Lawyer pages seem misleading

I have a question. I have noticed that most of lawyer pages discussing legality of loli in the USA tend to be kind of misleading about it being illegal. They tend to lump it with CSEM and the times they mention obscenity it’s either in passing or they botch it. For example, one page says that the depictions need to be of minors engaging in “obscene conduct”. The question is: of lawyers are supposed to be experts, why do they make these glaring mistakes? Or are they not mistakes and they want to cause alarm to draw clients in?
This is an example of a badly written article in a lawyer’s website: Is Lolicon Legal in the United States? - Los Angeles, CA - The Rodriguez Law Group

2 Likes

They are engaging in areas of law in which they do not have a lot of experience or familiarity. There also maybe some deliberate attempt to play it safe or just deceive people. Obscenity is a hot button issue in the USA.

Nobody can be expert in everything. But some people feel that because they have some knowledge, they know everything.

3 Likes

I agree. I iust worry that people will take these statements from lawyers as, well, the law, since they are perceived as experts. Misinformation spreads from this.

1 Like

Much of these law firms are using SEO (search engine optimization) to promote their firms in Google Search results. The more articles you have with good standing in Search, the more likely your domain is going to appear for other matters, which in-turn promotes their business.
It’s bad practice, though, and many pages will often copy over what each other say but worded slightly differently.

Pages which use the term “illegal” as opposed to “legal” are 10x more likely to show up first in search because Google’s search prioritizes them, regardless of their factual substance. Something that bothers the hell out of me about the way Google handles search is that they’ve begun to rely increasingly on their own SEO when people are looking for facts which can give people the wrong impressions when dealing with subject matter that does not have a black-white answer.

Why does Google’s SEO prioritize them you may ask…? Well… people just click on them! They’re scary words. It’s a big part of this that has lead to misinformation being propped up, rather than actual facts or nuance.

This right here is the US federal statute which defines “child pornography”. It defines each term that this page specifically lays out, and even clarifies exactly what IS or ISN’T CSAM.

I’m no lawyer, but if you scroll around thru other pages of the Rodriguez Law group and compare them against other precedents or statements by other lawyers, you’ll find conflicting statements because they’re all poorly-researched and not very well-vetted. Not to worry, though. These blurbs are not to be taken as legal advice, and I’m sure if you read around their website you’ll find that ever-so convenient disclaimer made outright.

3 Likes

THAT makes so much freaking sense now. Now I understand why a lot of these get some bits right, others wrong. Also, the only decent one, and that I think gets everything more or less right, is this one: Is loli illegal in the United States? A defense lawyer explains

They do get one bit wrong, and I am sure you can tell which one it is. But it is impressive for one of those lawyer pages.

1 Like

I…still don’t think so, because it still presupposes that such depictions are de facto illegal on the basis that they will be judged to be obscene.
The best articles are those that do not make a clear determination.

2 Likes

In all fairness, considering the fact that there’s currently precedent for text-only stories being illegal based on their content, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say any fictional content could be determined to be obscene on a whim.

2 Likes

Ok, this one is much more decent.

1 Like