[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / doomer / imouto / mde / tingles / xivlg / zoo ]

/loli/ - Lolis

Lolis are Love, Lolis are Life
Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Please visit /delicious/ for all your western needs | Direct your comments and complaints to the meta thread
Now streaming regularly on Sundays at 12pm ET. Join us on cytu.be!

File: 948f2daed2006d3⋯.png (340.97 KB, 677x517, 677:517, loli_laws.png)

304988  No.86468

This image is a few years old so anybody know if its outdated now or is it still fully relevant? Is there any updated versions floating around?

dc9507  No.86480

>>86468

I know that california is same, Canada is pretty much everything is illegal except maybe viewing online.


62a843  No.86481

>>86480

I live in Massachusetts. Don't know if it's still illegal here or not.


dc9507  No.86483

>>86481

I think viewing online in us is safe, just some states can jail you if u import shit or get caught looking in public


cb3aa4  No.86512

Fuck, Tennessee


1e6793  No.86549

There is no way lolicon is illegal, show me a single law that states that looking at a drawing can get me in troublr.


6253d7  No.86551


64e54b  No.86560

Those are the laws on the books, but in practice no one ever gets convicted solely for loli/shota.

Look at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

>2005 Virginia case

The 2005 case mentioned in >>86551 involves Dwight Whorley, who downloaded both real CP (14 pictures) and loli/shota (20 pictures) to a government-owned computer.

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2006-03-11/virginia-man-gets-20-years-for-anime-child-porn

He was the first person convicted for loli/shota under the PROTECT act, but that wasn't what he was solely convicted for. He was also a repeat offender with regards to real CP. He tried to appeal the conviction under the PROTECT act all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

>2008 Iowa case

The last case where someone was convicted solely of loli/shota was the 2008 Christopher Handley case. A U.S. district court ruled the relevant parts of the PROTECT act were unconstitutional, but still hit Handley with an obscenity charge. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) was defending Handley, but he was worried a jury might not acquit, and he faced a maximum 15-year sentence. So he took a plea bargain for 6 months, and the case never went to Supreme Court.

>2010 Idaho case

The guy had real CP in addition to loli/shota, and took a plea deal for 15 months. He admitted that he had knowingly received real CP for at least eight years.

http://cbldf.org/2010/11/link-analysis-of-steve-kutzner-protect-act-case/

>2011 Maine case

The guy had real CP in addition to loli/shota. He was charged for both, but the loli/shota charges were later dropped at both the state and federal level.

>2012 Missouri case

The guy had real CP in addition to loli/shota, and took a plea deal. Part of the negotiations of that deal were that the real CP charges be dropped, and that he be charged solely for loli/shota.

>2016 Michigan cases

Two inmates in prison, one was caught producing 10 hand-drawn images and 16 written stories, the other caught possessing some of those stories. Both were already in prison for sexual abuse and assault of real children. Both accepted plea deals, the first got 7 years added to his sentence, the second had 2 years added. The first inmate went later to appeals court, and the appeals court upheld the state conviction. The inmate didn't try appealing to the Supreme Court.

TL;DR: Stick to 2D, and you won't have any legal issues. In the absolute worst case you'll be hit with an obscenity charge, but even if you are, contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, because they will defend you for free.


a4e051  No.86562

>>86551

>Japanese cartoons, named Anime

First Anime is in no way a cartoon, second does that means USA cartoons are still legal?


64e54b  No.86565

>>86562

If you look at the 2010 Idaho case listed in >>86560, the guy was charged for Simpsons porn.


dc9507  No.86568

>>86565

don't know if that's the guy but someone went to supreme Court after being found guilty and it found that it violates first ammendment and so they overturned it, so I think now it's up to the states to actually infore this stuff


76d745  No.86609

File: 462618310e31bb9⋯.jpg (98.78 KB, 1024x979, 1024:979, Dan_Harmon_(14790686643).jpg)

Just a heads up, this James Gunn and Dan Harmon shit is probably going to end up with loli getting banned from 8chan and likely cracked down on in the US in general if it keeps up.


