This one's from two weeks ago but I noticed that nobody had posted it up yet.
Lolicon artwork was in an unknown legal state until very recently. There is still no law on paper that says it's illegal, but unfortunately we now have a precedent.
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=9256
The fine was $9000, and the "child pornography" in question was only anime, something almost any of us might have in our collection. Oh, and animated images of sexual violence are apparently illegal too. You can't tell me you don't have a copy of Bible Black around somewhere, or something even worse.
So the bad news is, Australia isn't safe for lolicon anymore.
The good news is, $9000 seems like a pretty light penalty compared to the fine for actual child porn (up to $275,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment.)
You have to wonder who they're trying to protect though. As far as I can see, the only one who got out of this any better than they went in was whoever received the money from the fine.
The Constitution protects possession and production of obscene material, provided nobody was hurt in the process. You can even show it to a willing audience in the privacy of your own home. What you are forbidden from doing is distribute obscene material. The possession argument won't fly in court for some obscene materials, such as child pornography because a minor's rights were trampled upon.
> What you are forbidden from doing is distribute obscene material.
How is it free 'speech', if your not allowed to 'say' it?
Where is the minor? I only see some lines on a screen.
Solution: Wipe your porn collection if you decide to enter or leave Australia.
Problem solved.
Why would anybody enter Australia?
>>43
So if it's on paper, that's okay?
FUCKING WIN!
>>44
what
>No, that's inaccurate.
>there are better than 75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child.
>No, that's inaccurate.
>there are better than 75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child.
>No, that's inaccurate.
>there are better than 75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child.
Yep, you're the one to talk about accuracy.
No, it's not even close to what was said. That was always an estimate. No one has done a ligitamate study (actually getting accurate data for that type of study is impossible as admitting to child rape leads to very long jail terms and a lifetime on a Sex-Offender List), so we don't know.
But considering that lolicon is child porn, I think that most people looking at child porn want to have sex with children. If not, then they wouldn't be collecting images of child pornography. Given that most people will eventually try to act on their sexual drives, it's not too far of a stretch to think that a person going so far as to import lolicon from japan might have acted on his impulses.
Good job, deduction based on absolutely nothing.
Perhaps these people enjoy lolicon pornography precisely BECAUSE they do not wish to harm children with their impulses?
Or perhaps they don't. I can't tell for sure. The point is; neither can you.
>Given that most people will eventually try to act on their sexual drives
See, you keep spouting all this crap without any reasoning.
Reread >>16
>>45
1. Amass pr0ns on 3.5TB AES encrypted LVM partition on homebrew NAS.
2. Host NAS in cheap Malaysian datacenter and configure L2TP IPSEC VPN server.
3. ???
4. Fap everywhere (except N Korea, China, and Myanmar I guess)!
Fix'd.
or just get yourself a shaved monkey prostitute
either way, lolicon lovers are aroused by kids. What's to say they won't rape someone and thus ruin lives? Kids aren't as smart oftentimes as adults are and thus may get trapped by adults.
now you know why pedopr0n is illegal
What's to say someone who doesn't like lolicon won't also rape a kid?
As for anyone who has been exposed to it and was not aroused in the least... I'd say it's a safe assumption that they wouldn't.
I dunno. The aesthetic of anime-ish pictures of girls being raped and the real thing... frankly the real thing would gross me out, but drawn stuff is kind of hot.
better argument:
what's to say MILF lovers wont just find some housewife and rape her?
YOU CAN'T PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE YET. sorry if that's scary for you people - watch minority report. why the hell do you think gov't agencies aren't supposed to be able to see library reading habits? Unfortunately, crime is unstoppable under current freedom laws, otherwise, why not just arrest//kill everyone who isn't "normal"? while we're friggin at it? That'd solve everything!
people like some pron in a fantasy setting, but not in real life. Or they might be getting something out of loli-Pr0n that you don't underdstand. maybe they collect it purely because it's risqe? Maybe they collect it to see what the hell is going on in lolicon minds? I don't know, you don't know, but ZERO TOLERANCE and GENERALIZATIONS are stupid ideas that hurt the innocent.
anyway for the record, I think people that abuse children (or anyone for that matter) deserve harsh punishment.
> what's to say MILF lovers wont just find some housewife and rape her?
Still not a very good argument.
Prepubescent children don't have the same intellectual capacity that an adult does.
This is why we have a crime called "statutory rape". Children's underdeveloped genitals are to be left well until they're emotionally and physically ready. (Otherwise known as adulthood, or adolescence for early bloomers)
> YOU CAN'T PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE YET.
What? I thought we where talking about possession of lolicon, not childrape. Not that I think lolicon should be outlawed.
> watch minority report.
That's science fiction, and technology and/or mutants capable of reading minds might never materialize. Either way, I'd rather advise reading the book.
> why the hell do you think gov't agencies aren't supposed to be able to see library reading habits?
The only thing stopping them is librarians, and they have no objections to reporting suspected paedophiles (not implying anything here). These are the only type of criminals librarians feel obligated to turn in.
> why not just arrest//kill everyone who isn't "normal"?
Please stay grounded here, I won't appreciate being called a fascist and neither will you.
> I don't know, you don't know,
You seem awfully emotional and defensive about it for not knowing.
> ZERO TOLERANCE
Not a political catch-phrase that I advocate.
> GENERALIZATIONS
I've made none... have you?
I was more or less replying to the whole thread. i was just saying that just because somebody likes a certain kind of porn doesn't make them a rapist or child molester, as >>52 implied. Also, that many of the statements so far are just unconfirmed research and generalizations. My comment about zero-tolerance wasn't about anything in the thread per-se, just that there seems to be a move towards this approach, which could be dangerous and ruin the lives of innocent people.
