Is it alright to mock and criticize pedophilia here?

[zmikez]

Let me replace what you just said with non-consent instead of pedo.

Because non-con is rape and sexual assault, we need to get rid of all of that from QQ as defending that or having that on QQ is a bad look.

Click to shrink...

Having depictions of non-con is not against the law.
Having depictions of CP is against the law.

These are not the same.


Actually, lets turn that around.

Is banning kinkshaming?

Because I can post a fictional depiction of non-con and not get banned.
If someone posts a fictional depiction of CP, they DO get banned.

Your rules are LITERALLY kink-shaming. "Kink-shaming is the act of making someone feel less than or problematic for their sexual desires."

Getting banned will make someone feel less than, or problematic, for their sexual desires.


edit:
for those wondering, I'm arguing against CP being considered a kink.
If you can't even look at it without a prison sentence you shouldn't get any type of protection.

 

[Biigoh]

That's actually not what I said. Like, I explicitly said that I was okay with loli stuff. explicitly. I was not talking about fictional stuff at all.

I'm sorry, but that was a dumb comparison. I didn't even ask to get rid of anything.

Click to shrink...

No? See. That is what you're asking for.

To get rid of members who say they're XXX even of they're joking or trolling or have XXX fetish but do nothing about it.

That the current rules that give the same rights/protection as other members with different kinks/fetishes/whatever should not apply to them.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

No? See. That is what you're asking for.

To get rid of members who say they're XXX even of they're joking or trolling or have XXX fetish but do nothing about it.

Click to shrink...

N-no?

No it's not?

I even said that I don't want bans or punishments in any way in multiple posts. I even said that I don't consider people with paedophile to be bad people as long as they don't hurt children.

it's all here. on this very thread.

That the current rules that give the same rights/protection as other members with different kinks/fetishes/whatever should not apply to them.

Click to shrink...

So we go back to the last question.

Are you all right with a poster telling other posters openly that they want to have sex with children? And those other posters not being able to tell them that they're messed up for it?

If you are not then you are by definition not giving paedophiles the same rights as everyone else. That sucks yes, but it's also true.

If you are okay with it, though, I'm not going to lie. That's also kinda messed up..

Like, I am not talking about loli. I am not talking about stories. I am not talking about fiction. I am talking about actual interactions between posters and the fact that yes, sometimes you do have to draw a line because if you don't, two things are going to clash.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

Let me replace what you just said with non-consent instead of pedo.

Click to shrink...

Let me turn it back on you.

Click to shrink...

A better analogy might be:

If a non-con reader said while quoting a rape scene-

I want to do this to my bitch of a coworker. I bet it would loosen her up.

Click to shrink...

-would it be kinkshaming to reply-

That would be evil. Do not.

Click to shrink...

That's all. BPW isn't even saying the first user shouldn't be able to say that, just that the second should be allowed the leeway to pushback (no moderation involved). At the very least, in rant threads.

I don't think it would be kink-shaming to allow User 2 to say that, nor do I think staff would actually infract them in the wild.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

A better analogy might be:

If a non-con reader said while quoting a rape scene-

-would it be kinkshaming to reply-


That's all. BPW isn't even saying the first user shouldn't be able to say that, just that the second should be allowed the leeway to pushback (no moderation involved). At the very least, in rant threads.

I don't think it would be kink-shaming to allow User 2 to say that, nor do I think staff would actually infract them in the wild.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, I think in retrospect a part of the misunderstanding is the name of the thread and vs what I am saying. I am very much not agreeing that people should be mocked or harassed, but people come in seeing the title of the thread and it understandably gets them heated up. Then I say something that's not really what he thread OP says, but that can look kinda the same if you're already feeling annoyed or worked up by the title.

I definitely also know I sometimes struggle to make myself understood sometimes as well. Autism is fun like that.

 

[Biigoh]

Having depictions of non-con is not against the law.
Having depictions of CP is against the law.

These are not the same.

Click to shrink...

Ah hahaha....

Having RL depictions of non-consensual sex? That IS against the law.
Just like RL depictions of CP is against the law.

But Loli Shouta drawings like drawings or writing of non-con stuff? Not against the law.

Actually, lets turn that around.

Is banning kinkshaming?

Because I can post a fictional depiction of non-con and not get banned.
If someone posts a fictional depiction of CP, they DO get banned.

Your rules are LITERALLY kink-shaming. "Kink-shaming is the act of making someone feel less than or problematic for their sexual desires."

Getting banned will make someone feel less than, or problematic, for their sexual desires.

edit:
for those wondering, I'm arguing against CP being considered a kink.
If you can't even look at it without a prison sentence you shouldn't get any type of protection.

Click to shrink...

Because it's clear we need clarification, and people have an instinctive FOR THE CHILDREN, when CP or Pedophilia gets mentioned.

