next »

[Whores]

The Protect Act: tirelessly defending the rights of fictional children since 2003

So a dude is getting 15 years in the slammer over fucking lolicon? Nice use of tax dollars, that.

Um... up to 15 but yeah, still bullshit. Rather than attack the original law from a sensible angle, it seems like someone tried a 'plan b' argument which lead to a law which only made things worse.

I mean, it's not illegal to be a pedophile, just possess material which originally meant some kid was hurt to make it. Maybe, if you're looking at it a bit more broadly, it's possess causes future abuse, but that's pushing it. This got totally gotten shovelled over in the past few years in place of "kiddie porn is bad because... um, it's bad". That lead to this kind of shit at around the same time poser porn of an immature fictional kid nature was being legalized in Europe.

America in general just has this massive disconnect between the status of the law, and the reasoning behind it.

Vivisector, its administrative staff, web host, and moderators in no way condone the purchasing or viewing of ridiculous Jap loli manga.

Having said that, this is still pretty much bullshit.  This guy should be beaten about the head and neck with a blunt object for buying loli manga, but only under the pretense of a private citizen accosting a pervert.  The article makes a good point, though, that it was probably better for this guy to take a plea than go to trial.  Any sane, normal person would likely find the images in question to be offensive, even though it's arguably none of their business what this poor weeaboo gets his rocks off to.  It sucks and is legally wrong that he was backed into such a corner, though.

Do I think it's gross?  Sure.  Do I think the law or the gov't should be involved?  Hell no.  If the dude goes out and accosts a real human child, then sure, throw him to the wolves in prison and let them turn his rectum into the grand canyon.  I think babyfurs are just as disgusting and terrible, but so long as they keep their activities in private amongst consenting adults, they are guaranteed the right to partake in whatever mind-destroying perversions they choose.  I reserve my right to make fun of them for the horrid wastes of flesh they are.

Do I think it's gross?  Sure.  Do I think the law or the gov't should be involved?  Hell no.  If the dude goes out and accosts a real human child, then sure, throw him to the wolves in prison and let them turn his rectum into the grand canyon.  I think babyfurs are just as disgusting and terrible, but so long as they keep their activities in private amongst consenting adults, they are guaranteed the right to partake in whatever mind-destroying perversions they choose.  I reserve my right to make fun of them for the horrid wastes of flesh they are.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

[Whores]

AAAAAnd the follow-up

His defense looks like like it was concocted by a fucking dream team of the most incompetent fuckups in the whole fucking country. To quote some dude on the inevitable lulz.net thread:

Stupid fuck pleaded guilty to breaking laws that wouldn't hold up to any sort of actual defense. So now there is precedent to prosecute people for committing thought crimes. Because a drawing is a human crafted item it automatically passes the Miller Test, the fuck nuts.

I really want to hurt this guy's lawyer, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Included in the court documents is the list of the seven books that Handley had shipped to him and that U.S.

7 books? Jesus, that's nothing. I assumed the scale of this was hundreds... Dammit, now suddenly I'm starting to wonder if I should go bury my FANG collection somewhere until the whole world stops being insane.

Edit: Also good article on the subject and why this is a loss for everyone who enjoys free speech...

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

I believe that technically he was convicted on obscenity and the reason he was utterly screwed is that he had the magazines sent through the mail. The supreme court rulings on the matter do not make lolicon legal, what they did was say that lolicon/virtual depictions could not be considered child pornography. This however doesn't prevent it from being illegal as obscenity. The thing with obscenity is that possesing it is not a crime but distribution and transportation is.

As articulated in several sections of 18 USC Chapter 71, 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. Federal obscenity laws at present apply to inter-state and foreign obscenity issues such as distribution; intrastate issues are for the most part still governed by state law. "Obscene articles... are generally prohibited entry" to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[4]

Now I generally think all obscenity law is bullshit but that is what he got nailed on, not child pornography.

I generally think all obscenity law is bullshit

As someone on my board put it, obscenity laws are generally just there to outlaw bad taste.

I generally think all obscenity law is bullshit

As someone on my board put it, obscenity laws are generally just there to outlaw bad taste.

Even ignoring the ass raping it gives the constitution most people would have to recognize that it's silly to have a law that not only is vague but actually subjective (Potter Stewarts famous I know it when I see it definition of obscenity)

But it really is an end run around the constitution, you can't be convicted for possesing the material but they can get you for just about everything else.