WTF is not4chan.org?

as title, why is there only loli and shota crap there?
isn't loli andshota illegal in US? how come such site is open?

gtfo you sick pedo we dont wanna hear about ur sick fetishes here fag, go knife yourself in the face

Animated child pornography is perfectly legal in the US. It is just not socially acceptable.

I'm actually glad it's not socially accepted too.

If you don't like lolicon you are suffering from some kind of sexual dysfunction. I suggest seeking help immediatly

>>5
I am a psychologist, and I agree with this statement.

Not4chan.org was created when 4chan had to drop the loli boards so they could use donation services.

That's why it's called 'Not4chan'. They're even operated in the same server room. Just on different servers.

Anyone who remembers 4chan's early days knows this.

lurk moar

>>7

o I forgot not4chan is ran by another person, Saber. They also have a different team of staff.

I thought the servers were in Mexico because lolicon is illegal in the US.
And if I'm not mistaken, at least one or two people in Canada and the US have been arrested for having loli-hentai.  What is the deal?

loli is illegal in Canada, not in the US.  pornography involving actual children (as opposed to artistic representations of children) is illegal in both.

Anyone who remembers 4chan's early days knows this.
lol
that's like saying 1950 was in the USA's early days.

>>9

Lolicon is legal in the US. I dont know where you got that idea from. There have been a few people who were arrested for lolicon but these people had already been arrested in the past for having real child porn. So they were violating thier parole by having it. Another man was arrested for it because he was viewing it on public computers and already had real Child porn on his home computers.

The courts already stated that drawings were not CP because it did not involve real children. Which is the only reason CP is illegal. CP involves the abuse and perversion of REAL children.

It's alot harder to just ban an artform. That kind of goes against a few freedoms the public is promised in the US, you know?

>>1
go back to ur socialist/communist nation

Sorry for being a noob, but what's shota?

>>14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shota

in a nutshell, it's loli except with underage boys instead of underage girls.

     Actually the PROTECT Act of 2003(The Amber Laws) prohibits simulated (not invoving a real child, inclueds drawing, cg, and literature) and makes it illegal.  despite the fact that that the supreem court found in 2002 that simulated child pornography didn't involve real children is under the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution as it didn't actually harm a child.  So the law is effectivly illegal, but was passed anyways.  Only one person has been charged and convicted under this law:Dwight Whorley.  However he was in posession of real child pornography as well, and the charges were unclear because all the pornography was put together in the charges and it is unclear the grounds he was convicted on.  So the question is do you want to be the person that becomes famous by taking this case all the way to the supreme court when you get convicted of having kiddy porn?

references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Status_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Whorley

bump

>>16 So the question is do you want to be the person that becomes famous and rich by taking this case all the way to the supreme court when you get convicted of having art?

Fixed

>>18
      It's drawn pornography.  drawn ponograpy is artifical pornograpy it doesn't invovle real people, same for written.  child pornography is pornography involving children, milf ponography is pornography containing milf, anal pornography is pornography containing anal.
          Therefore it is arificial child pornography.  Your emphasis is making it art, where my empasis is that it is fucking artifical.  The definition of art is very broad.  real pornography can be art i guess.  Real child pornography can be art.  being photographic i guess photography is defined as art.  And all forms of drawn and written anything is art.  I mean if rap is art, than artifical child pornography definately is.  Nobody ever said that all art is legal.  Art that harms others or their property is still illegal, it dammages your propery.    That is why REAL child porn is illegal, it harms the child.  Artifical doesn't have a real child in it.  I can draw a picture of a murder, that doesn't make me a killer.  If we allow that distinction to fall here, we have to allow it to fall in all those places as well.  I can hit your car with a sledge hammer and make it modern art, that doesn't make it legal for me to do that.  And you didn't answer the question.  Do you really want to take it to court and becme famous along those lines.  I mean there is nothing to say you absoluely will.  I have no idea who took it to court in 2002.  But are you willing to take it that far and risk becoming famous for that.  Are you willing to spend all those years in jail waiting for the court to listen to you being in prision as a PEDOPHILE, i am sure that will be a pleasant experience.  Not to mention the Justices have changed a little, it's possible the court won't throw out the charges.

