Umm, Nandemonai, where have you been? Things have already settled down on the last page.
Not in this life time. These idiots screw up even the simple stuff:
That won’t stop them from charging as many people as they can with with it though. And even if you’re innocent, just being charged is a huge hassle, and it gives your credibility a black eye.
Yea… but this really only says one of two things:
#1: The cult is innocent of sexual abuse, and the government is incompetent in finding real criminals.
#2: The cult is guilty of sexual abuse, and the government is incompetent to prove it.
Either way, it doesn’t look good.
Very true, both scenarios are bad news. I am hoping this is just a special case though. I’d like to see more real successes against child abuse and/or pornography.
I have been at anime central, and thus out of the loop for some several days.
Just try to imagine how sad the main character of an eroge would be if there are no loli…
I don’t mind having some nee-sans in the mix, but damn those women look scary as hell.
As long as you’re not stupid enough to play an H-game (or view any “legal” adult material) in a public place, and you’re not a convicted sex offender, you’ll probably be fine. That is, assuming you’re in the US.
All one needs to do is look back at history…even in the US. Look at what prohibition did to the crime business.
That’s not quite ALL you have to do. There’s a hidden pitfall with this line of reasoning: look what being outlawed has done for the hit man business.
You could say it just made the price higher and riskier…same thing with my example. Hit Men are still out there, just more expensive and more dangerous to attempt to hire one.
Heh… nice.
Actually, a good question to ask is: Does it take away the individual rights of others that they would normally have? I.E. People drinking alcohol did not actively take away anybody else’s rights /just/ by drinking alcohol. Rape and murder, OTOH, kinda fit into that category… Do drawing pictures of cute, underaged girls either involved or not involved in sexual acts with other drawn pictures actively take away anybody’s rights by that act? You’ve gotta do some pretty fancy legal mumbo jumbo to say that it does. Real life underaged girls having sex with someone over the age of consent? Well, now /that’s/ a different story.
<Ichigo69 now gets off the soap box and kicks it to the next person ^_^>
Something crazy a friend pointed out to me. In the US, according to the Federal Courts, the age of sexual consent is 12. That is to say: two consenting 14 year old teenagers could have sex together and not go to prison. HOWEVER, if the two filmed themselves having sex and watched it, they could prosecuted for media pedo crimes… ESPECIALLY if they watched the tapes after turning 18. Now that would be an interesting criminal case, if it ever happens.
Also according to the wording of the PROTECT ACT, everyone who was in the court room that was watching the R. Kelly tapes is a criminal - although they are pardoned. However they are still first time offenders under the letter of the law.
Exactly. In Amerikka, we don’t have a justice system anymore… We have a legal system.
Federal wahh? Age of consent in the US is set by state. There are specific federal laws for cases where someone crosses state lines, but most of the time they don’t apply. Age of consent is usually around 16, sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower. But not 12.
IIRC it has happened. I vaguely remember at least one or two cases… see
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Tee … 57857.html for starters.
With the popularity of mobile phones allowing people to easily and privately take naughty photos (no need to go through a developer anymore) this is apparently becoming much more common, there have been multiple cases of schools confiscating phones and finding all sorts of things on them. Which may eventually lead to some laws getting rewritten if it gets common enough that they realise they need a different way to deal with it.
Ah… let me rephrase that… because I misused and/or may be misinterpreted using the word “consent” like that - what I mean is, sex between two minors and neither minor is prosecuted for criminality. For example when two middle school kids have sex (which happens), they don’t go to prison or have a criminal record. Usually precedence doesn’t criminalize children unless one of them is younger than 12 or there’s a four year difference… of course if it’s clear cut rape - which again, unfortunately happens - then you’re trailed as an adult.
The legal document you’re mentioning is some 100’s Chapter. I forget the exact number, because it was a loooooong discussion. However it was explained to me that there’s MANY “between the line” type things that the federal government uses. Not every case of child sex is codified, and there’s a ton of federal level laws (such as the PROTECT ACT) which don’t supersede state laws (thus not overstepping their boundaries) but set a “mandatory guideline” when a state does not have a law for it already in place… which many states do not. And since the federal rulings are often more punishing that some state legislatures are willing to go, they don’t challenge it.
As for age: Guam is 12 ¬ñ a territory; but US soil. For states itself, IIRC I was told Connecticut has a complex clause that allows 13. Federal laws seem partial to using 12 as a documenting age. This is ONLY between minors and minors… not civil majors (which are adults).
That would be epic ! And it would be even more epic if it involves twins (2 twin girls and 1 guy of course).
In America there are no cats.
Twincest is illegal in certain states. I know for a fact Hawaii is one, because the Love Twins (the adult porn stars) posted about it on their blog once. They wanted to do a shoot there, but the film studio’s lawyers showed them that they’d go to jail if it happened. In California it’s cool though. 
Hell… in some states, sleeping with more than one partner is criminal. In the US Military, oral sex is a violation of the UCMJ - missionary style only. :lol: