exactly why loli and shota or any other underage content isn't allowed as dictated by law in the FAQ or posting rules. I've been looking for statutes and law that state this directly, but I haven't been fruitful in my searches, so I thought I would ask you since if anyone would be keen on the law, it might be you.

    Well, there's plenty more to be discussed and said about the grey areas in this post, but I think you get the main point.
    Good question, laws in the US are usually extremely grey, and often, people can be convicted with any sort of spin on laws that do exist or even used to exist but kind of currently do not, which makes explanations very complicated, but the most simple answer I can give is this: A general rule for porn since 1973 is that pornography is legally protected as a form of expression unless it is considered "obscene." This, to me, is the worst legal argument I've ever heard, yet it has not changed in 42 years, that something is really up to the fluid opinion of whatever judge is overseeing the case whether or not something is "obscene" and lacks serious value according to the "Miller Test." Personally, I would never want to be the person in court trying to convince a judge that virtual child being fucked is tasteful. The Supreme Court has even upheld against the court of appeals that the language of the law isn't "Constitutionally vague."

    Now, in the case of loli/shota specifically, it used to be that under the Child Pornography Prevention act of 96 that it was banned completely, but the supreme court ruled parts (not all) of that act invalid in 2002. While it became seen that virtual child pornography isn't "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children, Bush singed into law in 2003 the Amber Alert Law which criminalizes "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting" that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexual intercourse and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," which runs along the same kind of idea as the original Miller vs California of 1973 referenced above. The weirdest thing about the law is that possession is not a violation of the law but the distribution itself, if it can be proven to have been transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the internet (ULMF), or transported across state lines. The law Bush signed also amended part of the CPPA which criminalizes knowingly advertising or distributing "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, as also would be the case for our website.

    Here's some convicted cases
    2005 Virginia case

    In Richmond, Virginia, in December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court stated:

    'Thus, regardless of whether 1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley's as-applied constitutional challenge to 1466A(a)(1) to be without merit.'

    Attorneys for Mr. Whorley have said that they would appeal to the Supreme Court. The request for rehearing was denied on June 15, 2009, and the petition for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court was denied on January 11, 2010. A major part of the case was that Whorley also received real child pornography.


    2008 Iowa case

    In October 2008, a 38-year-old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley was prosecuted for possession of explicit lolicon manga. The judge ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional, but Handley still faced an obscenity charge. Handley was convicted in May 2009 as the result of entering a guilty plea bargain at the recommendation his lawyer, under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images of question.


    2010 Idaho case

    In October 2010, 33-year-old Idaho man Steven Kutzner entered into a plea agreement concerning images of child characters from the American animated television show The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts. In January 2011, Kutzner was sentenced to serve 15 months in federal prison for downloading, receiving, and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for at least eight years.


    2012 Missouri case

    In October 2012, after being reported August 2011 by his wife, a 36-year-old man named Christian Bee in Monett, Missouri entered a plea bargain to "possession of cartoons depicting child pornography", with the US attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri recommending a 3-year prison sentence without parole. The office in conjunction with the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force argued that the "Incest Comics" on Bee's computer "clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value".
    I'm aware that some of these cases have actual child pornography involved but do realize that charges are kept separate and each of these people WERE convicted on the charges of receiving obscene material

    Comment


      Re: Forum Rules and Advice

      Another way to post pictures without attachment would be great :
      Lost Town project:
      https://www.patreon.com/NRT_MHA

      Comment


        Re: Forum Rules and Advice

        There is one.

        User CP, Left hand bar. The option under "Networking" labelled "Pictures and Albums".

        Create an album, upload the pictures to that, then take the image link from the page for the uploaded picture.

        Comment

        Working...
        X