>>18
Besides note that law conflicts with US Code, Title 18, Section 2256(child pornography law) which requires images either to be real, based on real existing child or indistinguishable(pretty much impossible today) from real images.

Read the law : http//ww/...

need to bump this to the top so i have time to post

>>20
    Ok here we go.  No more invasion I hope.  Now first when 2 laws covering the same topic contradict the it means both that all things illegalized in either law are illegal.  second that when the laws contradict the newer law is given presidence.  Laws are allowed to contradict.  There are simply 2 many for them not to.  Laws aren't allowed to contradict the constitution.  Of course that law has to be taken to the courts and proven that it conflicts the constitution.  After which a politician can simply rewrite the law and pass it again. 
      Next Onto the case in point.  Page 81 of the Protect Act says:
1 SEC. 504. OBSCENE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 71 of title 18, United
3 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1466
4 the following:
5 ‘‘§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sex6
ual abuse of children
7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, in a cir8
cumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly pro9
duces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to dis10
tribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a draw11
ing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
12 ‘‘(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually
13 explicit conduct; and
14 ‘‘(B) is obscene; or
15 ‘‘(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to
16 be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadis17
tic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, in18
cluding genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or
19 oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or
20 opposite sex; and
21 ‘‘(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
22 scientific value;

http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/S151CONF.pdf

             I know I know you said it was art before.  GOOD LUCK ARGUING THAT TO THE COURT.  hardcore sex has never been found to be of artistic value in court.  Also this doesn't define animated child pornography as legally child pornography.  It just says that you can get charged the same way.  Also, If you want to get really specific.  I would like to know how they can have a section of a law that is supposed to be making specific things illegal start with "‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—"  I know almost every law starts with this phrase now.  but it should be fucking illegal.  HOW THE FUCK CAN THEY BE ALLOWED TO PUT A CATCH ALL LIKE "IN GENERAL" IN A FUCKING LAW.  sorry, just my rant.  but there is my reply.  And still nobody has answered my questions i put forth in >>16 and >>19

  The PROTECT Act of 2002 I think ammened ammended US Code, Title 18, Section 2256 making artifical pornography illegal to.  please check page 75-80 for me to make sure I got that right.  I can't sort out exactly how it was rewritten. 

bump

LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!!

seems i can't out bump him to keep the thread here

LOL UNBAN ME FROM 4CHAN PUT ME BACK WHERE I /B/LONG!!!! SAGE LOL

WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO UNBAN YOU DIPSHIT

rofl

>>24
I would gladly ban you twice or even TRICE for this spamming, but sadly I am not a mod.

>>29
I wish you were then

yay, he's gone

>>22
If it's indeed illegal why Not4chan and all the other sites keeps running on US servers? How can anime/manga stores(including big ones such as animenation too) sell imported loli/shota mangas openly? I haven't ever heard of drawn porn site being taken down by cops. Note that FBI has actually big hugely funded obscenity section that actively goes against all forms porn and they have even taken down totally TEXT based sites. Why only recent court case involving being arrested for drawn CP involves also parole violation and real cp? Seriously it can't be illegal.

>>32
         The answer to that is perfectly obvious.  Text based porn involving minors is easily detectable and is actually being much more self-regulated now by sites than it used to be before the PROTECT act.  And you are right that drawn child porn has already been declared to be under the first amendment by the US supreme court.  So why is drawn porn so prevalant and impossible to stop?  that is actually the easiest question in the world to answer.  and the answer is another question that I am supprised you didn't ask:

        How, the fuck, can you determine the age of a person drawn???  I mean seriously.  When it comes to a drawing I age is just an arbitrary number.  I mean what can I really base my assumption on.  Yes in written porn you will quite often outright say the age of the people in order to set the right image. but with a drawing it means nothing.  Yes you can start to say that some stuff is obvious child drawings, but in order to press charges you need irrefutable proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person was underage at the time the drawing was made.  I mean can you really wrap your mind around the task of setting exact standards for determining the age of a drawing, painting, computer generated image, ect?  Put bluntly if anyone can really come up with a way to do it I will fully support the law that includes it.  I say this because it is impossible, not because I believe the drawings should be illegal.
        Dojin is something of a different matter.  Often tiemes it directly states the age of the child involved.  Often times it uses already established characters from a known serise.  While I can't answer the first part the second is easy enough.  Who is to say that the porn takes place at the same time as the series, could be 20 years afterwards and the character wouldn't be a minor anymore.  Then you can have a character like Sasami Masaki Jurai(Tenchi Muyo)-900 years old with the body of a 9 year old.  Last i checked 900 was well past the age of consent.    So this all gets really hard to do as well.  Canada, and the UK have done it, however their laws are abstract enough that if you have a drawing of porn, anyone just has to say that it looks underage to them and you can get fully charged.


