Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

The difference is that South Park isn't made for people to get of to. The visual novels with loli characters are.

South park certainly has no issue capitalizing on it though with hypersexualized episodes and scenes

 

[RoboFu]

South park certainly has no issue capitalizing on it though with hypersexualized episodes and scenes

Capitalizing? lol they are 100% satirical and make fun of people who are horrible people. Like anyone who would defend loli porn visual novels.

 

[kevboard]

Im sure there are people who get off to toast as well...

The difference is that South Park isn't made for people to get of to. The visual novels with loli characters are.

so, are artists supposed to send you a written explanation of intent, which you arbitrarily decide if you believe it or not, and if you don't believe it it's banned?
and then send you example material that, if it gives you a boner, is gets banned? "nah man, I am hard as a rock, ban this!"

or how does your concept work exactly?

 

[RoboFu]

so, are artists supposed to send you a written explanation of intent, which you arbitrarily decide if you believe it or not, and if you don't believe it it's banned?
and then send you example material that, if it gives you a boner, is gets banned? "nah man, I am hard as a rock, ban this!"

or how does your concept work exactly?

lol you know what visual novel with loli characters intent is.

Again Feigning dumb is a bad defense of child porn.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Capitalizing? lol they are 100% satirical and make fun of people who are horrible people. Like anyone who would defend loli porn visual novels.

Oh, so their depiction of a child getting butt-fucked is "artistical" and "satire", gotcha.

 

[IntentionalPun]

It is a work of the mind. Legally it is a protected form of speech, thought, expression.

By your logic the supreme court and ACLU support sexual depictions of minors when in fact what they really support is free speech. My views stem from classic liberalism. I can be opposed to something personally and not view it as a matter that the government should be involved in. It's a slippery slope when we forfeit rights. You need to understand a bit of history, law, and human nature to understand where I'm coming from. You're coming at this with raw emotion, which is understandable, but it's devoid of logic and reasoning. You think fixing the world can be accomplished through power and control without fully realizing the repercussions.

18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

www.law.cornell.edu

(a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A)
depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

DOJ mentions this too:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ce

 

[Superbean]

holy shit I'm amazed there's actual csam apologists boot lickers. Fucking twisted man lol

 

[RoboFu]

We need an FBI report button beside the forum report button.

 

[poodaddy]

South park certainly has no issue capitalizing on it though with hypersexualized episodes and scenes

I don't think it's possible for South Park to be hyper sexualized at all just due to the art style. Any sex in it is just used for hilarity.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I don't think it's possible for South Park to be hyper sexualized at all just due to the art style. Any sex in it is just used for hilarity.

You severely underestimate people's proclivities

 

[poodaddy]

You severely underestimate people's proclivities

Perhaps I do.

 

[kevboard]

I don't think it's possible for South Park to be hyper sexualized at all just due to the art style. Any sex in it is just used for hilarity.

south park had an episode where korean and japanese girls draw yaoi art of tweak and craig.
one of the images (all of which were done in an anime style) was them bottomless and grabbing eachother's ass.

they sourced those images by asking their fans to draw them and send them in.
ton of them highly sexually suggestive.

yet, not banned... probably not banned in Norway either... curious. almost as if all of this is completely arbitrary and subjective, and therefore a bad idea.

 

[poodaddy]

south park had an episode where korean and japanese girls draw yaoi art of tweak and craig.
one of the images (all of which were done in an anime style) was them bottomless and grabbing eachother's ass.

they sourced those images by asking their fans to draw them and send them in.
ton of them highly sexually suggestive.

yet, not banned... probably not banned in Norway either... curious. almost as if all of this is completely arbitrary and subjective, and therefore a bad idea.

Alrighty.

 

[IntentionalPun]

south park had an episode where korean and japanese girls draw yaoi art of tweak and craig.
one of the images (all of which were done in an anime style) was them bottomless and grabbing eachother's ass.

they sourced those images by asking their fans to draw them and send them in.
ton of them highly sexually suggestive.

yet, not banned... probably not banned in Norway either... curious. almost as if all of this is completely arbitrary and subjective, and therefore a bad idea.

Look at the law I posted a few posts above.

