Let's do some lines!

[OUCaptain]

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

That's left up to opinion though. Who's the ultimate authority who says if a rendering of a fictional person "looks" underage? I say she looks 18, you say she looks 16.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: OUCaptain

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

That's left up to opinion though. Who's the ultimate authority who says if a rendering of a fictional person "looks" underage? I say she looks 18, you say she looks 16.

the courts obviously

just read the info that was posted, it seems the law will be overturned

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Anubis

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.

+

because our court system has become a total joke

sadly this is so true. The Federal government has gotten so much more power than it should have as detailed in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court does nothing. They have to power to do a lot, but they don't use that power (because they all probably feel the same as the rest of the Federal government).

thankfully it sounds like it may just be overturned this year. While I question the current interpretation of the First Amendment, they need to apply how they currently interpret it equally across the board, not selectively. The precedent has been set, and if art is classified as free speech, then this is a completely unconstitutional law and the Supreme Court has failed the nation, and failed at doing the job it was created to do (the whole checks and balances system). It's what makes this country so damned good, but everyone in the government needs to be on the same page in watching out for each other and for the country.

+

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Anubis

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.

+

because our court system has become a total joke

sadly this is so true. The Federal government has gotten so much more power than it should have as detailed in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court does nothing. They have to power to do a lot, but they don't use that power (because they all probably feel the same as the rest of the Federal government).

thankfully it sounds like it may just be overturned this year. While I question the current interpretation of the First Amendment, they need to apply how they currently interpret it equally across the board, not selectively. The precedent has been set, and if art is classified as free speech, then this is a completely unconstitutional law and the Supreme Court has failed the nation, and failed at doing the job it was created to do (the whole checks and balances system). It's what makes this country so damned good, but everyone in the government needs to be on the same page in watching out for each other and for the country.

+

The government is of the people for the people by the people. Where does the culpability lie?