/phile/ - For those who think young.

Entirely legal. 2D is absolutely legal in the USA.

but if you do it in canada you'll get v& and r8pt

>>2668

I fucking hate Canadia so much. They're like all the worst of the far Right and the far Left.

>>2669

Canada = Cold Australia

>>2652

Actually, it's not. Pretty much everything is illegal in the "land of the free." 2d content, including "loli" is considered obscene and therefore illegal in America. And yes, I'm American.

>>2720

Although it's not enforced anywhere near as much as the real deal, but technically if you were raided and the only thing the could find is 2d loli, they would probably v& you.

>>2721

It's somewhat gay area, but in actuality, the Supreme Court declared it legal, and anyone with a competent lawyer would get off easily if someone tried to charge him for having loli shit.

>>2720

Obscenity laws only apply if you're in public. It's just as illegal as playing any other porn game in public, except everyone is going to hate you more than usual for it.

Depends on the state

>>2722

The supreme court did NOT declare "it" illegal.

The supreme court ruled "art", as being legal, as it also declared "non-sexual nudity" to be legal.

asstr.org and nudist websites with children are two "Protected" sites under the US Constitution and the Supreme Court, as are sites like this and double-chan.

The game contains only "obvious fictitious art and situations", which, "were intended to portray, in humor through parody, a comical situation".

It is clear that the art is not realistic in any way, and is a valid form of "freedom of speech".

However, that being said… Each state, within the US, does have its own set of laws, which MAY conflict with the national stance of law. Just because it is NOT illegal on a "federal level", does not translate into "local legal laws". Each state can have laws against the national laws or in opposition to national laws.

EG… The government will not be banging on your door (FBI/CIA/DOJ), but the "Local police" may still come and take you away, or use that as an excuse to look for "something-else", on your property… (Provided they somehow know that you are in possession of the contents.)

After all, it says it is a virus, which is a good defense as to why you "didn't voluntarily download and run it." But that won't matter when they find the photos of 40-year-olds fucking 4-year-olds on your computer.

>>3861

To clarify… "art", was described as "handcrafted portrayals", not taking a photo of a kid having sex and calling that "art"…

The laws of nudity cover those "photographs", as "captured portrayals of life", being digital or with photo-paper (film). Those "art pieces", are NOT counted as art, but as real nudity, and covered under the nudity laws. (If you can do it in public with a minor, nude… then you can photograph/capture those moments. Sex, can NOT be done in public with a minor.)

>>3861

>The supreme court did NOT declare "it" illegal.

The other anon you replied to didn't say they DID declare it illegal. You might need to get new glasses.

Other anons comment "the Supreme Court declared it legal"

>>3864

They didn't declare it legal… or illegal, it was already clarified and didn't need "declarations".

I was extending on his/her answer.

>>3890

They didn't all get together and vote, "Unterbachen"… Vote… All in favor… Say "I"…

US law is absurdly vague on this. You cannot know if a piece of art is illegal until that piece of art specifically goes to court, because the law on what constitutes obscenity is "I know it when I see it".