9e7d8d  No.86610

>>86609

That's retarded, 2D has nothing to do with it. Are you one of the /co/ tumblrfags trying to shit up the other boards because you want your soy sauce cartoons so bad you don't care about pedowood?


5cd628  No.86611

File: bc1e70425e73e1c⋯.jpg (44.88 KB, 359x391, 359:391, 1503242601550.jpg)

>along the entire west coast it's pretty much legal

>in Canada it's legal in BC, Manitoba and Ontario


d80467  No.86654

>>86611

It's completely illegal everywhere in Canada. That image is wrong and could get someone in pretty big shit if they take it seriously.


613e49  No.86659

File: 5e004d31cded838⋯.png (4.71 KB, 600x400, 3:2, texas-flag.png)

Anything going on with Texas? I won't be surprised if it's still a problem.


37da53  No.86660

File: c8103fb40d07a63⋯.jpg (515.41 KB, 2000x1501, 2000:1501, Lolicon Canada.jpg)


a560ee  No.86661

>>86468

How about laws for the other continental regions? I know Australia is supposed to be super restricted against loli materials, and iirc the same applies to the UK (perhaps to a lesser extent). Any foreigners have insight on the matter? Also, what about central and South American territories?


87db9b  No.86672

File: 4e800fe5881afef⋯.jpg (71.18 KB, 600x670, 60:67, sweaty.jpg)

>tfw jerking it to loli in a red zone

Makes those faps all the more satisfying.


d82fa3  No.86824

File: 2893df21ef337d3⋯.jpeg (442.78 KB, 1000x1100, 10:11, 14234ee3253f8ea4c064a305f….jpeg)

>>86672

You are a hero anon


4aca55  No.86832

File: f1bc5992952c9f7⋯.jpg (117.43 KB, 467x700, 467:700, Native_Creator_s_Collectio….jpg)

>>86661

Chilean here

I buy a lot of loli doujin and figurines (even explicit ones like bath loli) and loli onaholes.

They never get caught by customs but once they search my package with a loli figurine (photo) and they charge me with custom fees (because the price) but nothing more

That said, its not like Spain when they have laws against simulated and drawn cp, but "japanese like"draws, even explicit lolicon are protected as free speech.

Chile is safe for lolis, but with all this new feminist anglo-western swj bullshit here they are in danger

Váyanse de mi pais gringos e ingleses reculiaos no queremos su moral aquí.


e4d979  No.86833

>>86661

Argie here. In this country a group of feminist politicians wanted to present a bill that banned lolicon, failed because as in Chile, is protected as free speech. So, i can bet that the lolicon will be legal for at least 10 more years.


d66ee7  No.86836

oh for fuck sakes, they are just drawings! they mean nothing! they are nothing! less then nothing! don't ban something that's less then nothing!


92592b  No.87049

Out of curiosity. How would these laws affect furry loli/shota content?

I know I'm kind of in the wrong board, but its mostly on topic.


cda8ca  No.87081

>>86836

They will constantly try to pass laws to ban lolicon and even fleshlights that are deemed 'too tight'. That's how they can say 'we're fighting against sexual abuse of children' without pissing off pedowood or the Deer group.


f6ccee  No.87094

>>86661

We didn't have a law against CP in Bolivia much less against 2D.


48a1a3  No.87440

This "guide" is wrong, and probably was NEVER accurate.

Loli is ILLEGAL under NATIONAL law in Canada, not provincial, though how tight they are on it probably varies.

It is LEGAL in the US, unless prosecuted under local obscenity laws.

The US Supreme Court found that it is protected under freedom of expression, but since local statutes on obscenity have been found to be valid, it could be prosecuted if defined as such.


909f96  No.87449

>>87440

canadians must be jealous of Americans for this, sad for them


580f01  No.87450

>>87449

Pretty sure they look at it anyway just like people in the states.


