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).]
Those here know that, but ask yourself if someone on the street would know that, if the answer is no, then they are often confused even within the rulings I was reading. They did interchange the idea saying “lolicon images” so who knows but that was written in some of the rulings.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-01-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
What the hell? What's that porn picture doing in Unicorn's posst above?
It appears some joker replaced a smiley he was using with that picture. If you click "edit" on the post (to see what is actually there) there is an image link that points to what is obviously supposed to be a "depressed.gif" smiley.
The US Supreme Court struck down the portions of certain “anti-child porn” laws that they found to be too restrictive on citizens First Amendment rights. One the main reasons they gave in the decision is that particular law made it illegal to show “Romeo and Juliet” anywhere in the States, because Romeo and Juliet are underaged, but shown/suggested in a romantic (sexual) relationship.
As lolicons were one of the explict groups targeted by Congress in drafting the law (cause to the outside world in the US, lolicons = child rapists IRL), at this point, Congress is still struggling on how to make “fictional” underage characters having sex (explicitly or implicitly), they still haven’t found a way, at this time, around the Supreme Court ruling. So, as long as it isn’t a realistic depiction (serious photo-realistic CG rendering), you should be safe. Although you can still get hassled by your local authorities if they find “questionable” material (many places have local laws that are arbitrary, allowing the judges and enforces decide if its bad or just silly fantasy).
I could look through my archives if people are really interested to find which precise federal child protection act that the US Supreme Court voided and renderd their ruling that “fictional” underage characters can be depicted without fear of legal liability.
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
What's that porn picture doing in Unicorn's post above?
That was originally a depressed smiley and it was also quoted from another post of Spec.
Apparently, the place where it was hosted thought the other image more appealing... [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
That was originally a depressed smiley and it was also quoted from another post of Spec.Apparently, the place where it was hosted thought the other image more appealing... [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]
My fault, sorry. Guess that I should be more careful with my usage of smileys..<_<.
Anyway, I've edited my message to take it away and so has Unicorn so hopefully there's no problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
Not lolicon. Loli.
Lolicons are people who are obsessed with young childs, called lolis.
Hm... I wouldn't call a person "lolita complex",
it's like telling a person "you are flu/pest/AIDS".
( i don't mean it's spelled wrong, it's just not nice, even if "lolicon" used as adj. )
Even to say "he/she has lolita complex" in public wouldn't be nice,
at least if you can't be sure that it's not just a fantasy for him/her
( and in real world he/she has an adult partner & is quite happy,
or wishes he/she would find one )
since a "complex" is a psychic abnormality,
so you are saying that he/she is has an abnormal psychic based
just on his/her fantasy
( and who has right to judge others in public? )
I know, there are brave guys & gals who call themself "lolicon"
and have no problem with it.
Anyway, if there would someone who called himself/herself
< insert here any labeling for gender/race/nationality/etc. that often is seen as offensive >
this still wouldn't make it "alright" to call just *everyone* by this labeling.
I like adult-looking anime characters as well as lolita-like characters,
but even if i would hate breasts one day ( i hope not ), i still would find it offensive,
if someone would say in public "he's lolicon" / "he has lolita complex" about me.
Also what do you mean by "young childs" ? :/
We aren't talking about real children, are we ?
And why can't i call some kind of anime/manga/doujinshi "lolicon"?
"Lolita complex" hentai manga is manga, that is likely to appeal
a person with lolicon complex.
A hypothetical person ^_^ so no one's feelings will be hurt,
if you buy a "lolicon manga", you aren't neccessary "lolicon"
( oops ^^" i mean you don't neccessary have some scary complex or alike ^^ )
Here is a Japanese shop that labels a hentai manga category "Lolita Complex"
http://www.japan-manga.jp/index.jsp?ShowMode=Category&CategoryID=35
[This message has been edited by Soran (edited 08-02-2004).]
Oi… Always with this grammatical battle of loli/lolicon. Can’t we just say “young looking girls” and be happy?
------------------
精神 の 神
For this discussion, since we are in part talking about rulings on this issue, let’s just go with whatever or everything they use in the rulings and say for this discussion it is all correct. How’s that sound?
It’s about using the correct terms, as dictated by our resident admin Lamuness.
Soran, don’t tell me you’ve been brainwashed by the previous admin?
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
It's about using the correct terms, as dictated by our resident admin Lamuness.
Soran, don't tell me you've been brainwashed by the previous admin? :(
I have no idea what you are talking about,
i just wrote what i think & feel about this issue
( i think it's not polite to call a person "lolicon" )
Let's just stop is, ok?
[This message has been edited by Soran (edited 08-02-2004).]
And I don’t think it’s polite to call these girls lolicons because they don’t have a lolita complex. :’(
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
And I don't think it's polite to call these girls lolicons because they don't have a lolita complex. :'(
*argh*
where did i called an anime/manga character "lolicon"?
Is it supposed to be funny?
Or you are just trying to ruin this thread?