Texas made lolicon a felony

[dino]

@MoonMetropolis geg I remember reading your blog post about ai generated 'p what's your opinion on this

hes dead

 

[SUPERNIGGA]

Rulecuck? More like ruleCHAD.

Morals won btw

 

[SoySpotter]

Rulecuck? More like ruleCHAD.

>MUH FREESPEECHIRINO!!! I NEED TO BE ABLE TO GROOM KIDS WITHOUT PUNISHM-AAAAAAAAACK!

 

[MoonMetropolis]

@MoonMetropolis geg I remember reading your blog post about ai generated 'p what's your opinion on this

Lolicon, while vile and repulsive, is not a matter for law enforcement since it does not involve harm to actual children, and criminalizing any cartoons - regardless of what they depict - sets an extremely dangerous precedent with massive potential for abuse. If you're criminalizing cartoon depictions of sexual situations involving children, then you're potentially opening up the door for certain episodes of South Park to be criminalized. On top of that, there is absolutely no way to objectively measure the age of a cartoon character. Not to mention, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and Texas's bill will inevitably be struck down as unconstitutional: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-jan-june02-scotus_04-16

Photorealistic AI-generated imagery is a much more complicated matter, however. As far as the law is concerned, it should definitely depend on what the AI model is using. If it's using real-life children as the template, then that's not the same as if it's using completely fake imagery with entirely fictional, nonexistent children. The latter is still absolutely disgusting, of course, but it doesn't involve real harm to real children. Using real children as a template for fake CP, however, does obviously harm real children. I definitely should have gone into more detail about what the AI is trained on in the article.

 

[_account]

Lolicon, while vile and repulsive, is not a matter for law enforcement since it does not involve harm to actual children, and criminalizing any cartoons - regardless of what they depict - sets an extremely dangerous precedent with massive potential for abuse. If you're criminalizing cartoon depictions of sexual situations involving children, then you're potentially opening up the door for certain episodes of South Park to be criminalized. On top of that, there is absolutely no way to objectively measure the age of a cartoon character. Not to mention, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and Texas's bill will inevitably be struck down as unconstitutional: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-jan-june02-scotus_04-16

Photorealistic AI-generated imagery is a much more complicated matter, however. As far as the law is concerned, it should definitely depend on what the AI model is using. If it's using real-life children as the template, then that's not the same as if it's using completely fake imagery with entirely fictional, nonexistent children. The latter is still absolutely disgusting, of course, but it doesn't involve real harm to real children. Using real children as a template for fake CP, however, does obviously harm real children. I definitely should have gone into more detail about what the AI is trained on in the article.

I wish you got shanked when you were locked up

 

[obsessed venusian]

>criminalizing south park

 

[_73]

If you're criminalizing cartoon depictions of sexual situations involving children, then you're potentially opening up the door for certain episodes of South Park to be criminalized.

That will never happen, because southpark is a comedy and not porn, unlike lolicon

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

Posting it again:
Is this like a catch all for special cases or is this a full blown loli death? While loli shit is nasty I don’t think glowniggers should waste resources hunting it down over real csam.

It probably won't be dealt with the same way as P, because literally anyone can make lolicon with a pen and paper, while you need to do you know what to make P. It would be probably more weakly enforced, but would basically mean lolicon would be banned on all sites that wanted to run in that jurisdiction, or at least removed through geolocation, which is something most sites won't want to have to do the work to maintain. Effectively it would cut short the SHARING of lolicon outside of private communications, and make anyone who had this content vunerable to snitching and having their lives fucked by that.
So it would do quite a lot to stamp out the pedophile networks in that area. If more states join, it would become more and more dangerous to be a lolinigger.

 

[_account]

View attachment 164144
>criminalizing south park

>allowing south Park but only if they mock people I hate:

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

Morals won btw
View attachment 164125

 

[MoonMetropolis]

That will never happen, because southpark is a comedy and not porn, unlike lolicon

If you don't think that these laws can be abused, give this a watch:

The law is a blunt instrument. Its potential for abuse is unlimited.