909f96  No.87476

>>87450

americans can import loli martirials into US without getting busted


909f96  No.87477

>>87476

>martirials

materials*


909f96  No.87478

>>87476

yea americans can bring loli into US customs with no trouble also if someone snitched you out for loli in canada ur screwed but in america ur not


580f01  No.87483

>>87476

unless you want a sex doll, those you can't have anymore.


82518c  No.87493

>>86659

Don't think so.

obsenity: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-23.html

>(h) The punishment for an offense under Subsection (a) or (c) is increased to the punishment for a felony of the second degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that obscene material that is the subject of the offense visually depicts activities described by Section 43.21(a)(1)(B) engaged in by:

>(1) a child younger than 18 years of age at the time the image of the child was made;

>(2) an image that to a reasonable person would be virtually indistinguishable from the image of a child younger than 18 years of age;  or

>(3) an image created, adapted, or modified to be the image of an identifiable child.

>(i) In this section, “identifiable child” means a person, recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature:

>(1) who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified;  or

>(2) whose image as a person younger than 18 years of age was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction.

So drawings or 3d modelings of real children, as well as porn based off of real CP, would be illegal.

Sexual Performance by a Child: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-25.html

Here they don't specify that it has to be an “identifiable child”, but I think it's strongly implied that it must be a real child.

>(b) A person commits an offense if, knowing the character and content thereof, he employs, authorizes, or induces a child younger than 18 years of age to engage in sexual conduct or a sexual performance.  A parent or legal guardian or custodian of a child younger than 18 years of age commits an offense if he consents to the participation by the child in a sexual performance.

>(g) When it becomes necessary for the purposes of this section or Section 43.26 to determine whether a child who participated in sexual conduct was younger than 18 years of age, the court or jury may make this determination by any of the following methods:

>(1) personal inspection of the child;

>(2) inspection of the photograph or motion picture that shows the child engaging in the sexual performance;

>(3) oral testimony by a witness to the sexual performance as to the age of the child based on the child's appearance at the time;

>(4) expert medical testimony based on the appearance of the child engaging in the sexual performance;  or

>(5) any other method authorized by law or by the rules of evidence at common law.

If anyone else is curious about their state, try checking their states laws related to obscenity and pornography. I'd also look at past cases to see if any one has been charged with CP or obscenity charges and it involved fictional children. Post your findings here too for other anons.


df9dfa  No.87496

>>86661

It's pretty strict in the UK.

At least one person has been sent to prison for possession of loli doujins. I believe things like loli sex dolls would be illegal too.

Fortunately the police don't have much funding at the moment, which presumably limits their ability to investigate these things.


82518c  No.87529

>>87525

The parts of the protect act that criminalized lolicon were ruled unconstitutional in the 2008 Iowa case involving Christopher Handley. The guy still got obscenity charges though. See >>86560


4caa2e  No.87532

>>87529

Even if you win in criminal court, you will still be charged as guilty in the court of public opinion. People still send death threats to Zimmerman (of Flimflam Zimzam fame) after all.

Westerners simply go absolutely apeshit and stop thinking logically the second anyone goes OH GOD WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Nobody is going to stick their neck out for the so-called "pedo" lest they be tarred with the same brush.


7e16e7  No.87533

>>87532

>Nobody is going to stick their neck out for the so-called "pedo" lest they be tarred with the same brush.

Perhaps it's time somebody did. Somebody with nothing left to lose, who is willing to risk everything, sacrifice everything, for the hope of a golden future. Hope springs eternal.


15b79c  No.87538

>>87525

PROTECT Act still requires a finding on obscenity, which can only be defined locally.

Obscenity is weird and inconsistent, as any law based solely on nebulous standards like "community standards", "offensiveness", and "value" would be. It turns not only the First Amendment upside down but also various other parts of the Constitution, including the Supremacy Clause.

