Re: Little Sister Becky Gets Tied Up.
Care to argue further, douchebag?
Why yes! But not in this thread. Here I'll just respond to these:
Photos of 13 year olds arent loli but we dont have them either. If smeomevwants this tjey will have to get it directly from douche as we arent hostimg or linkimg to it
Well of course. Photos of 13yr olds that aren't sexual have no relevance to the forum; loli does. Photos of 13yr olds that are sexual have a totally separate law for their ban-ment.
The UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography has perhaps the widest definition when it talks about any representation “by whatever means” of a sexual representation of a child. This could conceivably include non-visual depictions, for example text or audio files.
Now
there's a bitch. Thankfully, however, the US has not actually ratified The UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children. It created a good deal of it, but doesn't
actually follow any of it. Further, I believe this is not, in fact, an actual ‘law’ as such, but more a law to the nations themselves; "if you agree to this, you have to try and make laws to do these"; not “this is something you can charge your citizens on”. But I’m not sure on that last bit.
Any other form of sexually oriented material, such as sexually explicit text, should be analyzed under the Miller test to determine if it is obscene or merely indecent. This is the case even if the nonvisual material describers children engaging in sexual conduct. The reasoning behind this is that taking photographic images of children engaging in sexual conduct harms the children who participate in the activity, whereas with textual descriptions of children and sex there are no participants to be harmed
The Miller test gets done for everything. If someone found my
body odour obscene and a court agreed I'd end up getting jail time for it. ...Alright, that's not totally true, as it has to be sexual, but if we're going to be worried about
that one most of the hentai we've got would end up classified obscene in court.
It is found to be the opinion of most people that it IS legal, though most people use the flawed "freedom of speech logic" like "well for the same reason it's not illegal to write about murder, rape, and drugs, its not illegal to write about child porn" which is dumb because it's not illegal to view images of murder, rape, and drugs either, but child porn is.
To be technically correct, the main reason it's legal is simply because the anti-loli laws don't cover it. The reason as to
why they don't cover it, though, is probably because of people finding the banning of text an unethical thing to do, yes. What I just said sounds frivolous, but it’s important to make a distinction between what people think about why it’s legal and the actual reason that it is legal.
"Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, and the law is clear on that... This is extremely egregious and is as patently offensive as material possibly could be. I cannot imagine material more offensive than the material in the case of Karen Fletcher."
This judgment on the writing is based in a different law entirely (that damn Miller test again), and doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the writing was loli, only that it was sexual. In this instance, it was also BDSM, which is ironically what is present in the story above.
It seemed like there were two different people writing this because at some points the descriptions and dialogue were great. Then at other times, it got really juvenile.
Oy, man, tell me about it. I’m actually sorry I put people though that. ^^; It was pretty promising at points, and even at times seemed to be able to reasonably portray actual human reasoning, but most of the time it was just… not good at all.
