They are covering their bases for the same reason in Japan the censor the groin area. In Japan, if they got a smart and powerful lawyer, they “might” be able to convince a judge that the law only applied to images of real individuals, but who wants to take the risk, both company and lawyer. The same principle is used in the US, but for age of majority.
Oh so its original Eroge companies who set it down ? Didnt think it would even be a issue over there. Guess it never hurts to be careful.
Oh so school is not specified in original release. I do notice that every once in awhile some games seem to focus on the word “college” alot as if they think they are fooling someone. It sticks me as odd occasionally specially when the girls dont even spear to be old enough for highschool.
Thanks for the info you two, I always had a fear that these companies were afraid of lawsuit over lolicon content. For any english release there always large devoid of actual loli, and it was a bit worry some that same would happen to jail bait but doesnt look like that is the case.
Renrinken, you might find this thread interesting. In it the whole thing about the schools not being high schools and character ages is discussed.
Oh shit… Oh shit… Oh shit…
US Court of Appeals Affirms Cartoons of Child Porn Are Illegal!!! :shock:
“Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation’s first conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons.”
They’re trying to get the Supreme Court involved. Stay on top of this guys and gals… we’re getting screwed because people with real child porn are dragging lolicon down with them.
On a similar note: For those who don’t keep track of this kind of stuff, Australia has made crimes against cartoons illegal.
Dooooooom!? Guess we’ll see. 
Let us hope this gets slammed down as it should be. Otherwise, I may need to figure out how to get to Japan sooner than I thought…
Hate to say I told you so … cause this sucks (it’s blatantly unconstitutional) … but the “obscenity exception” is a disturbingly effective loophole to drive trucks through. Instead of “child porn” charges, they simply file “porn” charges (which they’ve always been able to do). Don’t look to SCOTUS to be much help, especially if this guy is the one that makes it to the supreme court.
The supreme court probably won’t take his case, because they like to take test cases that cleanly present an issue. This individual is a bad test case, because he got picked up for possession of both the vile real-victim kind AND loli h-stuff art.
If the other guy – the man charged only with possession of fake child porn – gets acquitted, or if the statute is struck down on appeal because it unconstitutionally discriminates against one type of obscene content (that is, he says ‘normal obscene stuff gets X, this is punished more severely, on unconstitutional grounds’ and wins – I have no idea how likely this is, I suspect not very), or the Supreme Court says “no, law’s still unconstitutional” for other reasons – then loli art is fine. Otherwise, obscenity statutes may very well be adopted which specify obscene material that is loli art can get you very stiff jail terms.
Personally, I am convinced that a) the legal concept of ‘obscene’ is unconstitutional, period; and b) the Internet broke the currently-controlling test for whether material is obscene. Community standards are gone, scattered to the winds, broken. However, the law is the law, and it takes time to catch up. Until the Supreme Court agrees with me, then it is what it is – not what I think it should be.
No obscenity case has made it to SCOTUS yet since the sodomy laws were struck down. The guy in the article Narg just cited (the Dec article) didn’t raise the right-to-privacy argument, which was the basis for the decision. Everyone’s been so focused on the implications of the ruling for gay marriage, they haven’t considered how it might apply elsewhere. (I refer to this ruling) I’ll have to read up on this. It’s quite likely the sodomy decision should apply equally well to other types of sexual activity (namely, consumption of porn).
From the wikipedia article on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
“Scalia also averred that, State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.”
It would appear the entire doctrine of obscenity may be destined for the scrap heap. I’ll have to read the actual decision itself tomorrow.
I’ve been keeping track of the lolicon cases. There’s two major trails:
#1: Iowa Case - the man was arrested for having lolicon manga. He might have also owned anime and CG sets with lolicon. However he did not possess a single item of actual child porn. The actual legal case can be read in this PDF.
#2: Virginia Case - the man was arrested for having lolicon and actual child porn. He is attempting to have his sentence reduced or the verdict thrown out, due to his case including lolicon artwork. It’s a really underhanded trick… however it has an impact on lolicon supporters, because the VA courts are lumping lolicon and actual child porn into the same pot. The man is repeat offender. Details can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199
Now then… the updates:
#1: The Iowa Case is set to start on February 2nd. The good news? The judge has already ruled that the PROTECT Act criminalizing visual depictions of lolicon which are 100% fictional (i.e. anime, eroge, manga, cartoons, etc) is unconstitutional. The bad news? The man still faces obscenity charges. However there is more: the 4th Amendment protects citizens. You may own obscene material in the privacy of your own home, so long as it does not break another law. The issue is that the man IMPORTED his obscene material from Japan. Supposedly that is not legal. So you can own domestic obscene material, but not imported… or use the postal service for it. Needless to say: pay VERY close attention to this case!