Even if an obscenity law is federal and its provisions defines what can be specifically applied to it, the definition of obscenity is based on local standards, which aren't entirely arbitrary. They're determined based on what the laws of the state would classify as "obscene" or be defined as "obscene" and are also limited by such definitions.

Many states have obscenity laws that are only applicable to the public or require some direct involvement with actual minors or non consenting adults, as well as certain acts that can only be defined as obscene, or simply do not have any relevant parts whatsoever, and are simply "explicit sexual conduct" and include provisions against sending it to minors. These are the states that loli, as well as any kind of pornography (except CP), are legal.

This, in theory, would go against the idea of the Supremacy clause. But during that time, SCOTUS has been vehement in what they define, and it seems that keeping everything local is what they wanted.

But it has yet to be seen whether even those aspects are entirely arbitrary, due to the fact that most obscenity prosecutions are dropped.

Personally I think this shit needs to be overturned. The only limits obscene materials should have are the ones for just about any other kind of sexually explicit speech, time and place. If a man wants to watch a BDSM gimp eat feces and cum out of a prolapsed anus, let him. If a man wants to read/import loli doujins, let him. The community in which you live should not decide what you can read, watch, think or say, especially if it's not causing any kind of actual harm. It's why I got so upset when Anthony Kennedy stepped down.

Also Handley got parts of the law ruled unconstitutional as applied to virtual, fictitious depictions that were clearly not real children.


2086fd  No.87574

What about furry loli/shota?


4caa2e  No.87578

>>87533

What can one man do? You can offer yourself up as a test case - it's true that there have been no 'pure' loli convictions (Handley took a plea deal and wasn't actually convicted of anything), there's always been a gotcha to the previous cases: previous sexual-related convictions, real CP also being found, etc;

But this means nothing unless you make it to the Supreme Court and win which seems highly unlikely - the prosecutor will probably just drop the charges once it becomes clear that you aren't going to accept a plea deal and become just another +1 on the prosecutor's "number of evil pedos I've put behind bars" statistic he can put on his next re-election advertisements.

>>87538

Court rulings only set a precedent within that court and the lower courts it has authority over. So the full provisions of the PROTECT Act still apply to everywhere except 47 counties in southern Ohio. And as I'm sure you know, the 10th Amendment has been little more than a suggestion to the overbearing "EVERYTHING is interstate commerce so we fucking own you, faggot" federal government since practically day 1.


6c65ca  No.87705

>>87476

>>87483

Americans can't have loli like sex dolls anymore?


7e16e7  No.87710

>>87578

>What can one man do?

Fight.


580f01  No.87711

>>87705

Nope, its a recent thing too.


4caa2e  No.87719

>>87710

Of course, but I mean in concrete terms of actual specific actions.


d64976  No.87721

>>87711

I wouldn't say that. If you go and read Congress' findings on the issue and analyze the actual sustainability of the arguments presented, it's quite clear that the CREEPER Act is unconstitutional. I mean, for fucks sake the GOP Congressman who brought it up used a fucking change.org petition with 200,000 petition to say that "the American people want this", but that's not even the most retarded thing this asshole said.

The findings are based on presumption, loose correlations and invalid statistics with absolutely no proper evidence to back them. What evidence they offer up is not absolute, and even if you examine them they explicitly assert that even if a correlation between ownership of child sex dolls and crimes against actual children could be established, it would not be enough to justify broad criminalization of these dolls.

My interest in this issue stems from the sheer irrationality behind this. They're dolls. They don't harm anybody. The slippery slope/gateway drug mentality is so strong here that I would be doing society a disservice by supporting this legislation.

I'm hoping it doesn't pass. The House didn't actually have a proper vote on it, the speaker simply moved to 'suspend the rules' so they could pass it, and nobody objected. It wasn't given the proper amount of scrutiny these types of issues are entitled to, and the Senate will hopefully have a proper examination of this faulty piece of legislation and perhaps one of these tools will speak out against it, and, by chance persuade their fellow Senators to reject it.