I did the same thing in another thread basically about this and it just goes ignored.

wtf is yaoi?

 

[kevboard]

Look at the law I posted a few posts above.

I did the same thing in another thread basically about this and it just goes ignored.

wtf is yaoi?

watch the episode they explain it.
randy is learning it with you throughout the episode lol

 

[IntentionalPun]

Here I'll post it again for the free speech absolutists:


(a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A)
depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

 

[Sinozen]

18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

www.law.cornell.edu

DOJ mentions this too:

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ce

We already talked about this in the thread with the miller test. That law is limited by obscenity. I don't actually know anything about this game, but I suspect it would be challenging to convict someone over it.

 

[IntentionalPun]

We already about this in the thread with the miller test. That law is restricted by obscenity. I don't actually know anything about this game, but I suspect it would be challenging to convict someone over it.

Maybe not, but it absolutely is not true that any and all fictional content is legal in the US. People keep saying blanket statements like that here.

 

[Sinozen]

Maybe not, but it absolutely is not true that any and all fictional content is legal in the US. People keep saying blanket statements like that here.

Well I didn't say that it was if you read my posts. You have to consider what it takes to deem something obscene in court through the miller test.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Well I didn't say that it was if you read my posts. You have to consider what it takes to deem something obscene in court through the miller test.

Well you didn't mention Miller in the post I quoted; that's fine if you did earlier, but you did make a pretty blanket statement that isn't true:

It is a work of the mind. Legally it is a protected form of speech, thought, expression.

But in the end, the "Miller test" is vague and if a federal law enforcement agency decided to take this type of material to task we could see some convictions and some people sort of waking up to the risks. People seem to think that just because something is available on the internet and nobody has stopped it from being distributed that it's legal, and that's very far from true.

 

[Sinozen]

Well you didn't mention Miller in the post I quoted; that's fine if you did earlier, but you did make a pretty blanket statement that isn't true:



But in the end, the "Miller test" is vague and if a federal law enforcement agency decided to take this type of material to task we could see some convictions and some people sort of waking up to the risks. People seem to think that just because something is available on the internet and nobody has stopped it from being distributed that it's legal, and that's very far from true.

It wasn't a blanket statement, you jumped into a debate without full context of the conversation.

Miller test isn't really that vague, it has three prongs if you want to look it up, all must be met, and it is determined by a jury of peers in someone's district. The entire jury must agree. There are also protections for obscene content if kept private (see Stanley v Georgia).

You're totally right that just because something is available doesn't make it legal. People should learn their rights in general, it goes well outside of this. No matter how law abiding you think you are, if you're on the wrong end of things anyone can be made a criminal.

 

[DragonNCM]

meanwhile in Norway.......

 

[Draugoth]

Why is this thread still going, far too many people here seem worried by this..

5 pages of discussion on why Lolis are acceptable format in NSFW Medium

I'm so proud of this community

Spoiler: Spoiler

 

[IntentionalPun]

It wasn't a blanket statement, you jumped into a debate without full context of the conversation.

I mean it certainly seemed like one. But you do understand the law so I'm not here trying to make a big deal about it.

And what I meant by Miller being vague is that the terms are subjective. Much of the law is subjective but talking about things like what is obscene or worthy of any artistic merit is not something you can fully codify in some objective way.

Either way as I said in the other thread anyone consuming material like this, and particularly anyone that distributes it should really consider the legal jeopardy where they live, and that includes the US where we have stronger protections than most. I don't think it would be that hard to find a jury to find material like this involving children even if it's fiction obscene.

It's certainly important to let people know there are no 100% protections on this stuff.

 

[IntentionalPun]

No, you just don't understand law. They drew pictures and coded a game. It is purely fiction and of the mind. Legally that is no different from speech, thought, or expression.

As far as this.. that is not true at all. You can think a threat all day and that isn't illegal. There is no illegal thought, there is illegal speach.

 

[Senua]

Man this thread is wild. Anyone who consumes loli shit should be castrated, sick twisted fucks

 

[The Sum of Zero]

EDIT: Wrong thread, was drunk and bitching about the Switch Corpse Party collection getting cancelled.