 

[SUPERNIGGA]

View attachment 164144
>criminalizing south park

South Park is funny but they made an episode in one of the early seasons about all the kids jerking off their dogs because of a game called "red rocket". So yeah I would not be against the idea of that

 

[SUPERNIGGA]

View attachment 164147

I look like this and have this shirt

 

[_account]

If you don't think that these laws can be abused, give this a watch:

The law is a blunt instrument. Its potential for abuse is unlimited.

I have problems with laws too, specifically the ones that protect certain people who should ostracized from society.

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

Lolicon, while vile and repulsive, is not a matter for law enforcement since it does not involve harm to actual children, and criminalizing any cartoons - regardless of what they depict - sets an extremely dangerous precedent with massive potential for abuse. If you're criminalizing cartoon depictions of sexual situations involving children, then you're potentially opening up the door for certain episodes of South Park to be criminalized. On top of that, there is absolutely no way to objectively measure the age of a cartoon character. Not to mention, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and Texas's bill will inevitably be struck down as unconstitutional: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-jan-june02-scotus_04-16

Photorealistic AI-generated imagery is a much more complicated matter, however. As far as the law is concerned, it should definitely depend on what the AI model is using. If it's using real-life children as the template, then that's not the same as if it's using completely fake imagery with entirely fictional, nonexistent children. The latter is still absolutely disgusting, of course, but it doesn't involve real harm to real children. Using real children as a template for fake CP, however, does obviously harm real children. I definitely should have gone into more detail about what the AI is trained on in the article.

Make an amendment that makes lolicon illegal or something.

 

[meijak]

Lolicon, while vile and repulsive, is not a matter for law enforcement since it does not involve harm to actual children, and criminalizing any cartoons - regardless of what they depict - sets an extremely dangerous precedent with massive potential for abuse. If you're criminalizing cartoon depictions of sexual situations involving children, then you're potentially opening up the door for certain episodes of South Park to be criminalized. On top of that, there is absolutely no way to objectively measure the age of a cartoon character. Not to mention, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and Texas's bill will inevitably be struck down as unconstitutional: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-jan-june02-scotus_04-16

Photorealistic AI-generated imagery is a much more complicated matter, however. As far as the law is concerned, it should definitely depend on what the AI model is using. If it's using real-life children as the template, then that's not the same as if it's using completely fake imagery with entirely fictional, nonexistent children. The latter is still absolutely disgusting, of course, but it doesn't involve real harm to real children. Using real children as a template for fake CP, however, does obviously harm real children. I definitely should have gone into more detail about what the AI is trained on in the article.

I don't think it's about harm. I think it's about normalization of these drawings. The obscenity law should apply to these jap drawings, too and I think this is what will be argued for if it ever goes to supreme court.

 

[SUPERNIGGA]

>allowing south Park but only if they mock people I hate:
View attachment 164146

>Kidnaping Southpark writers and forcing them to make episodes about shiting on the shemmy

 

[MoonMetropolis]

I wish you got shanked when you were locked up

I actually use my brain and analyze things rationally rather than just relying on blind emotion. That tends to piss off retards like you.

As Neil Gaiman put it in his article on the subject:

If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made.

People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to trample on the First Amendment in the name of fighting pedophiles, just like I'm not willing to trample on the First Amendment in the name of fighting terrorists, Nazis, commies, or anyone else. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most vile, despicable, and unpopular forms of speech.

 

[_account]

>Kidnaping Southpark writers and forcing them to make episodes about shiting on the shemmy
View attachment 164150

>kidnapping South Park writers and forcing them to make an entire episode dedicated to shitting on Basil

 

[SUPERNIGGA]

>kidnapping South Park writers and forcing them to make an entire episode dedicated to shitting on Basil
View attachment 164152

Tsmt. Thrembillion times this