>>20 I meant to mention this in >>22 but if you look at this
8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
     from:
http//ww/...

It specifically includes doctored images of real children.  This means all those old fake Olsen Twins photos, and the newer popular fakes of Emily Watson are all totally illegal.  More child porn.

>>32
what the hell? how can you take down text sites? we have plenty of literature depicting that kind of thing like nabokov's lolita in local book stores and those are perfectly acceptable...

>>34
     That is fairly arguable.  I believe it is not so much the sites getting serious charges pressed on them as it is them them simply not wanting to get serious charges pressed on them.

>>34
It's notable that they actually weren't lolita sites. They were scat and bondage stories mostly involving adults, but some children too. They can take them down, but they most likely lose at court if it's even taken to court.

>>33
Actually drawn CP is legal in UK. Only images indistinguishable from photographs are illegal. Canada is one of few countries who actually outright ban it, but then again if the ages are stated it doesn't matter there. That's why all US released hentai has those "All characters are over 18" warning as they want to sell them in Canada too.

Point put, loli/shota-con is put there because it is different from the regular 4chan boards, because loli and shota are generally looked down upon.  Imagine if the admins put a lolicon/shotacon section in the main boards, can you imagine how much flaming would be posted there, from people who have nothing better to do than bash?

shut up and stop failing

It was moved from 4chan to not4chan because google or whoever wouldn't put ads on 4chan if it was there. It's still in the same server or nameserver, I think.

>>40
Wasn't google. It was yowcow or something like that and it had to do more donate than adds. Moot lost money from his paypal account or something like that and decided to change. Anyway yowcow proved to be even crappier and it's true that not4chan is on same server as some boards.

Maybe OT..but what about those Japanese life sizelove dolls, made to look like little girls? Is that a "visual" dipiction? Are they illegal in the US? What would customs think if they opened up thye crate. If the "doll" was dressed, would that be different if she were naked? If a love doll who looks 8  is legal, than how can a Loli drawing be illegal? I my supposed love doll was sitting on my sfa in a school uniform, is THAT legal? What about if i were "molesing" the doll???
See how silly this gets...Protect REAL children, assholes...don't mess with artistic thoughts...no matter how perverted.

>>42  about those Japanese life sizelove dolls, made to look like little girls?

      That is a really good question.  I guess it would have to go to court to determine that, however I can make a series of logical judegments and make an assumption.
      1)  The law says nothing specifically stating the type of pornography.  If it is a drawing, CG design, video, story, ect.  I would assume that a statue of nude kids in sexual positions or even two kids fucking would also be covered by this.
      2)  Putting a life size doll in the same category as a statue is not that far-fetched of an idea.  actaully "life-size" is irrelevent in this case as even if you made the statue the size of the Statue of Liberty or as small as your finger, it is still depicting the same thing.
      3)  if the doll is dressed, as long as it isn't in a sexualy explicit pose it should be fine.  Kind of like a kid is alowed to be photographed with clothes on, or even in swimsuit or underwear as long as the poses aren't sexually explicit.  However, seeing as the doll is undressable and poseable and anotomically correct, I don't know how much evidence it would require to say it was sexual in nature.  I guess sperm tests of the inside would work, so use a rubber just like you do with the real girls.
      As for molesting the doll, it isn't a real person so you can't get charged with molesting someone that doesn't exist.  Same way if you stabbed it with a knife you couldn't get charged with murdering the doll.
       4)Everything I mentioned holding true, and the defendant has nothing else but the sex doll, I think it is possibe under the law to try and convict them.  However this is extreemly unlikely to happen that way.  It will most likely be brought up as further evidence on a person that is being charged with posessing real child porn.  I seriously doubt you would be put on trial for only posessing the sex doll.

