Let's do some lines!

[SphinxnihpS]

I could use photo manipulation to make images indistinguisable from real of children in sex acts with adults. Are these illegal? Should they be?

Discuss.

 

[Anubis]

us made all images of children having sex illigal like 2 years ago

should they be, IMO NO

 

[Random Variable]

WTF?!?

 

[Beev]

If they are indistinguishable then they are illegal. If they are clearly fake, such as in hentai etc, then it is legal.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Random Variable
WTF?!?

What's so hard about it? Answer the question.

 

[buck]

What the fuck?

 

[clamum]

lol que

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I could use photo manipulation to make images indistinguisable from real of children in sex acts with adults. Are these illegal? Should they be?

Discuss.

Any image fabricated by you and only you would not be illegal. AFAIK shooping kids faces on pr0n is grounds for federal v&.

edit: and by fabricated I mean you totally made the whole thing yourself. No base images.

also, you fail at sentence structure.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Beev
If they are indistinguishable then they are illegal. If they are clearly fake, such as in hentai etc, then it is legal.

actually we (the USA) made hentai illigal as well

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Anubis
actually we (the USA) made hentai illigal as well

They ain'ts never get my tentacle pr0n!

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I could use photo manipulation to make images indistinguisable from real of children in sex acts with adults. Are these illegal? Should they be?

Discuss.

Any image fabricated by you and only you would not be illegal. AFAIK shooping kids faces on pr0n is grounds for federal v&.

edit: and by fabricated I mean you totally made the whole thing yourself. No base images.

also, you fail at sentence structure.

I fail at sentence structure? Half of what you wrote isn't even complete thoughts much less sentences.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I could use photo manipulation to make images indistinguisable from real of children in sex acts with adults. Are these illegal? Should they be?

Discuss.

Any image fabricated by you and only you would not be illegal. AFAIK shooping kids faces on pr0n is grounds for federal v&.

edit: and by fabricated I mean you totally made the whole thing yourself. No base images.

also, you fail at sentence structure.

I fail at sentence structure? Half of what you wrote isn't even complete thoughts much less sentences.

No, see... that's win at sentence structure. Never having complete thoughts is a gift.

 

[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

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Anubis
us made all images of children having sex illigal like 2 years ago

should they be, IMO NO

Can you link to the legislation, please?

Why? What is the reasoning?

I am trying to start a philosophical debate, not defend child porn.

 

[Jeeebus]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Anubis
us made all images of children having sex illigal like 2 years ago

should they be, IMO NO

Can you link to the legislation, please?

Why? What is the reasoning?

I am trying to start a philosophical debate, not defend child porn.

start with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (you can google it). Person above is presenting much too simplistic an explanation on the issue (and therefore wrong).

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Anubis
us made all images of children having sex illigal like 2 years ago

should they be, IMO NO

Can you link to the legislation, please?

Why? What is the reasoning?

I am trying to start a philosophical debate, not defend child porn.

Philisophically speaking, any created 'art' would be legal, but anything with any sort of sexual tones would be illegal. Also, I think that if you have images that would normally not be illegal mixed in with porn, they count as being pornographic, and thusly illegal.

 

[Anubis]

this is in refrence to lolicon

this is a wiki link i dont recomend going form work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.[63] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."

On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law)[64] which again criminalizes all forms of pornography that shows people under the age of 18 regardless of production. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. § 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", which criminalizes material that has "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" (the third test of the Miller Test obscenity determination).

In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted[65] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[66] At the time of the violations, Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes, although the ensuing convictions were independent of his violation of the terms of the parole. He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children. [67] Later, U.S. Attorney's Bulletin, which was requested in November 2006 by the Freedom of Information Act, describes the repercussions of this conviction. It recommends that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions for possession of such obscene cartoons.

On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[68]

The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and was scheduled for October 30th 2007 on the 2007-2008 schedule.[4] The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case but has yet to issue a ruling.[69]

In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act.[70]

 

[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?

+

 

[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

 

[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.

+

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: Anubis
this is in refrence to lolicon

this is a wiki link i dont recomend going form work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.[63] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."

On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law)[64] which again criminalizes all forms of pornography that shows people under the age of 18 regardless of production. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. § 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", which criminalizes material that has "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" (the third test of the Miller Test obscenity determination).

In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted[65] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[66] At the time of the violations, Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes, although the ensuing convictions were independent of his violation of the terms of the parole. He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children. [67] Later, U.S. Attorney's Bulletin, which was requested in November 2006 by the Freedom of Information Act, describes the repercussions of this conviction. It recommends that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions for possession of such obscene cartoons.

On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[68]

The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and was scheduled for October 30th 2007 on the 2007-2008 schedule.[4] The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case but has yet to issue a ruling.[69]

In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act.[70]

I think the bolded part pretty much says that loli isn't illegal. At least loli alone isn't. Sounds like those other guys had the real deal as well.

 

[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

 

[Modeps]

So, have you been watching Law and Order SVU lately?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Modeps
So, have you been watching Law and Order SVU lately?

me? no, the chick annoys me too much

 

[SphinxnihpS]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

The US Supreme court invalidated CPPA.

The US Supreme court is expected to invalidate PROTECT.

So because of a few dipshits who equate images in which no one was hurt with images in which children were hurt, the entire law is going to go bye bye. Good Game!