I think he’s from the UK.
It should absolutely be protected on artistic grounds. After all, the more people are “offended” by it, the more artistic it is. Art Should Comfort the Disturbed and Disturb the Comfortable.
2 Likes
it technically is legal, but again, the obscenity doctrine was never designed with logic or objectivity in mind.
When I first heard of the Miller test, I laughed. I laughed because of how…wrong it is, on so many levels, both logically and legally, especially with regard to the Constitution.
Even on an academic sense, the test is immediately invalid because pornography, especially the kind that caters to deviant tastes and triggers outrage, IS a form of art. Something is considered art when it’s the product of human imagination, ingenuity, and creative skill, but also when it provokes an emotional response from its audience. There’s no official rule that states pornography can’t be or isn’t a form of art. It is. Even the most obvious, generic types are on the basis that they are audiovisual works designed to satisfy emotional desire.
Sexual arousal, desire, lust, and eroticism are all valid emotions and subjects worth exploring, expressing, and indulging with as far as art goes.
Even if it’s just a 12 second video on some porn site, it’s still technically art.
Appealing to the ‘prurient interest’, by default, lends it serious artistic value.
America would be better without the obscenity doctrine. A Constitutional exception to the First Amendment should be based on harm, not morality or personal offense. That trivializes the justice system, undermines the freedoms guaranteed, and invalidates the purpose of the First Amendment, which was to foster freedom of the mind and conscience from coercion or intrusion by the state, and to do so, assuring the unfettered exchange of ideas is necessary. Sure, there are exceptions, like real child pornography, libel, and incitement. But these are not arbitrary exceptions, nor are they contingent on arbitrary variables, but rather objective questions regarding facts that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The very fact that obscenity prosecutions don’t even require a lack of reasonable doubt to get a guilty proof that it’s a farce, and will be overturned.
The obscenity doctrine truly has no place in this country’s legal system, no different from ‘Separate but Equal’, marriage inequality, and sodomy laws. It will be next to fall.
Sadly yeah. “mere possession” means that you possess it within the confines of your private home and receiving or purchasing it can open up up past that. Same logic applies if you sell it.
It’s how they were able to go after and arrest people for buying and selling rap music in the 90s.
I’m telling you. The obscenity doctrine is a cancer.
That’s not the part that really matters, it’s the “is obscene” part that matters. Keep in mind that even images of adults can meet this bar if the character they’re playing is a minor, despite the fact that there is no minor involved.
It’s basically on the same level of legality as any kind of pornography that doesn’t use actual minors. The obscenity hook is unfortunate, but it differs by state and case-by-case. There’s absolutely zero consistency.
It’s presumed legal.
2 Likes
could content with Adults violate Obscenity Laws?
Yes. That’s why obscenity laws are so stupid. They aren’t even evenly enforced.
1 Like
The obscenity doctrine was originally created to enable the government to eradicate porn because conservatives, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc. fallaciously believed it was harmful to the “moral fabric of our nation”. When this was proven false, they claimed it was because it was a nuisance.
Obscenity laws are mostly unenforced, but that doesn’t mean they should still exist.
Loli/shota pornography is functionally identical to adult pornography in terms of legality, since there is no real child, hence why loli is protected by the First Amendment unless proven obscene.
It’s really confusing and contradictory in many cases, I know.
1 Like
it’s because they have no merit. They undermine the rule of law by juxtaposing an opinion as though it were fact. Obscenity laws are literally just blasphemy laws but with a different god, an equally arbitrary and fantastical god.
2 Likes
Giving pedos more fake cp is not the solution… As much as I hate pedos, there needs to be middle ground solutions beyond the typical “Just kill them all” nonsense, but I don’t see any reason why fake cp would solve their problems.
It’s about freedom of expression and there being no valid reason for their criminalisation. It doesn’t need to be a “solution” it’s as simple as “they don’t hurt anyone so there’s no reason they should be banned”.
2 Likes
See. In America, one values freedom above all else, unless it infringes on someone else’s. Also, as I always say, I feel great camaraderie to vampires, because the only thing more annoying than people trying to kill us is people trying to “cure” us.
3 Likes
If it does not reduce crime, there is no reason for it to exist! How the fuck does this benefit you in any way?
If it does not increase crime, there is no reason for it to be banned. It benefits me by getting me off. Does my entertainment offend you? Good.
4 Likes
And you, my dear, are about to be reported for ad hominem attacks.
I have a feeling this is our usual Q “user…”
1 Like
well you’re not ‘giving’ them anything. you’re simply not criminalizing their desires in the written or drawn form. All ideas, even the most repugnant or offensive kinds, should receive and maintain adamant protection from censorship or repression because censorship only harms, it does not benefit or prevent anything.
By taking away a safe, legal outlet you’re only making the problem worse.
If they’re not at risk of committing a sexual offense, then what problem could they be having aside from shame or cultural sensitivity? people sadly often times mischaracterize pedophiles as ticking time bombs who will inevitably offend at least once in their life, but that’s not the case and studies continue to show that it isn’t, even in reference to fictional/fantasy material.
Wrong. If it INCREASES crime, then it shouldn’t exist. That’s always been the logic behind prohibitive actions. Pornography that does not involve the actual exploitation of children has no real connection with sex crime. It is a fact, and has been shown in multiple studies to actually reduce it by a considerable margin. These aren’t meaningless correlations we’re talking about.
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to have what they want if it isn’t causing anybody any harm? You’re not making a good argument for this, you’re only showing how irrational and emotional your position on the matter is by acting out this way.
5 Likes
is this seriously all you people have to say on the issue? Just “it’s gross!” and “it’s offensive!”?
I think incest as a concept is quite abominable, same with scat porn is also disgusting but you don’t see me going into forums and making a scene about it, or wanting to criminalize it. I have my opinions and I’ll leave it at that.
4 Likes
well you’re not ‘giving’ them anything. you’re simply not criminalizing their desires in the written or drawn form. All ideas, even the most repugnant or offensive kinds, should receive and maintain adamant protection from censorship or repression because censorship only harms
Just because it’s legal does not make it right! It’s legal to spank children in many states, but its still abuse! Either way, I don’t condone criminalizing fictional stuff, but don’t expect me to condone pedo perverts using this stuff. I don’t want it criminalized, but I don’t want it legalized. Keep it in a grey zone. The artists behind this stuff really need to find something else to fucking draw.
people sadly often times mischaracterize pedophiles as ticking time bombs who will inevitably offend at least once in their life, but that’s not the case and studies continue to show that it isn’t, even in reference to fictional/fantasy material.
Show me EVIDENCE that giving them this sort of material deters them from committing real offenses. And correlation IS NOT CAUSATION I WANT A CAUSAL LINK. If there is a link, I would support making lolicon prescription only, Anyone without a valid prescription will simply have said material confiscated without any criminal charges.
Yup, it’s our usual Q Anon shitposter alright…
1 Like