                I don't guarantee any of this, I am not a lawyer, this is assumption based on my limited knowlege of law.  This is based on US law and no other.  I would like to hear thoughts on what canada would do or any other nation.  In the end I really don't know what the fuck would happen if this were taken to court as it isn't exactly something with legal presidence, but it is still an interesting mind exercise, and a valid question.  You can always try to ask a lawyer:)  It might be fun to see his face when you ask him the question, and you have confidentiality so he can't tell anyone you asked unless it is illegal and you tell him you plan on doing it.

Well taking this a step further...a while back they made anitomicaly correct dolls (for kids) not those used by law enforcement, but toys sold in Toys R Us. They were about 12-14" tall. If I placed the boy doll on top of the girl doll with his little "pee pee" inside her ltiile "wee wee" (LOL) would THAT be a crime. (I know my daughter did this a lot when she had them) If I took a photo of the dolls in sexual situations...is this CP? How about "Ken" humping "Barbie's" younger siser doll?? What about David Hamilton?  Others were just of nude children (Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, Ron Oliver, Graham Ovenden et al) BUT...Mr. Hamilton's works were of clearly underaged nymphets in all sorts of erotic poses...dedinately sexual. How did he, an all the peolple buying HIS books get away with THAT?
In the 1970's a book called "SHOW ME" by Will McBride was published in the US as a sex ed. book. It had REAL photos of REAL children, masterbating, ejaculating, oral sex, etc. and I mean YOUNG1 like a 9 year old boy being JO by a 12 year old girl! NOW is TRHIS CP?? It sells on ebay every day. i see in OOP book stiores all the time. I understand the fact that it is supposed to be educvational, but according to laws now, the photos are of a crime being committed. So, i can walk around with a copy of Shoe Me under my arm, show it to kids (grooming) because it's a KIDS BOOK, yet br arrested for having some sguiggles on a page which sort of "looks" like a "child" having sex.
Also, in CANADA, where Lolicon is illegal...it IS legal to sell & buy so called Japanese "Junior Idol" dvd and PBs which show young pre-pubecent girls running around in bikinis, rolling in there underwear, no nudity at all, but some very close crotch shots, pan and scan if you get my drift....
Well, so much for logic in  this fucked up world.

>>44
            All the confusion with what the law is and how it's written doesn't stop it from being and being writtent the way it is.  I don't understand everything about it, but I believe most of the assumptions in your first paragraph to be correct.  Except that barbie and ken aren't anotomically correct and wouldn't be considedered porn anymore than Team America: World Police is a porn because of the puppet sex.  Also I believe Barbie and Ken to be considered of legal age.

http//www.ama/...
         SHOW ME" by Will McBride, I had no idea about.  I would venture to guess that from both the nature of the book itself and the age of it it is covered by having "artistic or educational value".  Which I can bring up a theory really disturbing on that issue:
                They are selling a book depicting real porn with children and displaying no imediate warnings on the site about being illegal in the US or even in some states.  Given most of the comments are from people in the united states, I assume that most purchases are made in the united states.  I make the assumption that this is becuause some court has determined it to be of "artistic or educational value" as i said before.  Now this means that the picture itself is legal for educational value.  So you can start a child porn studio in the US as long as you market it as educational material.  Also the actions depicted aren't illegal, being both parties are minors.  This means you can teach children about sex and watch as long as it is educational to them, you being not a minor aren't involved, and that you have parental concent of said minors.  If you are the parents of the minors I guess it's all good.  Also how would you judge that the children have learned everything to their fullest extent, meaning there is no need to stop the classes until teacher and parent are convined that the eduation is complete. 
       I may be making some erronous jumps here and I would really like someone to tell me that I am completely wrong about this, and present evidence.  I mean has anyone ever really tried doing this?  Is it legally pheasable?  And if this is really possible what were the drafters of these laws thinking????
          Alternately, it is also possible that a law exists that makes an exception for this book alone to that law, but it would take a lot of reasearch to find out.  If this is the case All of my assumptions would be completely wrong and the world would be better off.  There must be someone here that knows more about these issues.  Any law students here, you can start writting the most destubing legal thesis in history if you start doing research on this.  How about our nice omnipresent FBI agents, can you give us some information about this?  Anyone want to walk into a lawyer's office just to see the look on his face when you ask him about this?  Might almost be worth the consulting fee you were tagged for.  I might get more information I don't want, but seriously give me some feedback on this.

It all depends on if there is a book similar to McBrides.

BTW: I said Ken and Barbie's younger sister (I don't know her name) so that would be adult/child sex. About the body parts, well, what if I made a little hole in the girl doll, and glued a "wiener" on Ken?
What about David Hamilton?  No one responded to that.
(quote) As for molesting the doll, it isn't a real person so you can't get charged with molesting someone that doesn't exist.  Same way if you stabbed it with a knife you couldn't get charged with murdering the doll.(quote)

Well, by THAT logic, neither is Lolicon!!!The drawn characters actually "exist" less that a 3d doll. Yet you say it is not illegal because the doll isn't "real". However, isn't that the same case with Lolicon...it isn't real!!!

>>43
The law doesn't apply to dolls at all. It's just about images. Note that titless lolita blowup dolls are sold in US and Europe already. They're very cheaply made and ugly though.
>>45
That is educational thus not CP. Most countries(including US) don't have very strict CP laws. Topless child? Not cp. Naked child? Not cp. Image is of identifiable real minor and fosuses on pubic area or contains sexual acts = CP. Everything else is 100% legal in US.

>>47
          Yes but molestation is a crime against the child just like murder.  However CP is not actually a crime against the child, although it is a pic of a crime against the child.  If I own child porn unless I actually made It I didn't harm the child.  It is simply a crime to have it at all because a law specifically applies to it.  And I assume David Hamilton work just like our little book has already been deamed by a court as having "artistic or eduational value".

>>48
        Look at the description of the book he wrote in >>44, then go to http//www.ama/... and read the info on the site.  I don't have the book so I am bound to these descriptions in my assumptions.  However, If someone would find a copy of the book and torrent it I would know one way or the other exactly what kind of detail was in it(amazon sells it for $224.97 and that is a little steep for a book I don't really want).  I know that there are exceptions to child porn laws that you stated and more.  I mean how many parents have those baby pictures of their kid taking a bath or running though the back yard naked, those aren't CP.  And you didn't even say whether any of my assumptions were true or false.  Based on the details given to me by the comments on the book, the description of the book, and by the description of >>44 I have to assume that it does have sexual acts, which as you say =CP, but is still considered eduational and legal.
        Also here is a quote from one of the onsite comments:
        ""Show Me!", by Will McBride, NY, St. Martin's Press, 1975, LCCCN 74-30507 (pbk), 176 pgs., large format 8.5" x 12" is a book of photographs with captions by McBride plus significant informative explanatory text by Dr. Helga Fleischhauer-Hardt who discusses how to best present these explicit photographs and the book's sexual content to children and the appropriate ages to do so...The B/W photographs of genitalia, etc. are explicit and encompass age groups from the very young to adult -- pre-puberal erections and some genital touchings between the sexes is depicted. I am not aware of any book comparable to this illustrated primer that fills the needs of sexual education so well"
 
That sounds pretty close to CP to me.  And it is a fucking 176 page 8.5X12 picture book.  How many explicit pictures does it have?  Another comment said:
        "69 extra-large photographs (two-page spreads), 56 small photographs, a number of tiny photographs. All photographs black and white; no illustrations, 36 pages of explanatory text."

That is a lot of fucking explicit pictures in a edutational book about sex.  Do they cover every fucking position in the Karma Sutra or something.  And little more than 1/5 of the book is explanitory text.  And on top of that:
            "This book is long out of print, because of the hassle Will McBride has received over the book, and the reluctance of any publisher to take it on. It is, however, followed by Zeig Mal Mehr! (Show Me More!), which is currently in print in Germany, but has never been published in English. And Will McBride hopes one day to be able to write "Show Me More Again!", the third in the series."

It was good enough that there is demand for fucking sequels.  Now I don't know how these sequals are set up, and I won't assume much about them.  And first book was published in 1975 and a lot has changed since then.  However this is just something to think about.  Once again if someone wants to torrent the damn think I will look at it with an open mind that it might actually be an educational book, but this is the information I have to go on right now.

>>49
Yeah, but it seems to be legal cause they're selling it and actually if CP is artistic or educational it can be legal. It's not sure bet though. Ask Federal Bureau of Party Vans, but be sure to get your computer(even if there's no CP you can never be too sure) elsewhere should they come and raid you.

