The skirts are short, but that’s pretty normal in anime, even girl-oriented anime. (Sailor Moon has some serious short skirts.) Evangelion wears knee-length and Akane Tendo wears longer, but the majority of characters I look up have skirts well above the knee. It’s not surprising because a lot of art styles stretch people and give them very long legs…
At my school if you came to school wearing something short enough, you’d be forced to wear The Skirt, which was an ugly long brown thing that was supposedly scratchy and smelled funny. I can only remember two people I knew who were actually made to wear it, one because she showed up in a miniskirt that was too mini and one because she wet her pants laughing.
I fear that Youtube dislikes our old project, but the video is usually reuploaded in no time, I suppose that the foreign lolicons like our fansub work .
I’ve mentioned it before in other threads, but I can’t recommend enough taking the time to read this old article by The Misanthopic Bitch which is relevant to the discussion. (Thankfully, even though she and her website disappeared from the web, a good amount of her old site has been salvaged.) I don’t agree with everything she says by any stretch, but her articles were always interesting, thought provoking, and most especially, highly controversial. It is slightly scary how much this article applies to today when it was written about five years ago. (The article was put up June 13, 2004.)
In case you are curious, I thought of this article again because of the image Narg posted and his remark about putting it on a shirt. In the article, The Misanthropic Bitch says:
So if you accidentally hit a child porn site, and then immediately left, but an image from that site was on your hard drive the cops somehow caught that one or two image… you’re guilty. If some idiot posts a naked child photo on a forum you visit, and you suddenly see it too late… you’re guilty.
Because you only have to LOOK at it. Be careful where you surf, if you’re from Penn State.
Narg, there’s enough to worry about on this topic. Please don’t start urban legends Always click thru to read the actual bill first. No, it wasn’t linked from your link, but they did give the bill title. It was the first hit when I googled “Act 15 of 2009 (House Bill 89)”. It specifically defines its terms so as to exclude the scenario you described.
Edit: I note the bill does not define the term “child”, which means that the courts are going to say “If that were to include drawn art as well, this would be unconstitutional; therefore, the law is not to be interpreted in this way, and it applies only to child pornography of the type the Supreme Court has said is unprotected.”
While the bill may say “The term shall not include the accidental or inadvertent viewing of such material.”, I think it is pretty evident that given the witch hunt fervor in which child pornography convictions are pursued, they aren’t going to believe you if you say it was inadvertent or accidental. In other words, if you do say that, good luck trying to prove it.
I’m with MEIJI… how do you prove it’s “accidental” with the attack dogs in the Justice Department? Just one image? Two? Three? A dozen? When does accidental become intentional in a court hearing? I’d rather not put my faith in the system like that… especially if they handle them in a manner similar to accidental homicides.
I originally mentioned this in the closed Family Project Kazoku Keikaku thread, but I suppose it’s better to be here.
Note that the ruling makes no distinction between drawn and real, except by one judge. He’s going to appeal the US Supreme Court.
Now in that same thread, 0_seven mentioned that:
This is true… but ONLY if simulated child porn is not obscene. If it’s found obscene (and obscenity is ruled on a community standard… that means it can differ on a municipal level), then it’s not protected by freedom of speech. Furthermore obscenity is on a case by case basis… so what’s not obscene in one court, can be in another.
So basically if the Supreme Court hears this case, things will change… good or bad. If not… then watch yourself in Virginia. It’s a conservative state with an unfriendly court system for lolicon. My gut feeling is that the Supreme Court will either take this case or the Max Hardcore one… both deal with the standards of obscenity. If they reject both however, it will send a powerful message that the Supreme Court believes the current ways of handling obscenity are fine as they are.
But the point is, this is not what you said originally. The fact that sometimes inadvertent possession will get punished as if it were intentional, is not new with this law. That has always been true of just about everything that’s ever been criminalized. And in particular, most of the kiddie porn laws I’m sure say mere possession is enough for a conviction. This one actually specifically includes a shield for inadvertence.
The law originally said that a person had to ‘have control over’ the images. This turned out to be hard enough to prove that it was very difficult to win cases against people. Remember, we’re not talking about art here (though whether art would be covered is up for grabs) - the law is aimed at people who possessed actual child pornography, but couldn’t be convicted, because the standard was impossible to prove and all they had to do was lie and say it wasn’t theirs, they just knew about it. Now they don’t have to try to prove who owned the images: Did you deliberately expose yourself to it? Then you’re guilty.
Questions over who exactly might have legitimately stumbled onto the material will be questions of fact. Juries decide those.
I can’t say I have a problem with this. Real child porn is - and rightly should be - contraband. Just saying the stuff isn’t yours shouldn’t be a virtually insurmountable obstacle for the prosecution, after you’ve been caught with it. If that were the case, it would be too hard to crack down on things that really should be cracked down on.
Before you had to prove the man was guilty, and it took some work. This is generally a good thing: guilty beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Now it’s based on something more opinionated. How do you define someone’s intentions? This is that whole “criminal intent” thing again (in that it equals the actual act of criminality). I’m not saying that I support actual child porn (far from it) - just that merely viewing it is illegal, and then adding accidental is exempted, means you have to prove it’s accidental from the moment it was viewed. Proving that I’m not guilty at the start of a case, is rather screwed up. Especially since if someone is going to flood a site with child porn to be a jerk, usually does it with more than one picture from different sources, thus making it look like you visited multiple sites.
Lolicon also isn’t just limited to drawings… and since the battle concerning the depiction of fictional lolicon with live pornography is still in debate (the obscenity clause seems to be the “legal” method against drawings), this law could be used against that. Kitty Jung and all that (link doesn’t have actual porn… but don’t view if you live in PA… just in case ).
Actually, they excluded accidental viewing from the definition. Meaning the offense only happens if it’s not accidental. That leaves the burden of proof on the prosecutor to prove it wasn’t accidental.
That clause did not create an affirmative defense (in which you say ‘I did it, but …’) - to win an affirmative defense, you generally have to prove you qualify for the defense. Fair Use is an affirmative defense, which is why the defendant has a higher burden.
I’m almost sure that last post was accurate. I’m in fact not an attorney, but the law is very similar to the sort of nonsense I have to put up with at work (the problem domain in the apps we run is ridiculously complex and it’s all about applying mostly-sane rules in the most annoyingly convoluted scenarios). I also spend lots of free time doing things like reading court opinions on topics that interest me and try to figure out how their (the legal system’s) rules operate. I’ve got a pretty decent idea how this burden of proof stuff works and I’m pretty sure what I wrote’s correct.
As for avatars … It’s much better now, but it used to be the case that the forum would take forever to load because of those things. Considering I have an active antipathy toward them, no, I have no intention of ever selecting one
It hasn’t been a problem recently, but some people used to link decently large pictures from external sites. When that happens, the whole page waits for the external site to finish sending the picture before it displays properly, definitely introducing big delays in loading the pages. When I hit the Twincest is Best thread, or other ‘post funny pics’ threads, I expect to have delays for pictures loading. Not on every single thread I try to read.
Besides, without avatars, people who post one line won’t have inches of dead space in their post because their avatar is large.
.
).