aLeaf said: Why on earth should there be any need to do that? AND I think their private parts shouldn't be shown or should be blurred out. After all, you don't get loli or shota hentai unless you actually look for it, and thus, censoring it would not benefit those who don't like it and don't watch it, but only piss of those who do want it. It would be just like if one of those religious groups that can't eat pork or whatever that hasn't been specially prepared, were to make that unavailable for everyone else as well. A complete waste of time that no one benefits from at all. |
| They could be cencoring it since they can't get rid of it to piss the people who like it off? Thats the only benefit i can see.... |
  |
Gogetters said: But why would it be a benefit to piss of someone who does not hurt you in anyway? If it's just because they like something you don't like, then why couldn't I get the CG R2 DVDs butchered by censors?They could be cencoring it since they can't get rid of it to piss the people who like it off? Thats the only benefit i can see.... The whole point with a authoritative state is that they are supposed to take some of your freedom in order to ensure your safety. But censoring anything does not make anyone any more secure, so that's basically unnecessary use of authority. Of course, when something like loli hentai is banned, few people really care about it, I wouldn't either, was it not for the fact that it is a matter of principle, and if you stand by idly as they remove something you don't like, what will you do when they come for something you do like? |
aLeaf said: okei.....first it is illegal (drawings depicting minors in a sexual way, thank you wikipeida). And you can get finned for distributing and coping such material. I do like some hentai/yaoi/shota (im getting too old for that one). AND I think their private parts shouldn't be shown or should be blurred out. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors Wait wait wait, Cornell University a famous "LAW SCHOOL" is wrong, but wikipedia, is right and ultimate authority of Child Pornography Law? where you dropped on your head when you where younger? |
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
| Why does this thread keep coming back with an alternative title? Whatever, I'll just repeat myself like I have been doing. We should defend fiction no matter what the content. |
 |
| I guess the forum may add a "sage" check box if posters do not want to bump the thread. >I still think it's a sick and twisted idea ... Well if somebody think Simpsons' yellow faces are sick depiction of human, should the series be banned or change the skin color? But I won't defend any kind of fiction. The matter depends on the relation to reality. Fiction or information details enough to educate the public on how to perform dangerous acts are often banned, such as sites or novel or manga with content teaching people how to make poisons, explosives etc. Fortunately the chance is low and is guarded by strict licensing in most developed countries. But the restriction is the same everywhere. Minor sexual graphics are really stepping into the borderline. If you like the artists, you'd probably wish they share the same standard in your own country so that you can buy their works safely. (If you really care about the arts more than the porn) |
zharnotczar said: The purpose of making real child porn illegal is to prevent minors from being taken advantage of. Correct? I'll admit, I think any form of child porn, real or drawn, is disgusting, but if it's drawn, nobody is hurt. Nobody loses anything. This is one thing that should be left up to the culture to decide, and if there are branches of the culture that enjoy virtual kiddies goin' at it, so be it. Nobody loses anything. Not a single thing. The only problem with your post is calling drawings child porn. If it's drawn it cannot be child porn because it isn't real. |
Drunk_Samurai said: zharnotczar said: The purpose of making real child porn illegal is to prevent minors from being taken advantage of. Correct? I'll admit, I think any form of child porn, real or drawn, is disgusting, but if it's drawn, nobody is hurt. Nobody loses anything. This is one thing that should be left up to the culture to decide, and if there are branches of the culture that enjoy virtual kiddies goin' at it, so be it. Nobody loses anything. Not a single thing. The only problem with your post is calling drawings child porn. If it's drawn it cannot be child porn because it isn't real. Yes and No, if it's a drawing of a real person, then it's child pornography, if it's fictional character then it's not child pornography. |
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
| I think governments should put the resources they waste on stuff like this into more worthwhile matters; like solving global hunger or creating world peace. -Then- we can break out the really stupid things to argue over, like whether or not anyone should care about the rights of pixels and paper. |
Baman said: Go ask the Japanese. They love to censor the genitalia, while showing some unique porn that's rarely seen in any other culture. Amazing really.Gogetters said: But why would it be a benefit to piss of someone who does not hurt you in anyway? If it's just because they like something you don't like, then why couldn't I get the CG R2 DVDs butchered by censors?They could be cencoring it since they can't get rid of it to piss the people who like it off? Thats the only benefit i can see.... The whole point with a authoritative state is that they are supposed to take some of your freedom in order to ensure your safety. But censoring anything does not make anyone any more secure, so that's basically unnecessary use of authority. Of course, when something like loli hentai is banned, few people really care about it, I wouldn't either, was it not for the fact that it is a matter of principle, and if you stand by idly as they remove something you don't like, what will you do when they come for something you do like? |
Tachii said: Go ask the Japanese. They love to censor the genitalia, while showing some unique porn that's rarely seen in any other culture. Amazing really. More like they have to, not that they like to... |
Speed is Life - 1st ID... patch on my shoulder. |
