A Chalenger Appears...

Disminded · Apr 25, 2014

Now, I kinda wish I didn't use different names for each of the forums.

Meh. Any way to change a name on SB?

Vindictus · Apr 25, 2014

Disminded said:
Now, I kinda wish I didn't use different names for each of the forums.

Meh. Any way to change a name on SB?

Get in touch with the admins about it.

noahgab1133 · Apr 25, 2014

out of all three i find this forum to have some of my favorite quests XD both hora and non hora variety.

Dinya · Apr 28, 2014

SeaDart helpfully points out the names of the new oppression in SV's current elections:

SeaDart said:
A vote for Exposure, i00thlurker, Nuts(!), Foamy, Cetash, OpenSketchbook, and EricD is a vote for a strong united front that will confound those creeper scum whom seek to destroy our very way of life.

Vote for these august gentlemen. Vote for hope in these dark times.

EDIT: Also MJ-12

I suggest you vote for everybody else in the SV Community Councillor Elections, if you are interested in less fanatical puritanism on SV!

Jemnite · May 15, 2014

Dinya said:
SeaDart helpfully points out the names of the new oppression in SV's current elections:

I suggest you vote for everybody else in the SV Community Councillor Elections, if you are interested in less fanatical puritanism on SV!

Dude, no matter who you vote for, they're not going to allow porn on the board. Just don't post anything explicit or of sexual nature involving a person under 18, and you should be fine.

Frankly, I would hardly call it fanatical puritanism, given that there's supposedly even a kink thread.

Vindictus · May 15, 2014

Jemnite said:
Dude, no matter who you vote for, they're not going to allow porn on the board. Just don't post anything explicit or of sexual nature involving a person under 18, and you should be fine.

Frankly, I would hardly call it fanatical puritanism, given that there's supposedly even a kink thread.

There is.

Apparently like half of the 'Shadow Cabal' is into BDSM.

It's actually kind of funny. "So now we know what you all get up to at those secret meetings of yours..."

UrsaTempest · May 15, 2014

Vindictus said:
There is.

Apparently like half of the 'Shadow Cabal' is into BDSM.

It's actually kind of funny. "So now we know what you all get up to at those secret meetings of yours..."

Meh.

Trilonias · May 15, 2014

Does this mean I'm the odd man out, as I'm not actually on SB?

Shadow Cabal... how sinister. I guess we should totally have a party when they have another meeting then.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Vindictus said:
There is.

Apparently like half of the 'Shadow Cabal' is into BDSM.

It's actually kind of funny. "So now we know what you all get up to at those secret meetings of yours..."

Big difference is that BDSM's not illegal...

Grosstoad · May 15, 2014

Oh, I forgot to put mah Creeper title on the SV profile.

Vindictus · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
Big difference is that BDSM's not illegal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_%28BDSM%29#Legal_aspects

The issue of consent in BDSM has caused a controversy in some countries since certain activities, (including some kinds of edgeplay) remains unlawful even when consent has been freely given. In such countries, these activities will always be viewed by law enforcement as unlawful when discovered, even though the activities have been entirely private. The Spanner case in England demonstrates the point, where participants in a consensual mutual BDSM play party were arrested. At all stages, the national and European Court ruled against them on the basis that a person under English law may not give consent to anything more than minor injury. Interested people may think that private mutual activities should not be the subject of law as a matter of public policy, a view which has some legal backing in the United States from the case of Lawrence v. Texas where it was effectively ruled that the state lacked the power to declare an activity illegal purely on the basis of moral opinion.

The March 5th 2007 conviction of Glenn Marcus on counts of sex trafficking & forced labor renewed much debate on this issue.[4] Likewise in April 2007, two UK men were convicted of false imprisonment in a case where a third party who had been treated like a dog asserted the matter had not been consensual.[5]

Beep boop. What's the difference between an imaginary person and a real one?

Himura · May 15, 2014

Vindictus said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_%28BDSM%29#Legal_aspects

Beep boop. What's the difference between an imaginary person and a real one?

For the latter you need consent?

Heaven Canceler · May 15, 2014

Vindictus said:
****

Doesn't that screw over doctors considering that surgeries normally count as injuring someone with consent unless I am wrong?

Vindictus · May 15, 2014

Himura said:
For the latter you need consent?

It's not illegal to kill someone who doesn't exist.

Heaven Canceler said:
Doesn't that screw over doctors considering that surgeries normally count as injuring someone with consent unless I am wrong?