Another part of me hopes it passes so SCOTUS may revisit the issue of obscenity and these kinds of issues. I know that at least 4 of them see current obscenity jurisprudence as overbroad.

I can say this much, if it passes there WILL be a lawsuit.


580f01  No.87723

>>87721

Hey, I'm there with you for the most part, but if you think the government gives a shit about its people I have some bad news for you man.


82518c  No.87956

>>87574

Considering how much furry porn involves humans, I think they might treat furries as fictional representations of humans. If an anthro adult fucking a human loli would be considered illegal, I don't think the reverse would be considered legal. And they would probably treat cub porn as illegal too. There's also always the obscenity angle they could push, as well as the bestiality angle if they really wanted to get someone.

There might be past cases involving this. Furry boards might also have a better answer.


c8a095  No.88514

>>86562

>First Anime is in no way a cartoon

… interesting theory.


203483  No.88515

>>88514

the defensiveness over the word cartoon has always been confusing to me as well. as far as the japanese our concerned all our cartoons are anime.


84f12e  No.88517

so is lolicon legal in us, yes o no and why?


44d34a  No.88525

>>88517

Overall, it's a huge grey area.. I've seen cases that are either dropped or only use loli as probable cause to investigate somebody for actual abuse material.

Lolicon is by default protected speech, but it can be prosecuted under "obscenity".

Obscenity prosecutions are rare, but still happen and are usually confined to conservative districts where they just want to legally prosecute people for thought crimes.

Basically, if your state has obscenity laws that define sexual conduct then federal prosecutions for distributing/receiving loli (or porn as a whole) don't happen unless they also have actual CSA materials. When judges or prosecutors go to look at "community standards" they often look at what state laws say are, or can be "obscene". Many states either flat out repealed their obscenity laws or their definitions are simply not compatible with any kind of "harmless" prosecution. These states are considered "safe zones". (Oregon, California, Washington, Maine, Alaska).

Blame republicans/social conservative bible thumping politicians and the Burger Court. Miller v California must and will be overturned soon.


84c88c  No.88539

File: ff321d6314c59db⋯.jpeg (630.37 KB, 1192x1797, 1192:1797, 6FAF7DFC-753A-40AD-A5DA-0….jpeg)

File: c80274b351da204⋯.jpeg (545.68 KB, 1424x894, 712:447, CD2E25ED-B741-4E53-B0C8-3….jpeg)

File: 6bf08ace3515f8a⋯.png (363.23 KB, 632x410, 316:205, 22C7F904-C2DA-4D14-A171-86….png)

Anons here been following #loligate on Gab? Some right-SJWs found out that loli exists (it’s always been permitted on Gab), and got Andrew Torba @a to ban a handful of people posting 18+ drawings of 18- girls. Called us “demons”. Bickering about the legal status of loli in the US ensued, along with accusations of abandoning devotion to freedom of expression and promises to kill anyone who likes loli on DOTR.

Torba was posting emotionally and dismissing all free speech arguments, but he’s no fool, and most of the loli posters are still there. I think he wanted to strike a balance by getting a few scalps to show boomer posters who have never seen a loli, without driving the significant and pro-loli anime community off the site. Weird though he didn’t even delete the FCS (Flat Chest Society) group, which has a loli sucking censored dick as the banner. https://gab.ai/groups/d7d92e78-11f0-4b1a-ba44-378947a6c9d6


4191f3  No.88540

>>88539

Haven't heard about it and never been there before. The fact that he lumps fictional drawings and photos of actual kids into the same group says more than enough.


33b30d  No.88544

>>88539

Let the boomers burn in their tiny echo chamber, gab is destined to die anyway.

It's extremely funny how they call us sick monsters while pretty much saying we should be executed for liking cartoons they dislike.

