These part two years have been a ruff time for the anime style for pedophiles.
American suits trying to make fictional animated children illegal.
Personally I'm not that big on the stuff, but the fact that they're trying to criminalize this stuff makes me worry, because if they'll do that to fictional things, whats next.
Whats your view on this subject, I would also like to know if they actually are going to criminalize rorikon.
I checked the wiki but it didn't make things clear.
> if they'll do that to fictional things, whats next.
Real child pornography is already illegal.
> American suits trying to make fictional animated children illegal.
And nothing of value was lost...
Real child pornography is already illegal.I'm pretty sure >>1 was suggesting that pedophilic tendencies could be made a criminal offense.
This is a victimless crime. It constitutes state cultural censorship and a violation of free expression.
>>6
It's pretty easy to take the state's obligation towards the general welfare of the public to demand the regulation of expression which has no social value.
The majority and dissenting opinions of Miller v. California might be interesting to you.
If the whole world banned fictional underage girls, we would just start to see stories where a 20 year old has a surprisingly 11 year old looking body.
Then you'll have to explain how the "general welfare of the public" is benefited by the state's arbitration of what cultural assets are and are not of value. Demanding that our culture is "Of social value" is an arbitrary distinction which logically excludes wide ranges of valued media with no concrete justification.
If there is no justifiable cause for concern that said media is a threat to members of society's safety or well-being, why should it be banned?
"Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Now if that's not an arbitrary, dogmatic degree of a mindset bent on suppressing culture, I don't know what is. Just what is, on any level, "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?" That's like asking a court to define "Art". It's ridiculous, especially now of all times, when the academic world has never been more uncertain of its own values and foundations for gauging these sorts of things.
>>appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct...
Technically that definition would damn much traditional Hindu and Trantric Buddhist art and literature, it's obviously written from an Abrahamic, religious perspective, and could be construed as a violation of church and state.
>>in a patently offensive way
There's another head-scratcher. Is pornography "patently offensive"? If it was, I don't think it would sell as well.
Dear friends, I've been saying this many many times and I don't mind if I have to say it again and again and again...... All government (especially those under dictatorship) no matter what they're trying to ban (religion or Harry Potter). Not because they really care about you or society or anything they claim. The only true reason for any government official try to ban anything is because they can create new jobs and earn their paycheck or other benefit for themselves. Think about China, their one-child policy and how they ban some internet information that all need money and manpower. You think those government officials are going to do it for free because those policies are good for their country? Just the opposite, many corruption appear because of that. And how about The US, if they really want to ban something they should ban guns years ago and why they didn't? I think you know the reason better than I do.
The majority and dissenting opinions of Miller v. California might be interesting to you.
Of course, what did you expect?
What do you want me to do read the fucking transcripts? I don't give a shit, just give me the punchline, that' what the prosecution's case hinged on, and that legal definition of obscenity is the legacy of the whole trial any how.
That's all anybody thinks about when they hear "Miller v. California".
The Governments and religions are whats keep world peace away, we need to abolish both and we might be able to achieve world peace.
I don't believe so, I believe we'd just have shamanic tribes killing each other and we wouldn't live past 40.
But, at least climate change wouldn't be a problem for us to deal with.
Even using the term "victimless crime" to describe underage sexual drawings is loaded. Art is not a crime (artistic value thankfully satisfies the Miller test), and making it or consuming it is no crime, either. Nobody is being harmed or exploited by creating such works, and to paraphrase one Supreme Court Justice, "if freedom of speech means anything, it means protection for the speech we hate - not just speech we agree with."
It is important to fight tooth and nail attempts to criminalize any type of art, otherwise the same tactics will eventually be applied to anything deemed potentially offensive to someone.
> underage sexual drawings...Art is not a crime
Pornography is not art.
I don't wish to get philosophical about this.
> Nobody is being harmed or exploited by creating such works
This is true but it's not an valid argument in any court.
Victimless or self-victimizing crimes are commonplace in legal codes around the world and there is little chance of them being entirely abolished. Especially where public support exists for such laws.
> the same tactics will eventually be applied to anything deemed potentially offensive to someone.
Any measure of power granted to any man will be abused. That's life.
Censorship is not the demon it's made out to be.
Most of us are in favour of censoring or punishing slander/libel, death threats, public obscenity (to widely varying degrees), malicious pranks, invasive marketing, and 150dB music at 3:00AM.
How about some conspiracy theory:
The whole idea was created by those real pornography industries and they bribed some government officials to create such law in order to protect their bussiness. Wouldn't they be most benefited by the law?
>>Pornography is not art.
Controversial.
Frankly, pornography/not pornography as I see it, is an aesthetic discussion that only occurs within the bounds of human art. So, as an aesthetic discussion, all "pornography" is naturally an example of human art.
Most people would consider the Floating-World prints of Torii Kiyonaga "non-pornographic art", even though much of his work would have been self-admittedly closer-rated to prurient, pornographic intent in its own time. That whole classification is ridiculous, of course its art, it was made by humans wasn't it? And it doesn't have any utilitarian purpose, does it? It must be art.
Now the only question that remains, is whether or not it's of "Serious Value". Well sadly, if we rule out all art that doesn't appear "serious" to us, we can start burning a lot of our cultural heritage, and enshrining a lot of art that doesn't reflect us or our interests in any way.
> Controversial.
It hasn't been for millennia.
Fuck Andy Warhol.
> it was made by humans wasn't it?
I just wrote my name in the snow with urine expelled from my urethra.
It's not art.
> And it doesn't have any utilitarian purpose, does it?
Pornography has the utilitarian purpose of supplementing an erection, facilitating easier masturbation or sex.
It's unambiguous to most people whether something is pornographic, even if finding a set of rules is more difficult.
Pornography is not art.
This isn't to say that pornography has no cultural value...
Yet, pornography is still not art.
Aesthetic debate.
>>it hasn't been for millennia.
I recommend an Art History class.
I dare say "pornography" is a relatively recent concept, and specific to European art.
> Pornography is not art.
> I don't wish to get philosophical about this.
Don't worry, we will just accept your expert opinion without debating it.
> Pornography is not art.
It's hard to miss the point of this discussion more comprehensively,...
art = anything which is created by "man" which has no practical benefits at all.
Then again the benefits of art are manifold: in education, entertainment, morale-raising, religious ceremony, comfort, you name it, it's impossible to imagine a society with no art.
I wonder if loli serves any purpose other than fapping?
Suppose you download it because it's hilarious?
Since when was fapping not entertainment, or for that matter, a natural sexual necessity for any healthy young man?
Just cause you need to eat doesn't mean eating can't be entertainment, or for that matter, great food not a work of art.
Just to make things more absurd, the way you "arrange" the food can be considered art. Much like flower arrangement is considered an art.
So if you arrange flowers, food, or lines on paper, you are creating art in a way. If it was ruled that lined drawings of underage sex was illegal, surely it would be quickly be replaced by pictures of M&M mosaics depicting underage sex. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Or, lined drawings would continue, despite the illegality, at least until some local police department actually got the resources together to round up anyone who belongs to an anime club, or subpoena anyone who's visited 4chan and might have something in their cache.