Doctors are in a totally different boat, as medical treatment is specifically and outright aimed at treating some underlying issue- Not getting off.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Vindictus said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_%28BDSM%29#Legal_aspects

Beep boop. What's the difference between an imaginary person and a real one?

I don't see where it say's that's illegal.

On the other hand:

In the United States, following Kansas v. Hendricks, sex offenders that can be diagnosed with certain mental disorders, including pedophilia, can be subject to indefinite civil commitment.[19] In Kansas v. Hendricks, the US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a Kansas law, the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), under which Hendricks, a pedophile, was found to have a "mental abnormality" defined as a "congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses to the degree that such person is a menace to the health and safety of others", which allowed the State to confine Hendricks indefinitely irrespective of whether the State provided any treatment to Hendricks.[107][108][109] In United States v. Comstock, this type of indefinite confinement was upheld for someone previously convicted on child pornography charges; this time a federal law was involved—the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.[23][110] The Walsh Act does not require a conviction on a sex offense charge, but only that the person be a federal prisoner, and one who "has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others", and who "would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released". Neither sexually violent conduct nor child molestation is defined by the Act.[111]

In 2012, Moldova reacted to an increase of Western European and United States citizens traveling to the country for the purpose of sex tourism with minors.[112] The parliament of Moldova enacted law that would mandate chemical castration for those who have sex with persons under the age of 15. Additionally, rapists would face castration on a case-by-case basis. The Associated Press also reported that Moldovans had a perception that their country had become a sex tourism destination and that every five of the nine convicted child sex offenders in the country over the past two years were foreigners.[113]

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.
Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
I don't see where it say's that's illegal.

On the other hand:

While I'm well aware of what exactly you're trying to imply, you haven't found anything that actually helps your case. Your case here being that fictional children are treated the same as real ones:

Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

A case for pedophilia and child porn you are failing miserably to make. Now if you were actually competent you might have instead looked at obscenity laws and tried to come up with something from there.
But, that would actually have required actual forethought which doesn't appear to be very high in your list of qualities.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Malcolmo said:
While I'm well aware of what exactly you're trying to imply, you haven't found anything that actually helps your case. Your case here being that fictional children are treated the same as real ones:A case for pedophilia and child porn you are failing miserably to make. Now if you were actually competent you might have instead looked at obscenity laws and tried to come up with something from there.
But, that would actually have required actual forethought which doesn't appear to be very high in your list of qualities.

n response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by then president George W. Bush.[52] The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Internet. So, are you going to argue about where the line stands and just how much one can get away with re:CP?

gibbousmoons · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
Internet

Lolicon isn't my thing, but I think I see where you're making your misunderstanding Seadart.

You see, the law specifies "a minor", and as fictional characters are not alive they cannot be minors under the law, as they are not people.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

gibbousmoons said:
Lolicon isn't my thing, but I think I see where you're making your misunderstanding Seadart.

You see, the law specifies "a minor", and as fictional characters are not alive they cannot be minors under the law, as they are not people.

which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "[b]depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse[/b]...

Jiven · May 15, 2014

gibbousmoons said:
Lolicon isn't my thing, but I think I see where you're making your misunderstanding Seadart.

You see, the law specifies "a minor", and as fictional characters are not alive they cannot be minors under the law, as they are not people.

Shaky argument at best, here.

gibbousmoons · May 15, 2014

Jiven said:
Shaky argument at best, here.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
Nothing to contribute

That is the official stance of the United States government regarding drawn depictions of fictional characters, Seadart. You can dislike said judgement all you like, but it is what it is. That's why photoshopping an underage actress' head onto an adult model's nude body is illegal, but graphic depictions of female characters are not. One's a person, one's a representation of a fictional character.

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
Internet. So, are you going to argue about where the line stands and just how much one can get away with re:CP?

Ah good, you've actually moved on to something that's close to relevancy.
Now if only you managed to refer to written content you'd actually be close to making a point as opposed to not doing so.

Still if you want to talk about lolicon there's this:

2011 Maine case

In November 2011, Joseph Audette, a 30-year-old computer network administrator from Surry, Maine, was arrested after his username was linked to child pornography sites. A search inside Audette's home did not result in any real child pornography, but did result in the findings of "anime child pornography". Much unlike previous cases (and likely due to the results of the Handley ruling), the charges were quickly dismissed under Maine law and dropped under federal law.[73]

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

gibbousmoons said:
That is the official stance of the United States government regarding drawn depictions of fictional characters, Seadart. You can dislike said judgement all you like, but it is what it is. That's why photoshopping an underage actress' head onto an adult model's nude body is illegal, but graphic depictions of female characters are not. One's a person, one's a representation of a fictional character.

which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...

The law is very clear in this regard, i'm afraid.

"depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...

Malcolmo said:
Ah good, you've actually moved on to something that's close to relevancy.
Now if only you managed to refer to written content you'd actually be close to making a point as opposed to not doing so.

Still if you want to talk about lolicon there's this:

"depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...

But we gotta find where exactly that line lies, amirite?

Himura · May 15, 2014

The big deal with the whole CP thing is that it's harming children. Remove the actual children than it's just them being assholes. It's like getting pissed at people who chew those fake candy cigarettes because they just need something in their mouth. It's mostly imposing one's morals on someone else because you find their tastes objectionable.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

Himura said:
The big deal with the whole CP thing is that it's harming children. Remove the actual children than it's just them being assholes. It's like getting pissed at people who chew those fake candy cigarettes because they just need something in their mouth. It's mostly imposing one's morals on someone else because you find their tastes objectionable.

Children are people too:

http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140514/NEWS/140518042

gibbousmoons · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
The law is very clear in this regard, i'm afraid.

Indeed it is. I'm glad that you're actually taking this seriously and are willing to accept when your allegations are directly contradicted by the laws. Otherwise this might even be called a board invasion, what with all the trolling and flame-baiting that would be going on, and that would be terrible.

Himura · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
The law is very clear in this regard, i'm afraid.

But we gotta find where exactly that line lies, amirite?

That line is as vague as the second amendment. It could be referring to illustrations of real children rather than of fictional characters. And illustrations can be taken as anything from a stick figure to a detailed sketch, plus there's no way to prove their age other than looks, which vary on the style, like say lucky star which all the loli characters are actually about 16-18.

Malcolmo · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
The law is very clear in this regard, i'm afraid.

But we gotta find where exactly that line lies, amirite?

Again, charges were dropped.

the charges were quickly dismissed under Maine law and dropped under federal law.

Not exactly all that strong a case for your law now is it?

Of course, I'll note you've successfully driven the argument off of written text onto visual media. Well played though hardly very good at proving your previous point.

Himura · May 15, 2014

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES said:
Children are people too:

http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140514/NEWS/140518042

This seems to be implying that this one says that it's okay with children, that is putting words in her mouth. This one is saying that loli art is different than the real thing and does not harm anyone since the only one's involved are the illustrator and the consumer.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES · May 15, 2014

gibbousmoons said:
Indeed it is. I'm glad that you're actually taking this seriously and are willing to accept when your allegations are directly contradicted by the laws. Otherwise this might even be called a board invasion, what with all the trolling and flame-baiting that would be going on, and that would be terrible.

Board invasion? Man, are you going to debate the point?

Himura said:
That line is as vague as the second amendment. It could be referring to illustrations of real children rather than of fictional characters. And illustrations can be taken as anything from a stick figure to a detailed sketch, plus there's no way to prove their age other than looks, which vary on the style, like say lucky star which all the loli characters are actually about 16-18.

n response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by then president George W. Bush.[52] The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Malcolmo said:
Again, charges were dropped.Not exactly all that strong a case for your law now is it?

We don't know just how pornographic the material was.

Of course, I'll note you've successfully driven the argument off of written text onto visual media. Well played though hardly very good at proving your previous point.

The USGOV doesn't make it a habit to ban books, Malcolmo.

Anyway, I have something else i'm concerned with. When I signed up here it asked me if 'I wished to view NSFW materials and am above the age of 16'

16 year olds are minors.

Himura said:
This seems to be implying that this one says that it's okay with children, that is putting words in her mouth. This one is saying that loli art is different than the real thing and does not harm anyone since the only one's involved are the illustrator and the consumer.

Parking on a double yellow line doesn't harm anyone but it's still illegal. Just like insurance fraud, jaywalking, etc etc

A Chalenger Appears...

Versed in the lewd.

Experienced.

Don't you trust me?

Know what you're doing yet?

Academic

Experienced.

Yuri Fanatic, Archivist

I trust you know where the happy button is?

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Whimsical Paranoid Creeper

Experienced.

IRL Enthusiast

Behind You!

Experienced.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Insert custom title here

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Well worn.

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Most Excellent Lurker

Well worn.

Insert custom title here

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

IRL Enthusiast

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Well worn.

IRL Enthusiast

Insert custom title here

IRL Enthusiast

USS_JOHN_PAUL_JONES

Users who are viewing this thread