Long story short: if the Supreme Court upholds its earlier decision, then fictional loli porn will not be illegal. If they don’t, it will be. So there ya go… we’re still waiting on those Justices to make their decision. At the moment, it’s all a “gray zone” in legal terms.
It would appear that this is one of the top cases that will be resolved in 2008.
Looks like a fun year to be on the supreme court. I do hope they stick to the decision they made in 2002. If there is not a victim, then I still don’t really understand how it’s a crime.
That’s awsome wish peach princess would test the waters and bring a loli game over we know it would sell by the large loli commuties and the loli fans on this board. Would be awsome if they brought futago ecchi over my fav loli game and it’s from frontwing who has had a game already brought over to America.
Fear not, according to wikipedia, Kazoku Keikaku’s Matsuri is 13. =p Of course, I’ve no idea where they got that number from–unlike the other characters, I don’t recall her age being specifically given in the game (it may have been, I haven’t played it in a while), and the official website isn’t confirming anything =p
No, you should mind it. You were right the first time.
I do hate to burst your bubble, but this is the part that matters:
That is to say, this document is signed by the lawyer representing the defendant. NOT the justices of the Supreme Court. This means it’s not anything like an official court ruling, rather this is one side’s wish list of what they would like the court to rule in their favor.
Here is the list of all court filings for this case. The document you referenced looks to be the Aug 20 document. Note no ruling has been issued yet, but it would appear they’ve held the oral hearing. Unless I’m mistaken, when they DO issue a ruling, it will be made available here (ruling issues in 08 for cases heard in 07).
Now, I still think the drawings-cannot-be-child-porn argument will stand up in court: SCOTUS doesn’t like to overturn established precedent, and the precedents are very recent. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has long recognized the First Amendment is one of the most important clauses in the entire constitution; it is considered one of the most fundamental rights around. In order for a law which implicates First Amendment concerns to survive, it has to pass a very stringent test, and artwork-as-kiddy-pr0n doesn’t pass it. The Court would have to create an entirely new type of exception to the First Amendment, which is almost unheard of – I’d almost expect them to be more likely to rule that Bush wasn’t really President between 2000 and 2004. The ban on child porn would itself be unconstitutional but for the fact real people – children! – are unspeakably abused in order to make it. But they haven’t said that YET. So keep your pants on.
Since when does the given age of a character have any bearing on what is considered “loli” or not?
Actually, you’re forgetting a tiny portion that was written before the address:
Right now, there has been a ruling declaring that it’s legal, at least by sub-court of the SC.
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t take that wiki article too seriously if I were you. There has been heated POV-based arguments in the discussion areas, and I wouldn’t be suprised if it was worded incorrectly.
Furthermore, if the PROTECT Act did in fact put loli on par with real child porn, why does the law always use the term “obscene” in its statements? I mean, I don’t think that a video showing a real child having sex would have to go through the Miller Test to be illegal, so if it really was a blanket ban on loli hentai, why would it need to be “obscene” to be unlawful? This doesn’t really change much, as material that’s considered to be “obscene” has never been technically legal to begin with.
I know this topic is already horribly away from its original intent, but I just had to add a small comment:
As much as this case we are talking about here matters to me, the case that I’m really keeping a close eye on is this one.
So I guess we have a grand total of two suggestions: Kazoku Keikaku (Family Project), and The Sagara Family. The translated version of Kazoku Keikaku (Family Project) hasn’t been released yet, but you can pre-order it. (I already have.) I guess I’ll throw this suggestion in to the mix: Come See Me Tonight. While the official stance is that the character Kobato is 18 years old (of course), she looks and acts (disturbingly in my case) quite young. If it weren’t for how great she looks a few years later in the picture for the end of her scenario, I might not have been able to take going through her scenario more than once.
I think it’s better to not think too much about it
Now if you can live without having sex with lolis… (hum… it could easily be misinterpreted), try Kana Little sister (since a part of the story occurs when she is really young).
That tends to fall farther towards the disgust factor in my opinion though. It looks really weird when you sometimes have a big googly head when you attempt to grab some mounds. Its not exactly the most accurate way of saying things but thats the point behind it. I mean sometimes you may get the occasional… you could say good mix like in the Sagara Family where the big eyes actually do work better than most but then you have others Like Sensei 2 where it would just weird if they suddenly had humongous eyes. And Stuff like tea society of witches would be horrible the minute the clothes are lost…
What are they trying to say? That they’ll break away from the Union? I’ve got news for ya: the American Civil War pretty much outlines that once you’ve joined the United States, there ain’t no way of getting out, regardless if it’s constitutional or not. Lincoln even disbanded the Supreme Court for a time: and War Daddy Bush has already violated more war crimes that Lincoln ever did. :lol:
Besides… if they let something like Montana get away, you KNOW California, Texas, and Hawaii are gonna demand their way out too.
No…it would mean the state of Montana would likely just sue the Federal Government. Given the rulings so far, I’d have to say Montana doesn’t have to worry. The court would have to have some serious long-term data that stuff like loli-con increases pedophilic crimes, which is what they asked Congress to investigate…and the data just isn’t there.
Plus they rewrote the law to be more restrictive and change basically nothing through the way they worded it. If there is something the Supreme Court as a whole, whatever their leanings doesn’t like it’s an executive or legislative attempt of ignoring them through broad reaching legislation/executive descions. It’s like snubbing their noses at the court…and the court doesn’t take kindly just like anyone else to being snubbed.
SIGH We’re getting off topic again, but I just have to reply. I don’t have the time to read through the full text of the Enabling Act of 1889 but from what I can tell from the brief wikipedia description, the dissolution of the act would just mean that Montana isn’t a state anymore. They would be a territory again, and I think that would mean they fall under the same kinds of rules as Puerto Rico.
On a side note regarding multiple states breaking away: It reminds me somewhat of the old game Strike Commander. Man was that a good game back in the day…
EDIT: I still own the CD version of the game.
LOL! They’d be stupid to do that, because territories even have FEWER rights than States do. For one thing, they’d forfeit their voting representation in Congress. More importantly, the Constitution itself states that Congress - not the people in a territory; even through voting - controls what happens to a territory.
Just checkout Guam’s problems with the US. An even better example, is how the territory of Hawaii was FORCED to be a State… and is now “trapped” in that status (being that no State can leave the Union). Heh… besides… War Daddy Bush would just invade the newly formed “Territory of Montana” to preserve freedom in Montana… and make them a State again. I mean seriously: do you know how expensive it would be to replace all those 50 star flags!? It’s probably cheaper to just invade Montana.
MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: Montana is a major wheat producer. I’ll be damned if BEER costs more. :twisted:
There’s never been a Second American Civil War, like the one in Metal Wolf Chaos!!! 8)
:lol:
