Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Originally posted by: Anubis
actually we (the USA) made hentai illigal as well
They ain'ts never get my tentacle pr0n!
actually i should clairify, they made all Loli illigal, normal tent porn is fine, but if it involves people who look underage its illegal
your confusing me. Lolita porn is the dressing up of real and legal girls to look like younger. how would that be illegal?
and hentai is cartoon porn. how can a drawing be classified as illegal? Isn't that crossing some legal boundaries?
+
no im not confusing anthing
just look at the link i posted
i didn't say you confusing anything, you were confusing me.

but your link has unconfused me, but also has upset me...
How the fuck was the PROTECT Act passed when a year prior the Supreme Court declared that making simulated/art child porn illegal was unconstitutional! Now, I could care less about the actual porn and what is depicted, but I'm looking at this from a Constitution viewpoint.... they have no right to make art, no matter what is depicted, as illegal. At least, under the current understanding of the First Amendment. Now, it only says free speech and I am curious if the original definition meant speech only and no other form of communication. I am led to believe that may just be the case. However, current interpretations basically define it as a freedom of expression, an ability to use any format to 'say' what you want. Art porn, since it is not real, and no real people were used in the sexual acts depicted, should be protected. As controversial as the drawings may be, plenty of other controversial art pieces have been made and distributed well before hentai appeared on the scene.
+