3D loli is illegal under the PROTECT act of 2003.
However, 2d loli is protected. They've made it clear that as long as lolicon depicts fictional children is it not obscene enough to land you jail time. Land of the free home of the horny.
Whats with all the 3DPD loli threads lately?
Let me make it clearer. If the child looks real aka non-fictional then it is illegal under the protect act.
But big eye'd girls with obviously fictional bodies is legal c:
In my country even a picture of a giant tentacle monster raping a cat girl could be considered CP and therefore give you just as much trouble as any real photo.
Reason: It could theoretically be possible, that someone drew the pic after a real child and just changed the girl to have cat ears and the rapist to look like a monster.
I'm not even kidding...laws are stupid sometimes
Parts of the protect act were found to be in violation of the first amendment, inhibiting art as a medium of speech.
TL;DR The supreme court ruled it was legal, bush then made a bill with congress to make it illegal, which supreme court then ruled unconstitutional again so its ultimately legal.
What about girls that look loli but are actually 20?
Illegal in Australia I think
HOLY SHIT GUYS I FORGOT MY NUGGETS IN THE MICROWAVE FOR LIKE AN HOUR THEYVE JUST BEEN SITTING THERE NOT BEING EATEN FUCK
wonder what about this then. protect act unconstitutional?
i mean, it's SCOTUS after all
also, > They've made it clear
Also illegal in germany.
Don't really get why, but it is.
People don't care about the age, since it would take too long to figure it out and to really proof it.
They just care about the looks.
If they are in sexually suggesting poses (called posing pictures) they can also get you in trouble.
Maybe you heard of Sebastian Edathy? (don't know how much other countries heard of this case)
He was a somewhat big politician, until they found some questionable pictures on his notebook.
I don't have the rest, I'm sorry :c
Big sweaty loli titties?
Germany has specific laws about media, in which that they have to comform to the governments ideal. That's why they're also allowed to imprison and fine people for having negative statements about refugees for example. A woman has to look sexually mature in germany for her to make porn or something like that, which also makes ageplay illegal. On top of regular laws about age. Since germany doesn't have free speech, this takes effect.
if that would be true then unterauerbach or whatever that loli sex game from germany is called would have a hard time.
unfortunately germany is all about public outcry. if the public doesn't notice you are pretty much fine doing anything you like
Germany already tried taking down Unteralterbach once. But the game is hosted outside of germany and german laws don't apply to things that are not in german jurisdiction, smart ass. To be more specific, the creators of Unteralterbach are completely anonymous and the registration of their domain and host was done by a company in florida that in proxy registers things like that to preserve anonymity.
I really don't know if you're just dumb or not to figure this out.
shit am in Iraq and still have more freedom than all of you western faggots
How old are you?
Go to whois.com
Look at who registered the domain
Now go to the website and look at the fake credits
They're 100% anonymous and not hosted in germany. If you're so smart, prove they're not.
Just because your government doesn't give a shit about certain things so they don't care enough to outlaw things of questionable nature doesn't make your country cool, that makes it a fucking unregulated nightmare.
AKA Freedom :)
allahu akbar my friend
i feel almost bad for you westerners, your ancestors were awsome and shit and we fought them and fucked them up and they always came back stronger, now it is just sad to see the decline of your civilization by the hands of the jews and sjws betas
They aren't, see wikipedia.
Me writing a novel about a child getting fucked would be illegal in germany as well.
For example, Stephen Kings IT came censored in germany with the child sex orgy removed. Now you're going to tell me anime loli is fine, but fictional lolis in text aren't? Yeah, no, they're all outlawed.
"Tatsächlich oder Wirklichkeitsnahes Geschehen."
A tentaclemonster raping a little anime catgirl isn't that realistic for me.
Yes, but 2D is still illegal in certain states, like Massachusetts.
Fictional children are treated the same as real children. If you get caught with lolicon, it will be punished the same way as distribution or possession of child pornography would be. I had a friend that actually got prosecuted for having lolicon on his facebook profile because it looked funny. It wasn't even a nude loli, it was a sexually suggestive one. They raided his home, sentenced him to like 2 years probation and a huge fine, but more importantly he now has "Possession and distribution of images depicting minors" in his criminal record. No side note about it being fictional.
Fictional or real, doesn't matter. They're all deemed immoral and therefore they fall under the same law.
At the same time Germany is one of the few countries where it's completely alright to air Pretty Baby (=Brooke Shields naked in a movie 11 years old) uncropped. Looks pretty realistic to me.
Let's say you have an image of an animu girl getting raped by tentacles, let's go by the list in order.
You're under the misconception that if one of those not apply, that it won't make you guilty. That's wrong. Only ONE of those has to apply, for you to be judged as defined by § 184b.3
That's the problem with this law. "wirklichkeitsnah" (close to reality) is pretty vague.
You can say it isn't realistic, but tell this some old, conservative police man who doesn't know what hentai is.
I would plead that I have no fucking idea what amounts as "close to reality", since I don't actually have anything "real" to compare it to.
I mean come on, how the fuck should I know what's close and what's not if I don't own actual CP for comparison?!
It's not a children and it doesn't show a realistic image of a children. It's not a representation of a real situation.
But you're probably right, because judges in germany and the way it is formulated is completely retarded.
On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470) which deemed "virtual child pornography" illegal. The laws appear to only outlaw "Three-dimensional, realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct". In January 2011 the law was expanded and non-realistic 3D images are now counted as child pornography.
Add a one infront of that and you have the fine for a misdemeanor. So no, you'll pay much more than that. As stated by §184b.3, it's prison for 3 years or the equivallent of a fine, which would be 16 € a day for roughly 17.520€ as a fine in total. Of course you can plea for a misdemeanor if it's your first time and you haven't had anything else in your criminal record, in lieu that you haven't actually hurt anyone.