Seems like conservatives are much worse than leftists.


cba578  No.88575

>>88539

>dude can't tell the difference between fiction and reality

Retard.


2992f1  No.88577

File: 8dcf0b802d11c83⋯.png (6.33 KB, 244x118, 122:59, Screenshot_2018-10-17_12-5….png)

Any one know if minds.com allows loli?


8acee2  No.88586

File: 9487421947425fc⋯.png (47.93 KB, 584x311, 584:311, Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at ….png)

>>88539

Yet he posted this just a little bit ago..


3a9c1f  No.88590

Hello, anyone know about North Carolina's feelings on loli specifically?


e6cda7  No.88592

>>88517

The way I see it, laws regarding loli are a lot like open container laws (for anyone who might not know what open container laws are, they say you can't have an open container of alcohol in a car your driving.) Generally speaking, no ones going to kick down your door for watching Chinese cartoons featuring a suspiciously young japanese school girl, but if your already doing something stupid and getting your hdd's confiscated and investigated its another thing they can try and hit you with.


33b30d  No.88594

>>88577

No, the exact same situation as with gab happened in minds 2 years ago


b598c3  No.88595

>>88586

Wow, it's almost like leftists are masters of doublethink! If only somebody named Orwell could have warned us about this!


82518c  No.88605

>>88590

https://www2.ncleg.net/Laws/GeneralStatuteSections/Chapter14

Look under section 190. Especially at the definitions page.

>(2) Material. - Pictures, drawings, video recordings, films or other visual depictions or representations but not material consisting entirely of written words.

>(3) Minor. - An individual who is less than 18 years old and is not married or judicially emancipated.

When I searched for "fictional", "fiction" or "imaginary", I didn't find anything, so I don't think it's specified whether "minor" refers only to real minors. You should probably look for past cases to see if and how judges have treated lolicon in the state. While I would interpret "individual" as pertaining to a real real person, I'm not a lawyer so I would be cautious.

I would also be wary of their obscenity laws


fc873d  No.88627

>>86609

Explain?


3e5435  No.88629

>>88627

its been almost 3 months I think its safe to say hes wrong.


6d6cd9  No.88640

Where could i buy comic lo in japan?


7a266a  No.88643

>>87710

>Fight.

Okay, so you want to be known as the "guy that got caught with cartoon child porn" in the the family/neighborhood. Alrighty then.

>>86660

send this to the the Canadian gov or directly to treudoux for the lulz

>>86562

Ok boi 👌. Try to convince the judge that it's not a cartoon, it's "annie-may", good luck with that buddy.

Incase your retarded ass doesn't know, there is a saying amongst lawyers, specifically prosecutors, that if you really want you can even indicte a ham sandwich. If you have a particularly hard ass prosecutor in your area you are buttfucked


8d34b4  No.88645

>>88640

Amazon.jp for digital versions, your local Animate for physical


6d6cd9  No.88648

>>88645

Animate it is then, hope there s o e in hiroshima.

Thanks


708197  No.88683

>>88645

Thanks to you, i bought so many doujin and loli tank, i can't close it.

And my dick hurt now!

It's all your fauuuuult!

Thanks


aac35f  No.88686

i know here might not be the best places to ask this

but i want to buy a sex-doll (a loli-one if possible) at some point in my life, but i don't know where i can get one

does anyone know?


533b49  No.88689

>>88686

I'm gonna get one from here at some point. if u get one before i do, post results pls

https://catdoll.shop/index.php?route=common/home

this is the one i want:

https://catdoll.shop/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=76


cc64e6  No.88692

>>87440

Worth noting that courts have recognized the right to privacy in one's home as overriding the obscenity statutes: https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/a-federal-judge-dismisses-an-obscenity-prosecution-on-privacy-grounds.html

Unfortunately, in that case, the DoJ appealed, they won the appeal, and they eventually just plead guilty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Extreme_Associates,_Inc.#Appeal_by_the_Department_of_Justice

