http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001466---A000-.html
*"TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 71 > § 1466A Prev | Next
§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(b) Additional Offenses.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
(d) Circumstances.— The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is that—
(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States.
(e) Affirmative Defense.— It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant—
(1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction—
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
(f) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;
(2) the term “sexually explicit conduct” has the meaning given the term in section 2256 (2)(A) or 2256 (2)(B); and
(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted."*
What exactly does this mean? Are 99% of all xchan-sites going to be shut down?
>>1
tl;dr
But you knew I would say that.
Please tell the people at Hongfire, they are jerks who won't even read my PM.
>(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
>What exactly does this mean? Are 99% of all xchan-sites going to be shut down?
no.
hi2u Miller test
>>5
what are talking about.
>>4
I doubt the courts will find any artistic, political or scientific value in loli-pron.
>>6
I'm talking about the Miller test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
or justfuckinggoogleit.com
>lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
is that not subjective?
I think Horihone Saizo vol. 2 has literary and artistic value
American 'justice' system for the lol
SERIOUS POLITICAL VALUE.
>>10 yeah seriously.
They say we have freedom of expression. Why do I have to be careful of the art I create? If I want to draw 10,000 lolis being raped and torn apart by monsters or something, what's the problem? Is that seriously comparable to actual child pornography??
>>12
please post
> They say we have freedom of expression. Why do I have to be careful of the art I create?
Freedom of expression doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible of what you create.
> If I want to draw 10,000 lolis being raped and torn apart by monsters or something, what's the problem?
It is obscene.
> Is that seriously comparable to actual child pornography??
No, but how would you explain that to people who just want to protect the children?
>>14
Sure, one should be responsible for what one creates. And of course, that particular subject matter is obscene. But there are not actually 10,000 real young girls being ripped apart. They are imaginary!
People who want to protect the children, why does this bother them? Do they think it means I'll go after real children? If so, how is preventing me from drawing such 'fantasies' going to stop me from wanting to do it in real life?
(this is all hypothetical btw, I don't want to have anything to do with little girls at all)
i doubt it. most of them could get away with a disclaimer stating "all characters depicted are over 18". of course i'd expect to see a dropoff in loli/shota based boards on general *chan sites, and those entirely devoted to such material are probably a bit screwed. unless they're hosted in a country where it's legal, of course.
hello, 16 here. i had the page cached obviously, since the only post i saw when replying was 1. please accept my orz
some guy on my floor got arrested for having that shit
>>18 what country are you from? was it real or drawn?
>>18
@ college/university? scary, but I think I'll leave that kinda stuff at home when I go
>>16
"depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in..."
>>1
This will be overturned by the Supreme Court if it is ever prosecuted as an individual case (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 2002), but the handy thing is that it will never be prosecuted as an individual case. It is for use only as an extra charge to be tacked on to a child porn charge, and that's what >>18 is probably talking about.
However, if you ever get busted for this, you could make a suprisingly strong case that child porn laws violate the First Amendment.
>It is obscene.
According to you, maybe. Fortunately, obscenity is defined by a liberal interpretation of the community standards (whatever those are), and even then, those are challengable in court.
>No, but how would you explain that to people who just want to protect the children?
How does "Fuck off, you uptight weaselly bastard!" sound?
I find this whole world fucking absurd. If we're going to have any "freedom of speech" laws whatsoever, there can't be any corrolaries to it! It should exist in dichotomy! It's either free speech, or it isn't. Damned shenanigans.
Because we can all agree that some things are wrong, and therefore not protected by the freedom of speech.
The rationale is that speech should be free but some porn is so disgusting that no one should be allowed to view it.
>>27
We can all agree after I kill everyone that doesn't agree with me.
>>28
What if new people are born who grow up not to agree with you?
whats up?
>>24
because our world doesnt operate in extremities
Time to learn how to use cryptography...
Discuss this topic!
2008-03-03 20:43
It is not THAT old, dude.
> 2008-03-04 04:00
Learn to quote dates!
>>40
You are silly, Mr. Heaven.
> 2008-03-04 22:26
Is the date of this thread. Learn how to use this board. I am active on this board for 7 years. How long are you here, Mr. Heaven?
How could you have been active on this board for 7 years when it hasn't existed for the first 3 of those years you claim to have been active on it?
To reiterate some straight truth from my Civil Liberties course:
Supreme Court precedent: Obscenity is NOT protected by the 1st amendment.
Supreme Court precedent: However, only if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Supreme Court precedent: The Warren court interpreted this liberally, saying it had to ABSOLUTELY and UTTERLY "lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." This liberal interpretation rather neutered the definition of "non-protected obscenity." Stuff like Horihone Saizou is protected under the 1st Amendment. Stuff like "Final Half Year" is protected under the 1st amendment. However, if McCain gets to appoint more Supreme Court justices, there is a possibility of some loli porn being declared truely "obscene" and not protected.
warren court is old news dude, now it's all about the ashcroft court sending scat pornographers to prison. quote dis if ur down
> quote dis if ur down
>>18 what country are you from? was it real or drawn?
bump