Texas made lolicon a felony

[ribbon]

Simpsons cartoon rip-off is child porn: judge

A NSW Supreme Court judge has ruled an internet cartoon in which lookalike child characters from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts is child pornography.

www.theage.com.au

thats simpson toddler incest porn that someones meant to jack their weiner too bra not bart simpson pissing on a truck logo.

 

[MoonMetropolis]

thats simpson toddler incest porn that someones meant to jack their weiner too bra not bart simpson pissing on a truck logo.

No, it wasn't. It was a parody cartoon meant to be funny. It's currently up on ED, although I am obviously not going to link to it.

 

[Gigafly]

No, it wasn't. It was a parody cartoon meant to be funny. It's currently up on ED, although I am obviously not going to link to it.

Steve is gooning to it as we speak

 

[ribbon]

No, it wasn't. It was a parody cartoon meant to be funny. It's currently up on ED, although I am obviously not going to link to it.

Oops alright then.

 

[𝗠𝗞𝗖]

No, it wasn't. It was a parody cartoon meant to be funny. It's currently up on ED, although I am obviously not going to link to it.

>sir you have 50TB of child porn, correct?
<no, your honor. clearly facts and logic arent your strong suit, it's just a joke and it was never intended to be pornographic. why? because one of the child rapists dressed up as spongebob, it's a parody

 

[MoonMetropolis]

>sir you have 50TB of child porn, correct?
<no, your honor. clearly facts and logic arent your strong suit, it's just a joke and it was never intended to be pornographic. why? because one of the child rapists dressed up as spongebob, it's a parody

Are you actually suggesting that dressing real kids up as SpongeBob before raping them is even remotely the equivalent of drawing crude parody comics of Bart Simpson fucking his sister?

 

[meijak]

This is good because i hope they give loliniggers the chair but are they doing anything about the 'p containing real kids first because i keep hearing about pedophiles in the us getting like a one year sentence.

What if it just applies to pornographic/erotic depictions leaving place for clear non erotic (such as artistic or satirical depictions) because i doubt that even if it was made illegal theyd give it the same treatment as csem of real kids. I know no nigga is getting jailed for cp for having a bart simpson peeing on a truck logo sticker.

I think the point is that it's hard to differentiate between these things. There is a person perma banned for linking to a wikipedia entry of an album cover and 2 people in the hole because they said he's not a pedo. There is a famous statue/fountain in Brussels, Belgium of a little boy pissing and legend says it, saving the city, I will not link it because I don't care for the hole.

 

[Gigafly]

There is a person perma banned for linking to a wikipedia entry of an album cover and 2 people in the hole because they said he's not a pedo.

Marge, was it Nevermind?

 

[meijak]

Marge, was it Nevermind?

Ytsuken.

 

[Gigafly]

Ytsuken.

No, I'm talking about the album cover

 

[𝗠𝗞𝗖]

Are you actually suggesting that dressing real kids up as SpongeBob before raping them is even remotely the equivalent of drawing crude parody comics of Bart Simpson fucking his sister?

Poor example, yeah. Fair.
I think the problem is that the legal system is built upon a black & white foundation. Reminds me a lot of the zero tolerance policies schools have now, where defending yourself can get you expelled in some areas.
I don't think someone should go to jail for drawing Greg Heffley with a 10 foot penis. It's the "blanket" ban thing that's really the issue here.

 

[meijak]

No, I'm talking about the album cover

Do you mean the sculpture? If you wanna look it up you can just use the words in my post.

 

[Catter]

Do you mean the sculpture? If you wanna look it up you can just use the words in my post.

I think he's talking about the album

 

[ribbon]

I think the point is that it's hard to differentiate between these things. There is a person perma banned for linking to a wikipedia entry of an album cover and 2 people in the hole because they said he's not a pedo. There is a famous statue/fountain in Brussels, Belgium of a little boy pissing and legend says it, saving the city, I will not link it because I don't care for the hole.

I guess so, it was mostly to counter the "well then south park would be banned" because the difference between lolicon and that is that its clear you arent meant to get hard from a south park bit.
That "nuance" doesnt apply outside of fiction because it puts real kids in danger which is what should be prioritized to fight agaisnt, which is what ytsuken kinda did. The album cover was portraying in an erotic manner a REAL kid. One makes you a pedophile and the other makes you an active offending pedophile, the distribution of irl csem creates demand for more child abuse. Lolicon may not have an "active victim" from its consumption but getting hard to a depiction of a child does make you a pedophile whether its fictional or not. It just means you havent molested anyone yet but i wouldnt let that nigga babysit my kid.

 

[meijak]

I guess so, it was mostly to counter the "well then south park would be banned" because the difference between lolicon and that is that its clear you arent meant to get hard from a south park bit.
That "nuance" doesnt apply outside of fiction because it puts real kids in danger which is what should be prioritized to fight agaisnt, which is what ytsuken kinda did. The album cover was portraying in an erotic manner a REAL kid. One makes you a pedophile and the other makes you an active offending pedophile, the distribution of irl csem creates demand for more child abuse. Lolicon may not have an "active victim" from its consumption but getting hard to a depiction of a child does make you a pedophile whether its fictional or not. It just means you havent molested anyone yet but i wouldnt let that nigga babysit my kid.

I don't think Ytsuken was portraying it as a positive, I think he was trying to show how fucked up it is in his own retarded way. Like knowing that the album cover exists doesn't make you a pedo and it's haram in most of the civilized world, barring most importantly US of A.

I think he's talking about the album

I am not aching for a ban so I will zip it.

 

[ribbon]

I don't think Ytsuken was portraying it as a positive, I think he was trying to show how fucked up it is in his own retarded way. Like knowing that the album cover exists doesn't make you a pedo and it's haram in most of the civilized world, barring most importantly US of A.

yeah i think he was retarded for linking it either way.

 

[meijak]

yeah i think he was retarded for linking it either way.

He's just generally retarded.

 

[SoySpotter]

I don't think Ytsuken was portraying it as a positive, I think he was trying to show how fucked up it is in his own retarded way. Like knowing that the album cover exists doesn't make you a pedo and it's haram in most of the civilized world, barring most importantly US of A.

I agree, but I think it was incredibly retarded of him to do that. It is also weird he posted that without thinking twice, there had to be some level of desensitization in him to do that.

 

[Catter]

I agree, but I think it was incredibly retarded of him to do that. It is also weird he posted that without thinking twice, there had to be some level of desensitization in him to do that.

he kept saying it wasn't as bad as csam on irc

 

[meijak]

I agree, but I think it was incredibly retarded of him to do that. It is also weird he posted that without thinking twice, there had to be some level of desensitization in him to do that.

Yeah, I mean posting any nudity here is fucking stupid. There are children on this forum.