Note that the "Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use or other transmission of obscenity. However, it has ruled unconstitutional the passing of law concerning personal possession of obscenity per se." Other notable cases finding obscenity law unconstitutional in the USA (which it objectively is, the 1st Amendment is absolute in its text and I am definitely a 1A absolutist):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Henry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

And the biggest case that makes lolicon works generally legal in the USA yet no one mentioned here yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition


5e0ac8  No.88808

>>86609

thanks Christianity and right wing memes. You ruin fucking everything and blame it on the jews


e705db  No.89036

>>88575

I'll definitely not post loli on minds, but what about pixiv, there's usually tons of loli stuff on that art site.


869061  No.89040

File: 62403b9d65fee0c⋯.jpg (711.45 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 68460050_p4_master1200.jpg)

File: 9d495f69c520b5e⋯.jpg (724.25 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 68460050_p5_master1200.jpg)

File: e03b07cf923dfef⋯.jpg (701.74 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 68460050_p6_master1200.jpg)

File: fc6c494e03e99c1⋯.jpg (784.53 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 68460050_p7_master1200.jpg)

>>89036

I found this shit and a lot more of the colors from Pixiv and this artist does loli shit.

I'd say pixiv is pretty damn safe for loli


be3978  No.89992

>>86468

My state, PA, is green. What are the exceptions here? I had thought it was completely legal in the whole country because of the constitution.


b44072  No.89996

so loli is fine in Vermont but not in new Hampshire? the hell sense dose that make?


82518c  No.90028

>>89996

>>89992

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. I think it is fine in all three states, but obscenity is always a risk.

This is the law for Pennsylvania. Go to section 6312.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18

The 2004 case Commonwealth v Davidson asserts that the law requires a real child rather than a computer generated images. In paragraph 28

>In this case, the trial court interpreted 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(d)(1) to require any computer depiction of child pornography to involve a real child rather than a computer-generated image. This is consistent with the plain language of the statute, which reads: “Any person who knowingly possesses or controls any book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act commits an offense.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6312(d)(1) (emphasis added). The trial court stated: “By definition, a ‘child under the age of 18 years’ refers to an actual child,” and not a computer-generated image. Trial Court Opinion, 12/30/03, at 14. The trial court concluded that nowhere does the statute purport to make it a crime to possess a computer-generated image of a child engaged in prohibited sexual acts. Thus, if a defendant can create reasonable doubt as to whether the images for which he is being prosecuted are computer-generated images rather than real children, then an acquittal would be warranted. Id.

https://cases.justia.com/pennsylvania/superior-court/a36044_06.pdf

For New Hampshire, the law is here

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXII-649-A.htm

You might want to look at sections 649-B and 650 here

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXII.htm

Peterson v Clark is states that CP not involving a real child is protected under free speech.

https://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2008/clark115.pdf

>Consistent with Ashcroft, we have stated that child pornography must depict an actual child in order for its possession to fall outside the protections of the New Hampshire Constitution and within the confines of prohibited conduct under RSA 649-A:3

Vermont just straight up says drawings are a-ok in the law.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/chapter/13/064

In section 2827

(a) No person shall, with knowledge of the character and content, possess any photograph, film, or visual depiction, including any depiction which is stored electronically, of sexual conduct by a child or of a clearly lewd exhibition of a child's genitals or anus.

(b) This section does not apply:
. . . .
(3) to paintings, drawings, or nonvisual or written descriptions of sexual conduct.
Unfortunately I cannot find a court case in Vermont confirming that child refers to a real person. Or that computer generated images are considered fine.

Furthermore, the way it’s phrased implies that drawing child pornography of real children is okay, which is strange .

If you are interested in your own state, go to the legislative part of state government and look for a section dealing with child pornography. Check the definitions to see if they specify whether virtual depictions are considered child pornography. If it's vague, you can look up a court case in the judiciary website of your state government. And search for keywords such as virtual and pornography.

