id like to say one thing first,
if you find this offensive then Please dont reply
hi
i was wondering if anyone could inform me
are lolicon (lolita complex) manga / doujin legal in the USA?
and more specifically, CAlifornia, USA
i was thinking of buying
thanks
I think it was back in september that the senate passed a bill… and it stated something like this "As to not impede with the 5th ammendment(freedom of speech/expression), no longer will drawings that indicate persons under the age of 18, illegal to possess or own."
Least thats what i remember… tis the reason bishoujo anime no longer needs the “everyone in this episode is over 18” warning.
ive heard of that too, but are there any strange state laws that might cause problems?
Not in California. We only have harsh ass smoking laws, to which I don’t agree with. And I’m not a smoker, by the way. But, anyway, as far as I’m aware, there aren’t any conflicting lolicon laws.
thanks for the advice
i guess im just worring too much
annoying society telling me what to be paranoid about… no matter what the laws actually have written
quote:
Originally posted by exoarchaeologist:
i guess im just worring too much
annoying society telling me what to be paranoid about... no matter what the laws actually have written
Now, now, paranoia is good for the soul... [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]
And so saying, it sort of depends on which laws and if the person checking is aware of them and enforcing them. My law school friend told me that in one of his classes, the professor went over several old laws, never repealled or updated, and are technically still in effect but either they're not well known or they're known, just not enforced.
Still I wouldn't worry overly much about it. As Kagami-san said, customs is mainly checking against federal guidelines and that should be fine.
I hear its still legal to beat your wife in Vermont, as long as the instrument of the beating is no more than 3/4 of an inch in diameter. lots of scary laws still on the books when you go look.
… which means, that if one studies the Law, one coudl do lots of crimes and still get away with it…
[This message has been edited by Spectator Beholder (edited 08-01-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Spectator Beholder:
... which means, that if one studies the Law, one coudl do lots of crimes and still get away with it...
Exactly. That's the point of studying jura, I suppose.
[This message has been edited by Unicorn (edited 08-02-2004).]
there was a weird law in massachusetts for quite some time until someone took advantage of it and then it was changed…for the longest time it was legal to shoot a rhode islander coming into massachusetts after dark, since rhode island used to be, a long time ago, a penal colony
quote:
Originally posted by ladyphoenix:
there was a weird law in massachusetts for quite some time until someone took advantage of it and then it was changed....for the longest time it was legal to shoot a rhode islander coming into massachusetts after dark, since rhode island used to be, a long time ago, a penal colony
Oh my god, you are scaring me. I am never ever going to Massachusetts ever again, since I may be mistaken for a Rhode Island resident
quote:
Originally posted by ladyphoenix:
there was a weird law in massachusetts for quite some time until someone took advantage of it and then it was changed....for the longest time it was legal to shoot a rhode islander coming into massachusetts after dark, since rhode island used to be, a long time ago, a penal colony
Sounds urban legendy to me. Got a name? A year this was supposed to have happened in? I don't recall ever having heard that Rhode Island used to be a penal colony, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.
it may sound urban-legendy, but it isn’t…it’s true
quote:
Originally posted by ladyphoenix:
it may sound urban-legendy, but it isn't...it's true
I still see no specific details, which makes it kind of hard to look up for myself.
Not that I don't believe you. I just wouldn't believe ANYone who told me that story with no specific, verifiable information in it. (Yes, I realize that's contradictory. You know what I mean.)
@ exoarchaeologist
get an good newserver
there are many newsgoups where you can find doujins and some are lolicons too
or write me email i can send you some doujins!^^
but i have only jap, no translated!
[This message has been edited by Redeck (edited 04-19-2003).]
I’m sorry to ask, but i searched few hours and could not find anything,
that would make really clear the current situation, and could be a good argument in case i need one…
quote:
Originally posted by Gambit:
I think it was back in september that the senate passed a bill… and it stated something like this "As to not impede with the 5th ammendment(freedom of speech/expression), no longer will drawings that indicate persons under the age of 18, illegal to possess or own.“Least thats what i remember… tis the reason bishoujo anime no longer needs the “everyone in this episode is over 18” warning.
Quote from other thread,
http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000063-2.html
quote:
Originally posted by Princess Bleh:
[…]the Supreme Court ruled this year that ALL works of a written or graphic nature “depicting minors engaging in explicit sexual acts” ARE legal, so long as the minors are fictional characters. […]
Quote from other thread,
http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001802-4.html
quote:
Originally posted by bishounen_blue:
[…]Lolicon games, or “Virtual child pornography” was already in court and the courts ruled in favor of the “porn.” It’s not real, no minors are ivolved, end of story.[…]
But it seems almost impossible to find what i really need…
I found so far:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1293.ZS.html ( Decided May 13, 2002 )
&
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.html ( Decided June 29, 2004 )
( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-218 )
But the first seems to be too old, and the second too new…
A short quote from the right document would be great too
( my English is not good, and i think these documents are difficult to read even for native speakers ^_^”
I found this article
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/index.html
and there is a link to:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2003/march.html#03-218
i also found this ACLU article
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=16025&c=252
But i’m still kind of lost…
I also searched in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ( Search the U.S. Code by keyword: )
for this bill in Gambit’s quote, but can not find it at all 
Could anyone help me to find the bill & the right line in a court’s document
or/and some media site explaining the current situation?
[This message has been edited by Soran (edited 08-01-2004).]
I am not sure about the bill Gambit means but to make one correction I think he means 1st Amendment not 5th Amendment. The 1st reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Fifth Amendment deals with some legal protection of the individual and protects a person from having to give testimony against themself in a court of law.
As to media site, it depends on which you go to as to what they say, if things are good or bad and you have to draw your own conclusions as to what that translates too, at least so far as I could find.
I found this part of a judgement (not sure if this is what you are looking for or not) located on this web site , this part quotes is from Justice Thomas concurring in Judgement about halfway down, maybe a little more, the page. "The Court suggests that the Government’s interest in enforcing prohibitions against real child pornography cannot justify prohibitions on virtual child pornography, because "[t]his analysis turns the First Amendment upside down. The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech."
Still checking for more.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-01-2004).]
Thank you SCDawg!
About media site -
though about one that would be seen as most “objective” by most,
for example if i answer in a forum to some post where someone tells that lolicon is illegal in USA,
or of i write a webspace provider asking if it’s alright for me to have lolicon content
on my site
( there are some providers that might not know yet…
not a big chance to convince them,
but one can try, not ^_~ )
So i wanted not only provide the source,
but some explaination/interpretation as well…
About 1th Amendment - i have search for a law about it too ( “first amendment” in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ),
just can not find this bill, at least nothing with title saying something about this theme
but thank you anyway!
If you are looking for information about strictly about the First Amendment, check either Bill of Rights or U.S. Constitution since it is probably placed seperately, personally I would do a Google or some such outside search for Bill of Rights and /or History of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment should come up since it is an amendment going back to the signing of the Constitution so it is probably not under the laws directly expect for the references to it in rulings made by various courts.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-01-2004).]
What the hell? What’s that porn picture doing in Unicorn’s post above?
Not lolicon. Loli.
Lolicons are people who are obsessed with young childs, called lolis.
[This message has been edited by Benoit (edited 08-01-2004).]