A child is anything that passes the miller test to some degree (Which it does for anime) and no, it doesn't have to represent a real situation. That's ONE part where you're not guilty, versus 6 accounts that says you're guilty for breaking that law. That's like murdering someone and pleading not guilty because they couldn't prove it wasn't premeditated. Get some sentence comprehension you pleb.
Seriously, read up on the wikipedia entry, I don't know why you think being contrarian helps you.
4chan isn't hosted in those places and most countries don't give a fuck about fat neckbeards fapping to anime girls as long as they don't share that stuff over common social media.
Also it's probably only american authorities monitoring this threads.
Because if the "local law" wanted to look into what you're viewing pic related is all they would see. They're not going to arrest you for going on "/fit/" because they have no fucking clue what you're doing.
That's all I got. Sorry anon.
you are an idiot. you pay that out of judgement and you can basically pay any sum or none.
last time done by Edathy. He paid 5000 euros to stop the lawsuit against him and buying child pornography of little boys.
and he is a fucking person of public interest (politician) so the fine was higher than you actually need to pay as a normal person
I remember when the internet was freezdom. then, some christian right wing wingnuts told me I couldn't like Britney Spears... and then... my life literally went sideways for awhile. signed, anonymous.
I lost my flash drive somewhere outside. It was filled with Loli, shota, goro you know primarily the good shit. Last place I remember was the supermarket. And I need that flash drive for my class.
what about that American cat that kicked out of the military for beating the shit out of the muslim boy rapers? God bless the mother fucking US of A. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/green-beret-who-beat-up-afghan-officer-for-raping-boy-can-stay-in-army.html?_r=0
Literally the 1st paragraph
>A decorated United States Army sergeant who hit an American-backed Afghan commander for raping a boy will be allowed to remain in the military, a spokesman said Friday.
whatever you fucktard. The point is to call attention to the situation. and God save the queen or God bless the US..A - because this shit happened, and (fuckwad) it's in your myopic brain now. faggot.
>Literally the 1st paragraph
For the win - (only if you're literate) -An initial decision to forcibly discharge him by Nov. 1, 2015, was delayed; in March 2016, the Army said it had postponed the discharge decision again, until May 1, to allow time for Sergeant Martland to appeal.
Holy fucking autism. Please stay in school.
>Army sergeant who hit an American-backed Afghan commander for raping a boy will be allowed to remain in the military.
Did I make it easier for you? Are you actually fucking stupid?
here's how it will work 90% chance
>ignores me being correct
>Posts a nytimes reeeeeeeeing about the us of a is kicking an officer out of the military for hitting a commander who raped a boy
>The story is literally about how he isn't getting kicked out of the army for his actions
Reading comprehension is pretty hard.
Your response took me past where I can see, acknowleding empathy for the raped boys... of which this thread is about lolitas... mind you... but our shota /b/ros should be allowed to speak... (until I get banned again, for having too much freedom or something... I swear 4chan is run by the Jews that don't support Israel or Democracy, or something)
Holy fuck you are as stupid as I assumed you were.
because he assaulted a commander instead of taking the proper steps, how fucking autismal can you be? You think you can attack someone and get away with it because that person was doing something against the law as well? Well I have some fucking news for your small mind.
>you didn't stop to think. this is why you fail at life.
>On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470) which deemed "virtual child pornography" illegal. The laws appear to only outlaw "Three-dimensional, realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct". In January 2011 the law was expanded and non-realistic 3D images are now counted as child pornography.
alright - I have a finisher for you, killjoy. Nozomi Kurahshi and Rika Nishimura. you missed every point and now I just Beethovened you. An American soldier was kicked out of the army for beating a muslim boy raper, events withstanding. thanks....
In a recent case, after viewing the images in question, which were created on a computer, the court opined that the virtual child pornography images did not fall under criminal law.[clarification needed] "All images can be termed as (pornographic) (three dimensional) cartoons, animations, or drawings. The court concludes that it is immediately obvious to the average viewer that the event is not real and that the images are manipulated images and not realistic".
I think so, yes.
But after reading a bit more from the sources in wikipedia, it seems the protect act changed language after the case mentioned first, to include only "obscene" things. Which is how Handley was sentenced. I don't think it's been explicitely ruled against, and with the current political climate I'd wager you would be screwed.
What about when you save a picture locally? What will be visible when using htttps? Same thing? Will the provider see that you downloaded an image?
Same for posting; https only shows that I connect to 4chan, and my isp wont be able to see that I've posted a message?
I thought "obscenity" (along with Miller test) was another part of protect act? Also, literally everything can be tossed into that one. I mean, golden showers? Or even sex not in missionary position and/or not for the purpose of procreation? OBSCENE, someone will definitely rule that.
Again, I wonder what SCOTUS would have to say about that one, since according to that law.duke one I pasted they seem to have (or - at least - had) common sense, which I've gotta say was a nice surprise, even though I'm not even an American.
>What will be visible when using htttps?
In general SSL protects you from eavesdropping. What they can definitely see is that you are connecting to some https server, but they have no idea what is being sent.
And since for example 4chan is hosted on cloudflare, you actually connect to cloudflare servers which host shitloads of other sites too. A https connection to 4chan looks exactly the same as a connection to countless other sites hosted on CF, since the actual site/domain you're accessing is sent in http1.1 headers (the Host header), which is obviously sent encrypted (SSL works both ways, so whatever you sent and receive is encrypted).
another thing is attacks against SSL and weak ciphers.
That clears it up a lot. Thanks for the explanation anon.
Basically you're fine as long as they don't find the stuff on your disk. Unable to be found out through monitoring. Also impossible for context of messages to be seen unless they contact the host of the website and they cooperate. Did I say that correctly?