I honestly think we need an updated and more detailed map of this. Or a ghostbin going through each state, linking to sections in the law and relevant court cases.


8fd285  No.90046

Pretty sure lolis are not legal anywhere in Canada and are prohibited by the criminal code of Canada but I am not a lawyer.


d4f8a0  No.90054

File: 25a603318c0cc71⋯.png (513.25 KB, 800x1083, 800:1083, 1513030018115.png)

Any concrete information on how it is in New Zealand? I don't remember anyone getting done for it recently.


d1d126  No.90058

>>90054

It's illegal. Anything that the british touched once hates lolis.


39e414  No.90082

Does anyone have information about Maryland? I'm having a lot of trouble finding information about it.


298da2  No.90089

File: 30846ae6d05acdd⋯.jpg (36.58 KB, 750x709, 750:709, assad keks.jpg)

>>88808

I am lolin' hard. You'd look like less of a retard if you read some goddamn books.


ee932f  No.90092

>>90058

Well duh, God forbid those who had once been British soil to love fictional children, they love diddling real ones much more, after all.


82518c  No.90095

>>90082

If you go to the website http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutes.aspx?pid=statpage&tab=subject5, you should be able to find it under criminal law, chapter 11, subtitle 2 - 11-208.

(a) Prohibited. -- A person may not knowingly possess and intentionally retain a film, videotape, photograph, or other visual representation showing an actual child under the age of 16 years:
(1) engaged as a subject of sadomasochistic abuse;
(2) engaged in sexual conduct; or
(3) in a state of sexual excitement.
Since they say actual child, possession of lolicon seems to be fine. 11-207 describes producing, selling, distributing and buying cp, and while they don’t specify “actual child” like in the last one I think drawing loli is still fine. I’ll post what it says here though.
(a) Prohibited. -- A person may not:

(3) use a computer to depict or describe a minor engaging in an obscene act, sadomasochistic abuse, or sexual conduct;
(4) knowingly promote, advertise, solicit, distribute, or possess with the intent to distribute any matter, visual representation, or performance:
(i) that depicts a minor engaged as a subject in sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct; or
(ii) in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the matter, visual representation, or performance depicts a minor engaged as a subject of sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct; or
The site isn’t https friendly and hard to navigate, so here’s where I first found it.

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2017/criminal-law/title-11/subtitle-2/section-11-208/

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2017/criminal-law/title-11/subtitle-2/section-11-207/

Also you shouldn’t import any obscene material into the state based off of 11-202.


39e414  No.90104

>>90095

Maryland anon here.

Thanks a lot!!!! So basically it looks like Marylanders are relatively safe with just looking at the stuff online, but can't import anything physical like dakis, manga, games, or dolls until they get motivated enough to move to a better state.

Drawing is a little bit more iffy but would still probably be legal. The trick is it just says "minor", which probably excludes fictional minors, but probably depends on the judge.

I know it would definitely be safer in a state where it's just explicitly allowed to have fictional representations. Basically Marylanders don't have to drop everything and move to a different state, but should probably start thinking in the long term.

Where does everyone want to move if they currently live in a state where it's not all completely legal? I'm thinking of Seattle personally.


4cfeda  No.90110

>>90089

If you’re not lolin’ hard you’re lolin’ wrong.

Try /delicious/ maybe?


cd3653  No.90128

>>87440

Have you keep in with the bullshit on Discord!?


229cc6  No.90133

>>90128

Discord is being investigated because of child grooming and stuff, nothing related to lolis. The FBI really gives no fucks about 2d.


b3b2d4  No.90141

>>90104

Seattle is great aside from the fact that getting near a little girl could actually kill you, thanks to her anti-vaxer parents. But the drawn ones there should be relatively harmless.


cd3653  No.90165

>>90133

but discord sure does, they are sjws after all, but they are also furries so cubs are (or were i am not sure) OK!?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / doomer / imouto / mde / tingles / xivlg / zoo ]