>Prepubescent children don't have the same intellectual capacity that an adult does...
however, i don't get what you're trying to say here. i think everyone already agrees that having sex with a kid whether they want to or not is rape.
> YOU CAN'T PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE YET.
i just meant that if somebody merely posesses this kind of stuff doesn't make them immediately guilty of possibly commiting worse crimes (like childrape) and thus shouldn't have to "sign up" for some service, which is a huge invasion of privacy.
all that being said, though, there's a thing called common sense. if a guy has a duffel bag with knives, rope, duct tape, tarps, and violent porn, you should probably "detain" the guy.
> if somebody merely posesses this kind of stuff ... shouldn't have to "sign up" for some service, which is a huge invasion of privacy.
> How about a National Lolicon Registration program? Registrants get free porn in exchange for their freedom of privacy.
I think it's clear this (satirical proposal for a) government program is entirely voluntary.
> just because somebody likes a certain kind of porn doesn't make them a rapist or child molester
I'd think it's safe to assume it bumps up the odds that they would offend or already have, especially if this 'certain kind of porn' depicts children. Compared to someone that does not like this 'certain kind of porn', of course.
> zero-tolerance... could be dangerous and ruin the lives of innocent people.
Agreed, it already has damaged lives, but mostly in the context of young people on the wrong side of their birthday.
For the record, I think the whole lolicon is about as gray an area as you can get.
Questions to ask:
"Is this sexualized animated character depicted as being of legal and ethical age?"
"How do I know this character depicted is underage?"
"If a disclaimer states that the character is 900 years old, how does that validate it being depicted with a child's body proportions and dimensions?"
"What's to say that this other character that looks exactly the same, only with 34DD breasts, is not also underage?"
"Where do we draw the line to avoid any potential misjudgement?"
I think a case-by-case basis is best for this, but that's why we have courts and appeals courts.
Ever here of "sexual tourism" it's basically fags looking for young children to fuck in countries where the law doesn't care about it.
I say lock away the lolicon lovers. If they like fapping to kids, real or fictional, they probably dream of fucking real kids.
>>61
As an Australian at least, it is illegal as an Australian citizen to go to another country and have sex with a girl under the age of consent in this country.
Weird rule, but probably a good idea.
Very funny, and relevant too!
But if they haven't really fucked real kids, you can't lock them away just because they might. When you were in school, didn't you ever fantasize about, say, burning down the place? You'd never do it, you didn't really want to do it in real life (something that post-Columbine no one understands anymore), you just occasionally wanted it all to go. You can do something constantly in your fantasy life and never do it in real life, and I'd argue that it's far more common than not for it only to happen in the fantasy world.
There's a difference between the two. A person looking at child porn isn't having just a momentary thought, he's not making plans. Having "burning down buildings pr0n" would make the whole thing different. Saying "I wanna burn down the school" by itself is no big deal. Saying "I wanna burn down the school" while collecting and drawing pictures of buildings burning, collecting matches and gasoline drums, etc. is different.
That's because he's collecting matches and gasoline drums. We're not talking about collecting the prerequisites to rape, we're talking about looking at some pictures.
> we're talking about looking at some pictures.
That's intellectually dishonest.
> we're talking about lusting at some pictures while he masturbates.
That's better.
> We're not talking about collecting the prerequisites to rape
Lust is one of those prerequisites. Nothing else is required, aside from the ability to overpower the victim.
I don't think lolicon should be equated with child pornography, but if you can't stop all the downloadin', I don't what self-control you would have to stop you from moving on to the genuine article.
There is "burning down buildings" pr0n. Every summer, there's no shortage of blockbuster movies about things blowing up. Sometimes they show the same explosion from different angles, all in a row. Boom! These movies usually do well outside the US, and they say it's because nobody's paying attention to the dialogue, so nothing gets lost in translation.
And now there's horror porn, too. Does Hostel Part 2 have any redeeming qualities apart from how you get to see a lot of teenagers tortured to death? Those movies make all sorts of money.
Therefore, comics about people doing horrible perverted sexual things should be no different, i.e. allowed.
>>70
You are an idiot.
>>71
Takes one to know one.
>>72
You are an idiot.
> Lust is one of those prerequisites. Nothing else is required, aside from the ability to overpower the victim.
Well, I guess we had better ban people going to the gym too.
wait... theres something better than Bible Black?
Can I get a link or two?
>>75
Nope, but certain 'date rape' drugs are controlled substances.
Keep working on those analogies.
A thought, graphic depiction could 'inspire' pedos. However while there are people who like to act out their fantasies ie: cosplayers. I don't hear of many people (who aren't on drugs or insane) trying to fly by jumping or to blow things up using chi.
There is a line of choice between inspiration, imagination and action. To do something it generally takes all three.
>>77
There is a difference between what goes in the head and what goes in the real world. Maybe it's just me, but I like being able to think about whatever the hell I want to. I know what I do depends on society because my actions have effect but my mind is my playing field.
> to blow things up using chi.
Apparently you haven't had the displeasure of reading a dragon ball z forum.
>>79
You can think about whatever you want.
There are no laws against private thoughts, and there is no technology to prosecute these non-existent laws.
However, for better or worse, some laws do exist concerning possession or distribution of certain kinds of pornographic images.
>>81
You don't need to go to the gym, either.
I think I would...
>>83
You can't overpower a child?
I think you might have a degenerative muscular disease.
I do. It's a problem, now the whole world knows. :-(