Attention: I will be monitoring and reporting illegal Lolicon (constituting child pornography in the United States of America) posts on tonight
Those who have already posted: it is already too late for you. Your profile has been registered and additional monitoring will be conducted against you
This is a new loli thread?
Why do you reject the cunny?
GOOD, I fucking HATE lolicons! HOW THE FUCK could anyone be attracted to cute, young... Precious... Amazingly lovable and huggable, tiny little lolis!? It makes no sense...
How could anyone want to just hold and hug a cute little girl forever in their arms whilst she falls asleep, kissing her cute little head? It's s-sick!
>Attention: I will be monitoring and reporting illegal Lolicon (constituting child pornography in the United States of America) posts on tonight
>Those who have already posted: it is already too late for you. Your profile has been registered and additional monitoring will be conducted against you
You fags permabanned me for saying that one of your honeypot pics was an irl pic with a filter.
>Lolicon (constituting child pornography in the United States of America)
Lolicon is a form of virtual/simulated child pornography, and is protected by the First Amendment on the grounds that no real child was used to make it.
No abuse? No crime.
CP/CSAM is illegal because it is a form of child sexual exploitation, and its existence bearing an intrinsic relationship with the act. Not because it's offensive.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
law.cornell.edu
By prohibiting child pornography that does not depict an actual child, the statute goes beyond New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), which distinguished child pornography from other sexually explicit speech because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process. See id., at 758. As a general rule, pornography can be banned only if obscene, but under Ferber, pornography showing minors can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene under the definition set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Ferber recognized that “[t]he Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be banned as obscene, does not reflect the State’s particular and more compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual exploitation of children.” 458 U.S., at 761.
US v. Williams (2008)
law.cornell.edu
But an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means “a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,” post,at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography.
Lick my tight, wet, pink cunny bitch nigger
I wonder how many tips sites like the FBI receive from people reporting stuff like this. I mean has their even been any action against Loli on here? Like at all?
Moreover, the US Federal definition of child pornography explicitly EXCLUDES depictions such as drawings or cartoons from its scope of applicable depictions.
See 18 USC 2256
law.cornell.edu
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
>This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
>This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
>This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
Not even just America. In the UK, "any art depicting minors is illegal", but the thing is, NO ONE, not even the BEST lawyers, can prove a drawing, EVEN IF THE DRAWING states the girl is underage, is underage. Hence why loli is technically "illegal" in the UK, but at the same time no one can ever prosecute you for having lolicon material, in fact it it LEGALLY owned and sold widely across the UK, you can go to anime shops and buy way underage lolicon material freely.
The law is stupid; people know people lewd lolis, and no one cares. No lawyer in the country can prove a drawing is real so no one cares. I feel bad for Australia for being so cucked on their loli laws, they can't even import loli anymore.
No, why would there be? Loli is legal. Go on 8ch and look at a CAT thread, that's even on the clearweb.
The latest case occurred in 2020 when a search warrant was executed by the DHS upon the emails and cloud drive of an artist in Kansas who had won several Midwest art competitions, and whose tattoos are popular in the local subculture. Google detected “digital art or cartoons depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct or engaged in sexual intercourse” within a Drive account and gave information on the details and the IP addresses used to access the drawings and tattoos to the NCMEC.
forbes.com
Considering the site has been able to operate comfortably and within the good graces of US authorities, none.
Hell, Any Forums is even listed by the NCMEC's list of compliant ESPs who go out of their way to report illegal child abuse material when it shows up, as is their legal requirement per 18 USC 2258A.
>that Forbes article
Forbes has lost credibility over the years.
The Forbes article in question is not reliable. The author provides no warrant, no case, no citation, no name, no suspect.
When the author of the post was asked to provide something, he provided a fake screenshot of a 'warrant' that was not even formatted the same way that criminal affidavits are. No cases of this kind could be found on PACER or any other publicly available resource, as warrants are typically matters of public record unless sealed.
Moreover, the NCMEC flatly stated that they DO NOT ACCEPT REPORTS FOR MATERIALS THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CSAM unless they are intrinsically linked to the sexual exploitation of an actual child.
Even with the info of the supposed suspect, nobody was able to identify the alleged suspect.
Dude no one cares, loli is fine, no need for an elucidation. Literally no one cares apart from faggot redditors, and everyone knows redditors are faggots anyway.
ggoood yes very good
Obvious bait is obvious and lolicons still come out the woodwork to defend their "totally legal-age" loli.
>DO NOT ACCEPT REPORTS
unless its a report from google apparently
We don't care if they're legal age or not, faggot.
>Forbes reported on it, so it HAS to be true!
>they've never been wrong!
You're falling for bait nonetheless retard, I don't care if you try and rationalize your attraction to 2d children with them being legal or not.
"falling for bait" when I said a sentence kek, seethe rebbit faggot. Cunny is funny.
>You don't like 2d children? Fucking redditor
K, fag.