Is was any recent change in the US procedure to deal with cartoon porn?

I recently saw many people on Twitter posting this image, who seem legit. (I got it from Criminal Division | Obscenity (justice.gov))…
I thought this interpretation was deemed unconstitutional before, did something happen that changed it?

That would be exactly what I fear could happen (and work) to advance censorship worldwide, people passing that kind of decision behind the curtains, to avoid having any discussion about it.

“…and are obscene”, not that they presumptively are obscene.

Such a concept does not exist. Otherwise no porn that depicts sexual contact between adults, or even fictional minors, wouldn’t be allowed on US-based websites, such as 4chan, Gelbooru, etc. or published on various storefronts, like Steam, Jast USA, MangaGamer, or Fakku.

Obscenity is an issue, but this specific article isn’t anything to lose sleep or freak out over.

5 Likes

So, this site reflects the good and old “different people having different opinions about the issue” again? :expressionless:

Technically, fictional porn of minors is illegal only if found obscene after applying the Miller test. In addition to the places and examples mentioned by Chie, there are several manga openly sold in the US, such as To Love Ru, TLR Darkness, Creature Girls by Kakeru, and others, which depict fictional kids engaging in sexual conduct. I have seen several of these being sold at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.

4 Likes

It also applies equally to adult porn. Imagine being gay in a rural Texas community, or in Missouri, or being trans in Florida. 'S like that.

3 Likes

It also is a matter of whether anyone has challenged it yet. The movie Maladolescenza, as far as I can determine, has never been banned in the US. It would likely fail the Miller Test, since it reportedly includes simulated sex between a 17 year old boy and two 12 year old girls. It would certainly run afoul of Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code. It’s just that no one seems to have done that yet.

1 Like

The fifth circuit implies that a depiction must show forced hard core conduct before obscenity can even be considered.

It cannot hurt to know that “nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards.”
Jenkins v. Georgia (1974).

3 Likes

Spread this around:

8 Likes

Obscenity law should really be rewritten to be more concise:

Don’t be in public places with your private shit. Kthxbye

3 Likes

eh, I wouldn’t trust even that with far-right lawmakers trying to label trans people’s existence as obscene

3 Likes

Looks like the left has problems with virtual child pornography as well as the right.

4 Likes

holy shit I did not expect to see such a reasonable take from a decently mainstream outlet

3 Likes

It’s not likely to pass since it conflicts with California law and legal precedents, and many others have already raised freedom of speech concerns. I’ll be surprised if it makes it onto their legislative calendar.

3 Likes

I believe that I had said this before. Stupid peasants’ brains don’t care about reason. They care about moralism. Not real morals. Moralism.

3 Likes

They don’t favor one side over the other. They understand that intelligent people can disagree. They are also generally sex positive. They believe that whatever consenting adults do in private is none of the government’s god damn business.

2 Likes