>>50
       I figure if they are reading this they can respond at any time they want

I am still wondering about the works of David Hamilton, another photographer of under-age girls with erotic posing? Comments?

Also, it is not so much if Show Me! is CP, but how can a "cartoon" be classified as CP if the works of Hamilton, or Show Me! are not??? If you say, "educational" or, "having artistic merit"...doesn't Lolicon meet those requirements also. It takes a lot of skill to draw the Lolicon art, whether you like the subject matter or not. And in a sense it IS educational, as one can aspire to be a cartoonist by the skill involved in making the Lolicon artwork. So, by those reasons alone Lolicon should be legal in all cases.

Another point. I can understand the IDEA why REAL CP is illegal, at least in the production or distribution of it. Mere possession is another issue...Just the fact that CP is a documentation of a "crime" isn't enough. I have the "LOOK" magazine edition from 1963, showing the Zapruder film of JFK's head being blown off. Can I be arrested as a party to the assassination? Should possession of the magazine be banned because some sicko might want to copycat the event(and it HAS been done: Hinkely, Squeaky Frome) Even if there WERE studies showing that SOME people would be excited by looking at CP and MIGHT act on it, that argument is very weak. If I look at S/M material, or a photo of a simulated, or actual rape, should I be arrested because I MIGHT act upon it?

Lolicon, no matter how disturbing, should never be against the law unless ALL thought crimes are. If you follow the logic, as someone else said, then how could the "art" above, as well as scores of other works like "Lolita", Pretty Baby", and on and on be "legal" I would LOVE to have someone with experience in the Law to tell me why a movie about a middle-aged man having sex with a 12 year old, a movie about an 11 year old child prostitute performing simulated sex acts can be tolerated, when a totally unrealistic drawing of a fictional cartoon character is deemed SO illegal, that you, if convicted would face life branded as a sexual offender!!

Furthermore, how DOES one ascertain the "age" of a cartoon character??? The Japanese do not show pubic hair as a rule in most cases, and "breasts" are not good indicators either, because many 11 year olds have large breasts, and some 18 year olds are rather small-chested. If the lolicon books had a disclaimer that all "fictional characters" depicted were "over 18" (what a ridiculous idea on the surface) would THAT be enough? How could the authorities argue that the cartoon is of a child, under a certain age, just because it LOOKS like it might be. What about the Lolicon "animals". Child-looking characters with mouse ears and tails? Are they animals or human?
I know someone is going to bring up the fact that even over 18 models, if they "look" young can be CP. Well, that's not totally true. Only if the person who made the "art" has either made it impossible to distinguish between the model, and an under aged child, OR, by props or other methods, tries to PORTRAY the image as that of a child. No one for a second believes that Lolicon images are of real children, so the point is mute...any comments?

I think they are all sick, defective human beings. Even a cartoon of children being abused is only 'hot' to a neanderthal who has a lot more evolving to do.

I personally think all of these chan noobs are fat old comic book guy virgins who's only claim to fame is having a 100+ character on runescape. You bunch of disgusting, insipid little fight club wannabe fuck ups!

y u bump fred????!!!

>>53
way to bump a five year old thread, dude

4chan users= fat old comic book guys, virgin, level 100+ runescape character is the only highlight of their lives, pseudo intellectual/artists with no talent, no backbone and very little or no personality of their own and unwarranted self-importance that seeps out of their deformed cock shaped brains.

wtf is runescape?

>>56
Dont you DEAR come in here and call me all sorts of names it is rude and apalling!! I have contacte the admins here and they will certainly ban you for such inappropriate behaviour

>>58
STFU, you 310-line Perl script, you!

Christohper, it is spelled DARE!! you fucking idiot. Oh and try to ban me all you want, you 4chan fuckwits cry freedom of speech; well this is my freedom of speech. You're all stupid, brainless, white middle class man babies who need someone to fucking punch you in the fucking nads to bring you back to reality! I could wake you all up, just fucking try me.

It seems you fucking wankers can give it out but not recieve it! Well what does that say about your tiny little nothing penies?? Fucking idiots, as I said beofre; you are all fuckup wankers with no life and I don't see you contributing anything relevant to society. Do us a favour, blow your fucking heads off while tenticle rape you!

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy