You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

BraunF14 ago

Ok like yeah I'm somewhat against porn and definitely against child abuse/porn/racy images. I'm not gonna downvoat this because my opinion clashes with yours. Your post isn't spam. These videos are not real i.e. they are not real people. If these were photographed children or videotaped children, let's grab our pitchforks and torches. This is all art as far as the definition is concerned. Can't fight the porn industry cuz it's too large. So deal. And definitely can't attack 3D rendered characters or hand drawn because honestly that would be an attack on the first amend. Think about it.

Fateswebb ago

It's against the law regardless. They have made a law against the depiction of underage children in sexual situations....

BraunF14 ago

No that is absolutely false. Jeez where are you getting your information? That law exists in some areas around the world, and even a soft blanket version of it here in the US. You can still have a cartoon "child" having sex, and it can be a very clearly child looking character, but as long as somewhere in there it is stated that all characters are 18+ you're good to go. It may be sick, but it's completely legal. And I'm sure the founding fathers would agree

darkknight111 ago

The author of Danganronpa would disagree with that.

Basically called the “All characters are 18+” disclaimer bullshit in Danganronpa: Ultra Despair Girls. Chapter 3 (where it got called BS) of said game called out the Hollywood pedo rings 2 years before Pizzagate broke out.

Said author coming from a country infested with that crap.

kestrel9 ago

but as long as somewhere in there it is stated that all characters are 18+ you're good to go.

doesn't fly with the infant porn, but people don't care, it's as if porn is the sacred cow of free speech, pretty soon there will be laws that you have to show kids porn and allow them to choose their favorite pronoun based off it.

Fateswebb ago

First of all merely claiming everyone is over 18 is not a defense... They have to actually be over 18

A law was passed under judge janine making fake images Illegal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/nyregion/are-fake-pornographic-images-protected-by-first-amendment.html

However that was appealed and eventually the appeal won. But back then realisitc looking images weren't common, and today if tried again it would most likely stand up in court if tried again.

So you're partly right and partly wrong. It would take a prosecution, and appeal to solidify, but do you want to be the guinea pig?

https://www.fels.upenn.edu/recap/posts/1619