#2: The Virginia Court KNOWS it ruled against the Supreme Court. For those who don’t know, Virginia is a conservative state. The VA court wants the case to go to the Supreme Court, in hopes that the new judges will overturn or clairify the law that makes lolicon legal. Basically it’s a judicial political move. The man being accused is already guilty of actual child porn - so he’s going to prison… they just want to make it illegal for lolicon as well. It has to go to a Full Appeals Court next… then the Supreme Court, if things go that far.
Something pointed out to me, by a friend who works as a legal specialist: United States v. Williams
Therefore in May 19 of 2008, the Supreme Court pretty much says in bold face words, that it’s illegal to punish people for owning “virtual” child porn. Lolicon is legal in the US.
He tells me the matter is not really about lolicon - that ruling is over and dead - it’s if obscenity laws are unconstitutional. I was directed to keep an eye on this case: United States v. Extreme Associates
It may have more of an impact on lolicon… not to mention guro or senseless tentacle rape. 
The somewhat good news, is that this case - unlike lolicon - has the entire weight of the multi-millon dollar porn industry to support it.
Thanks for the continued updates Narg. There’s no way I could ever keep track of all this stuff, especially now that my mind is occupied with things like memorizing stroke orders and On and Kun readings for class.
Turns out that the Iowa case being lolicon was a government mistake. :roll:
Case actually got underway on Feb 2nd (it was pushed back) and still on going.
It’s become an obscenity case battle, and the outcome of it will hit more than lolicon. Check out this VERY well written argument in support of yucky hentai.
Damn, after reading that article I became motivated enough to donate. Too bad they don’t accept donations from Greece.
Edit: Scrap that, they just added Greece to the list and I was able to become a member. Go loli defence force!
I still wish Peter had just left the Lipp scenes in the game data, but not accessible via normal gameplay and not translated.
It’s worked before with May Club and Nocturnal Illusions, and since the games are already rated Adults Only, there’d be little “Hot Coffee” blowback.
I myself don’t care for lolicon. However, I view it on the same line as everything else. If we can create virtual images of consensual sex, rape, murder, or even of a terrorist attack, what is so different about this one subject? Once one gets banned, moves will be made to ban other offensive material. I probably have some loli on my harddrive now without knowing it from my 4chan downloads.
It’s an issue of where you draw the line. If people are offended by it, then they shouldn’t buy it, plain and simple.
Collecting more info on all this. The law that supposedly makes importing eroge illegal in the United States. It’s called 18 U.S.C. ¬ß 1462. However even this law is not final evidently… in the previously mention VA case (where the guy also had real child porn), the Judge says this in the appeal case.
In otherwords, you can own such material in the privacy of your own home. However you can’t import it? But wait! According to that law, you can’t get Playboy or Hustler in the mail either, because it says INTERSTATE… or so these NAZI lawyers want it to be. We’ve got a paradox here.
Also… don’t look at porn at work. Cause… ya know… it’s not the confines of your home. And you never know if the FBI is watching ya. Don’t let 'em get ya on a loophole. 
It’s also a compelling reason why the PP forum should remain work safe. :o
I should also mention that the Iowa case has once again been pushed back. Late March is the estimate.
Not directly related, but something interesting. You know how porn sites always have those “must be an adult” disclaimer on their pages? Evidently there was a US law that made them mandatory: Child Online Protection Act
Yea… I figured there was one (or else why would adult sites have 'em), but I never knew what it was exactly. Well in January the Supreme Court smacked it down as unconstitutional - in that [u]PARENTS[/u], not site owners or the government, should police children surfing the Internet. It only took 'em 10 years to figure out. :roll:
I only learned of it, because I was seeing if I had to make a disclaimer for my site. Seems I don’t.
About damned time someone in the government said, “Stop foisting responsibility for your children on us” to irresponsible parents.
I find it highly annoying how these conservative groups will enforce their views of something they don’t like on others, yet fight viciously when it’s something they do like getting the same treatment.
Let’s use firearms for example: these same people (i.e. Bible Belt Conservatives) who are demanding that porn be regulated by the government, and that technology should be used to track and restrict people accessing porn, will go crazy if you say the same thing should be done with guns. They’ll start citing the Second Amendment with a religious passion.
And seriously… I dare anyone to prove that porn has caused more deaths than guns.
The whole bit of one side supporting firearm rights and having a tendency to restrict civil liberties on one side, and the other side restricting firearms rights and supporting civil liberties, is precisely why I don’t care for either side much (and thus am an unaffiliated voter).
Well the answer seems pretty simple: support porn [u]AND[/u] guns.
That way you get the goods stuff [u]AND[/u] have the means to keep it.
Win-Win. Who says you can’t have a harem of politics? 8)
The two ‘sides’ in US politics is a deeply confused affair in general. At times I’m not even sure what they think they’re supporting. As I understand it:
Republican party - Socially conservative, economically liberal
Liberal party - Socially liberal, economically conservative
WTF.
Not a citizen of the US, but if I was, I’d be in a bit of a quandary. Probably have to vote Libertarian or something >_>