Step 4 to step 5 is a HUGE leap. Stop conflating loli porn and actual child porn as being the same thing or close to the same thing. They are not. In no way am I defending loli porn. Saying the two are even CLOSE to similar delegitimizes how bad child porn actually is. A real child is victimized and sexualized.
You know real child porn has been posted to Voat, right? It was deleted soon after it was posted, as it should be. This site is still up. Thinking that anyone would defend actual pornography of children is absolutely absurd.
That's fair. A further question would be what is the definition of pornography? Some might say it is a nude person being sexualized, and some might say it's even a person wearing a bathing suit. This is why I prefer to use the legal definition of what is porn (and further, child porn) because it is heavily reliant on context. If someone has posted a picture of their child in a bathing suit, should they be considered a pedophile? Certainly the ones Aged has posted are not innocent. However, there is a lot of content on the internet that I dislike or disagree with, but censoring things that are legal but immoral is a slippery slope.
We dealt with this on 8chan during gamergate when the CP spam was going on, banning blatant CP was easy but what about lewd photos of clothed children and so on, in that time we found out two important things google will de-list you if they want to de-list you and that under US law nudity doesn't explicitly equal child porn but the definition is largely up to a judge or a jury and, one guy for example got imprisoned for CP but he had simply made photorealistic drawings, according to some they were tracings of actual CP but that wasn't explicitly in the ruling.
The point I meant to make here was that the clearest detail we can point to in the law for something being explicitly sexual or sexualized is "cropped" images so for example a picture of nude children at a nudist beach isn't inherently illegal, if you cropped the image to zoom in on the kids though they could easily throw the book at you but they might not if you took the photo, they posed for it and it's a photo album picture or something like that but for example if you are caught with other CP they would count that same image and every other image that has nude children most likely any with a focus on primary or secondary sex characteristics via cropping or the nature of how the photo was blocked, (to put the focus in the center).
8chan rooted out CP boards first and then three types of alternative rule skirting boards popped up, The text primarily(eventually text only) erotic discussion and "pedo-sexuality" discussion boards (ultimately banned although I think one text only discussion board is left), type two were NN boards (non-nude) these boards were almost always poorly moderated on purpose and so CP was frequently posted and because of the sheer volume of content often posts of clothed children with wardrobe malfunctions would stay up for a long time since admins and global mods didn't have the time to inspect each image and just browsed thumbnails, this is where we learned another strange element of the US laws, Sheer and see through/wet fabric that make a child or woman appear nude is not considered a part of any violation and so unless the image is cropped in a lewd fashion it's completely legal, apparently the legal definition includes fishnets with huge nets (so long as they aren't ripped) I'm pretty sure paint wasn't mentioned so that means it's not included in see through garments and therefore illegal, anyway as you can imagine long before 8chan "modeling agencies" knew this and so a glut of non-nude images with see through clothes were freely available, this specifically it seems was what lead to the de-listing even though Hotwheels(admin) consulted with US FBI and they told him they weren't willing to subpoena any user data nor were they involved in any legal action concerning the content on 8chan and they called the moderation adequate and within the letter of the law, NN boards got the boot after a couple of months and google never, to this day, re-listed 8chan. Type 3 was nudist content, these subs got shutdown but dedicated threads to nudism existed on the non-nude boards and in other porn boards until 8chan got serious and cracked down. after the second big crackdown mods were itchy and tired of working so much for so little so they also shut down 3D computer generated loli porn boards and threads, and also banned the JB threads and boards even briefly banned a some erotic fiction boards, they were overzealous by most folks accounts and they never once laied a hand on any drawn or "2D" content of minors. and for context google has never once de-listed a website for hosting Drawn porn of minors, stylized or not.
Long post but I hope it gives you some context for the whole situation.
Posted automatically (#33576) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
view the rest of the comments →
CameraCode ago
Step 4 to step 5 is a HUGE leap. Stop conflating loli porn and actual child porn as being the same thing or close to the same thing. They are not. In no way am I defending loli porn. Saying the two are even CLOSE to similar delegitimizes how bad child porn actually is. A real child is victimized and sexualized.
You know real child porn has been posted to Voat, right? It was deleted soon after it was posted, as it should be. This site is still up. Thinking that anyone would defend actual pornography of children is absolutely absurd.
theoldones ago
we have hard proof of him posting real CP.
we know he's capable of going that far.
CameraCode ago
What is your definition of child pornography?
GoyimNose ago
Child engaged in pornography or naked children
CameraCode ago
That's fair. A further question would be what is the definition of pornography? Some might say it is a nude person being sexualized, and some might say it's even a person wearing a bathing suit. This is why I prefer to use the legal definition of what is porn (and further, child porn) because it is heavily reliant on context. If someone has posted a picture of their child in a bathing suit, should they be considered a pedophile? Certainly the ones Aged has posted are not innocent. However, there is a lot of content on the internet that I dislike or disagree with, but censoring things that are legal but immoral is a slippery slope.
Obrez ago
We dealt with this on 8chan during gamergate when the CP spam was going on, banning blatant CP was easy but what about lewd photos of clothed children and so on, in that time we found out two important things google will de-list you if they want to de-list you and that under US law nudity doesn't explicitly equal child porn but the definition is largely up to a judge or a jury and, one guy for example got imprisoned for CP but he had simply made photorealistic drawings, according to some they were tracings of actual CP but that wasn't explicitly in the ruling.
The point I meant to make here was that the clearest detail we can point to in the law for something being explicitly sexual or sexualized is "cropped" images so for example a picture of nude children at a nudist beach isn't inherently illegal, if you cropped the image to zoom in on the kids though they could easily throw the book at you but they might not if you took the photo, they posed for it and it's a photo album picture or something like that but for example if you are caught with other CP they would count that same image and every other image that has nude children most likely any with a focus on primary or secondary sex characteristics via cropping or the nature of how the photo was blocked, (to put the focus in the center).
8chan rooted out CP boards first and then three types of alternative rule skirting boards popped up, The text primarily(eventually text only) erotic discussion and "pedo-sexuality" discussion boards (ultimately banned although I think one text only discussion board is left), type two were NN boards (non-nude) these boards were almost always poorly moderated on purpose and so CP was frequently posted and because of the sheer volume of content often posts of clothed children with wardrobe malfunctions would stay up for a long time since admins and global mods didn't have the time to inspect each image and just browsed thumbnails, this is where we learned another strange element of the US laws, Sheer and see through/wet fabric that make a child or woman appear nude is not considered a part of any violation and so unless the image is cropped in a lewd fashion it's completely legal, apparently the legal definition includes fishnets with huge nets (so long as they aren't ripped) I'm pretty sure paint wasn't mentioned so that means it's not included in see through garments and therefore illegal, anyway as you can imagine long before 8chan "modeling agencies" knew this and so a glut of non-nude images with see through clothes were freely available, this specifically it seems was what lead to the de-listing even though Hotwheels(admin) consulted with US FBI and they told him they weren't willing to subpoena any user data nor were they involved in any legal action concerning the content on 8chan and they called the moderation adequate and within the letter of the law, NN boards got the boot after a couple of months and google never, to this day, re-listed 8chan. Type 3 was nudist content, these subs got shutdown but dedicated threads to nudism existed on the non-nude boards and in other porn boards until 8chan got serious and cracked down. after the second big crackdown mods were itchy and tired of working so much for so little so they also shut down 3D computer generated loli porn boards and threads, and also banned the JB threads and boards even briefly banned a some erotic fiction boards, they were overzealous by most folks accounts and they never once laied a hand on any drawn or "2D" content of minors. and for context google has never once de-listed a website for hosting Drawn porn of minors, stylized or not.
Long post but I hope it gives you some context for the whole situation.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/funny comment by @CameraCode0.
Posted automatically (#33576) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.