tesiga2003 said: I really can't form that conclusion when the West do not (or not often) censor the genitalia in porn. I mean, why does the Japanese have to, and not the West? I can't see this in any other way than some cultural difference, which is why I exaggerated love for a longer phrase to get the message across.Tachii said: Go ask the Japanese. They love to censor the genitalia, while showing some unique porn that's rarely seen in any other culture. Amazing really. More like they have to, not that they like to... |
Tachii said: You seriously dont know about the Japanese censorship laws?tesiga2003 said: I really can't form that conclusion when the West do not (or not often) censor the genitalia in porn. I mean, why does the Japanese have to, and not the West? I can't see this in any other way than some cultural difference, which is why I exaggerated love for a longer phrase to get the message across.Tachii said: Go ask the Japanese. They love to censor the genitalia, while showing some unique porn that's rarely seen in any other culture. Amazing really. More like they have to, not that they like to... |
| Speed is Life - 1st ID... patch on my shoulder. |
tesiga2003 said: Tachii said: You seriously dont know about the Japanese censorship laws?tesiga2003 said: I really can't form that conclusion when the West do not (or not often) censor the genitalia in porn. I mean, why does the Japanese have to, and not the West? I can't see this in any other way than some cultural difference, which is why I exaggerated love for a longer phrase to get the message across.Tachii said: Go ask the Japanese. They love to censor the genitalia, while showing some unique porn that's rarely seen in any other culture. Amazing really. More like they have to, not that they like to... great law, most of the censorship consists only of a small black line across the genitals anyway... |
Jigero said: Drunk_Samurai said: zharnotczar said: The purpose of making real child porn illegal is to prevent minors from being taken advantage of. Correct? I'll admit, I think any form of child porn, real or drawn, is disgusting, but if it's drawn, nobody is hurt. Nobody loses anything. This is one thing that should be left up to the culture to decide, and if there are branches of the culture that enjoy virtual kiddies goin' at it, so be it. Nobody loses anything. Not a single thing. The only problem with your post is calling drawings child porn. If it's drawn it cannot be child porn because it isn't real. Yes and No, if it's a drawing of a real person, then it's child pornography, if it's fictional character then it's not child pornography. If it's drawn it's still a drawing. It wouldn't be child porn regardless. |
| I find it amusing how anything that is even remotely accosiated with sex or sexuality is in danger of being banned, if it hasn't been banned already. I've said something similar to this today, and i'm starting to feel that i'm repeating myself. |
| Trolls. Can't live with them, can't live without them. Because they barge in to every thread YOU can find, that's why. |
| not like anybody would fight against the law. What politician would want everyone to know they like loli cartoons? |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| "Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images) and in some cases writings depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a record of child sexual abuse." If you go just by the look of the character then yes it could be considered child porn but you simply cannot go by looks alone. The problem is that in hentai these characters really don't have a age and are not real so they cannot be called children or child porn by this definition. There is also no abuse in it... either way it shouldn't be banned. Edit wording and spelling |
GogettersApr 14, 2010 4:50 PM
|
| I'll say what I said in another thread: The reason real child pornography is banned, and rightfully so, is that we as a society have deemed that a child can not properly consent to sexual acts when they are still a minor. We step in to protect them from themselves. With a drawing of a fictional character, there is no consent to be had. There is nobody to protect. Banning fictitious pornography of any kind is not only terribly hard to enforce and a waste of time, but isn't doing anything but censoring art. We don't ban the depiction of child murderers in literature. |
Gogetters said: lol!I shall not allow my lolis to be taken away! D: |
Drunk_Samurai said: Jigero said: Drunk_Samurai said: zharnotczar said: The purpose of making real child porn illegal is to prevent minors from being taken advantage of. Correct? I'll admit, I think any form of child porn, real or drawn, is disgusting, but if it's drawn, nobody is hurt. Nobody loses anything. This is one thing that should be left up to the culture to decide, and if there are branches of the culture that enjoy virtual kiddies goin' at it, so be it. Nobody loses anything. Not a single thing. The only problem with your post is calling drawings child porn. If it's drawn it cannot be child porn because it isn't real. Yes and No, if it's a drawing of a real person, then it's child pornography, if it's fictional character then it's not child pornography. If it's drawn it's still a drawing. It wouldn't be child porn regardless. Not what the law says, if you draw a real child it's still child pornography. (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. Drawings of fictional characters is not child pornography. |
| It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die. |
Jigero said: Drunk_Samurai said: Jigero said: Drunk_Samurai said: zharnotczar said: The purpose of making real child porn illegal is to prevent minors from being taken advantage of. Correct? I'll admit, I think any form of child porn, real or drawn, is disgusting, but if it's drawn, nobody is hurt. Nobody loses anything. This is one thing that should be left up to the culture to decide, and if there are branches of the culture that enjoy virtual kiddies goin' at it, so be it. Nobody loses anything. Not a single thing. The only problem with your post is calling drawings child porn. If it's drawn it cannot be child porn because it isn't real. Yes and No, if it's a drawing of a real person, then it's child pornography, if it's fictional character then it's not child pornography. If it's drawn it's still a drawing. It wouldn't be child porn regardless. Not what the law says, if you draw a real child it's still child pornography. (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. Drawings of fictional characters is not child pornography. Doesn't matter what the law says. The law is wrong. That's the same law that says lolicon is child porn. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |