I just think the guy's misfortune is funny as hell

Quote from: Rika-chama on January 26, 2009, 05:23:55 PM

Quote from: AScannerDarkly on January 26, 2009, 04:02:10 AM

Quote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
  What does matter is that there was no actual crime taking place by simply owning the art, and if the courts rule against him, there will be the creation of a new, unjust law.

"new" as in 6 years ago?




US Supreme Court Protect Act of 2003:

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(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
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

So the feds could bust in my door one day and arrest me for all the guro and other weird sh*t I have on my computer?  That law is stupid.  No one gets hurt when it is drawn and fictional.  Books like Lolita are out there but the minute it gets turned into pictures people start freaking out.

Thank the feminists and their anti-porn crusade.
What, you thought conservatives were responsible? Think again.

Quote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
  What does matter is that there was no actual crime taking place by simply owning the art, and if the courts rule against him, there will be the creation of a new, unjust law.

"new" as in 6 years ago?




US Supreme Court Protect Act of 2003:

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(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
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

Quote from: Maverick375 on December 21, 2008, 01:32:35 AM
Maybe the lawyers can dig up a few San Fran area rulings to help this out.

San Fran isn't the same place it was ten years ago. The welfare gobbling hordes of oakland/hayward have spilled out across the bay, and prop 8 showed us who's REALLY keeping the gay man down (here's a hint: it's not the white middle class).

Quote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM


The whole thing is absurd.  I'll gladly donate to this cause.

You'll have a lot on your hands. Some lobby group (a democrat one, by the way) got the legal line drawn at anything depicting sex with a minor or minors in sexual situations. I believe some states have a "13 or older" rule for drawn material.

And no matter what, a jury is going to get angry seeing artwork depicting incest/guro/lolicon type stuff, the same way the second amendment goes out the window when someone shows up in KKK gear. That's just the way it is. I'm actually sure this is the very reason the CBLDF isn't telling us what exactly the guy had.

Am I the only one that thinks this guys plight is just a little bit funny? A guy cant settle for having to use the internet to see quadruple amputee newborns being raped, he has to import the actual manga itself and then gets v& for all of his trouble.

Quote from: ElricJC on December 14, 2008, 03:00:46 PM


I forget sometimes how conservative people can be around here. 

I don't doubt that democrats would ban anything depicting coitus with disemboweled infants either

lolicon incest guro vore in MY Iowa? It's more likely than you think.

Name: Vic
Gender: Male
Location: Dry land if I'm lucky
Age: 19
Job: Fascist pig

"...he claims he's from a pedophile group known as Anonymous, he says he does not forgive, he does not forget, and that they have over 9000 penises and they're all raping children"

The Frozen Autumn - Guardian Angel

Darkwaaaaaaaaaaaaaave

Harassing WOW nerds with OVER 9000