Facetiae
(?)Community Member
Lonely Conversationalist
Offline
- Posted: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:40:40 +0000
I was doing a little bit of research, and I found this, and I would like to share my feelings on it..
Taken from Wikipedia:
"The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."
On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber alert Law) which again criminalizes all forms of pornography that shows people under the age of 18 regardless of production. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (the third test of the Miller Test obscenity determination).
In the case of the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) was not deemed to satisfy the law as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, ยง 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.
The Department of Justice has appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and is unscheduled on the 2006-2007 schedule suggesting that it will not be reviewed until the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes for the 2007-2008 session. or will remain unheard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." Whorley was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) on fourteen accounts for receiving "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes at the time of the violations, although these convictions were independent of Whorley's violation of the terms of his parole. The same FOIA-requested November 2006 United States Attorney's Bulletin describing the details of the conviction, concludes by suggesting that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions of possession of such obscene cartoons. It is worth noting that Whorley's charges were coupled with charges for possession of conventional child pornography and that he was on parole at the time making the legal possibility of appealing the charges far less feasible and far less attractive to civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year sentence in jail to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act"
What that basically means is that Lolicon/Lolitia/Shota is now illegal in the U.S.A. Now I wouldn't normally have a problem with this, aside from one thing, what people think and what people do are two VERY different things.
Going to jail for 10 years for having a drawing of a fictional underaged girl/boy?
C'mon, you don't find that in the least bit ridiculous?
They're DRAWINGS, not real little girls and boys.
*****:
Someone whom has fantasies of sextual acts with children much younger then themselves.
...
Child Molester:
Someone whom engadges in sextual acts with much younger then themselves.
...
***** does not mean Child Molester
I would like to say again, what poeple think and what poeple do are two very different things, and in America, we should punish people for what they do, not what they think.
I would like to say for the record that no I don't like or support *****, but I do support freedom, and so long as a ***** keeps his fantasy to himself and does not act apon it, I don't have a problem with him or her thinking it.
And I'll leave you with some comic relif...
The way it should be,
-By:-King_Ramiel-
*FBI bursts into room*
Guy: WTF?! 0_o
Agent: We've recieved information that you possess child pornography in your computer.
Guy: But it's animated! It's not real. ;_;
Agent: Really?
Guy: See? *shows agent*
Agent: Damn, she knows how to suck- *ahem* You've seen nothing. Have a good day sir. *leaves room*
Guy: It's clear now.
*closet opens*
*****: *with tied-up loli* Whew! That was close =3
Taken from Wikipedia:
"The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."
On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber alert Law) which again criminalizes all forms of pornography that shows people under the age of 18 regardless of production. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (the third test of the Miller Test obscenity determination).
In the case of the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) was not deemed to satisfy the law as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, ยง 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.
The Department of Justice has appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and is unscheduled on the 2006-2007 schedule suggesting that it will not be reviewed until the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes for the 2007-2008 session. or will remain unheard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males." Whorley was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) on fourteen accounts for receiving "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes at the time of the violations, although these convictions were independent of Whorley's violation of the terms of his parole. The same FOIA-requested November 2006 United States Attorney's Bulletin describing the details of the conviction, concludes by suggesting that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions of possession of such obscene cartoons. It is worth noting that Whorley's charges were coupled with charges for possession of conventional child pornography and that he was on parole at the time making the legal possibility of appealing the charges far less feasible and far less attractive to civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year sentence in jail to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act"
What that basically means is that Lolicon/Lolitia/Shota is now illegal in the U.S.A. Now I wouldn't normally have a problem with this, aside from one thing, what people think and what people do are two VERY different things.
Going to jail for 10 years for having a drawing of a fictional underaged girl/boy?
C'mon, you don't find that in the least bit ridiculous?
They're DRAWINGS, not real little girls and boys.
*****:
Someone whom has fantasies of sextual acts with children much younger then themselves.
...
Child Molester:
Someone whom engadges in sextual acts with much younger then themselves.
...
***** does not mean Child Molester
I would like to say again, what poeple think and what poeple do are two very different things, and in America, we should punish people for what they do, not what they think.
I would like to say for the record that no I don't like or support *****, but I do support freedom, and so long as a ***** keeps his fantasy to himself and does not act apon it, I don't have a problem with him or her thinking it.
And I'll leave you with some comic relif...
The way it should be,
-By:-King_Ramiel-
*FBI bursts into room*
Guy: WTF?! 0_o
Agent: We've recieved information that you possess child pornography in your computer.
Guy: But it's animated! It's not real. ;_;
Agent: Really?
Guy: See? *shows agent*
Agent: Damn, she knows how to suck- *ahem* You've seen nothing. Have a good day sir. *leaves room*
Guy: It's clear now.
*closet opens*
*****: *with tied-up loli* Whew! That was close =3