I define Child Porn as ANYTHING under the age of 18, because server in US and that's the stuff that we need to worry about QQ.

Not 16 or whatever. ANYTHING under the age of 18.

Anything RL involving anyone under the age of 18 is flat out illegal, no arguments or disagreements on this. 18 or just over 18 sketchy as fuck, even if some of those "just turned 18" porn are of women who clearly are WAY pass 20 and might even be in their 30s or even older.

We WILL ban the hell of anyone who posts actual RL photo and videos of minors (ie under 18) if they're sexual because it's actually illegal.

We will NOT ban fictional material, ie shouta or loli. I dare you to ACTUALLY look at the youjo senki tag or the sailor moon tag or most anime/movies with teenage protagists or younger... we have quests, we have stories, we have anime pictures posted of under 18s with ZERO issues. No bannings.

So, I have to ask... why do YOU think we would ban fictional art or text about minors?

If a non-con reader said while quoting a rape scene-
-would it be kinkshaming to reply-

That's all. BPW isn't even saying the first user shouldn't be able to say that, just that the second should be allowed the leeway to pushback (no moderation involved). At the very least, in rant threads.

Click to shrink...

It's not kinkshaming to say "please don't do or say that (about RL person), that's actually bad and would be illegal".

It's kinkshaming to say "please don't do NON-CON stuff, I hate that."

 

[zmikez]

Ah hahaha....


But Loli Shouta drawings like drawings or writing of non-con stuff? Not against the law.

Click to shrink...

I appreciate the try but...



18 U.S. Code § 1466A

18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

www.law.cornell.edu

"Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—"

I will note that written works are not included, but yeah.... also, if you're interested, this forum would fall under subsection (d)(1) and (2) since people can load the site across state and international lines.

 

[Biigoh]

Er, no.

Actually no, it's not.

Again, commissioned author. I work with this stuff all the time. I've looked into this stuff. Written noncon is not illegal so long as it's not a recounting of a real event, linked to real people or written with the implication that you want it to be real or intend to make it real. writing noncon is not, in fact, illegal.

Now, you can catch noncon under more generic laws that are based around catching as much porn as possible like decency laws, but if you're singling out noncon for that, you're gonna have to hit everything else too that it catches and that's a LOT.

Click to shrink...

Please note the part where I specify Real Life (RL) Depiction.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Please note the part where I specify Real Life (RL) Depiction.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I already did. it's why I pulled the post. You're totally in the right there in terms of noncon stuff and the issue is on me for not catching that. Bit ironic after I said about people getting heated by the thread title and not reading my stuff only to do the same to you, lol. But hey, I never said I was perfect and I can totally admit when I mess up.

 

[Biigoh]

I appreciate the try but...



18 U.S. Code § 1466A

18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

www.law.cornell.edu

"Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—"

I will note that written works are not included, but yeah....

Click to shrink...

Welp... looks like QQ might have issues then. Along with most of the writers on QQ and HF and AO3. Basically anyone what wrote a fanfic or quest with NSFW stuff involving Under 18s.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

I am very much not agreeing that people should be mocked or harassed, but people come in seeing the title of the thread and it understandably gets them heated up.

Click to shrink...

Also, on one side, you're worried about not being able to push back on psychotic people, on the other, people want to be left in peace without constant moral condemnations for harmless kinks.

I think both are valid concerns. But, in my recollection, the self-admitted pedophiles seem aware of the moral issues surrounding their condition, so I'm not sure how necessary pushback is, whereas I think the wall stopping kink-shaming is very much load-bearing for this site (and frequently seems to get tested for any give).

It's understandable people are more concerned with one and not the other, though I'm not sure that can excuse all reading comprehension failures.

 

[Vanbers]

Having depictions of non-con is not against the law.
Having depictions of CP is against the law.

Click to shrink...

To make something very, very, VERY clear:

'depictions of CP' being against the law depends very much on the country, whereas ACTUAL CP is universally illegal, basically everywhere.

'Lolicon' artworks are, technically 'depictions of CP' if you stretch it like twitter users do, and absolute fucking jackasses reporting that to the feds is enough of an issue that they have to actively tell people "Hey, please don't spam our report cue with fictional content, we want to focus on REAL CHILDREN GETTING ASSAULTED and not artwork you don't like", because it's wasting their time and potentially letting actual predators either escape being caught or go longer without being caught. It's kind of an issue and one that grinds my gears.

Real CP is against the law, and from my very, very limited knowledge so is videos of actual rape, or snuff, and the like.

But Loli Shouta drawings like drawings or writing of non-con stuff? Not against the law.

Click to shrink...

This.

We will NOT ban fictional material, ie shouta or loli. I dare you to ACTUALLY look at the youjo senki tag or the sailor moon tag or most anime/movies with teenage protagists or younger... we have quests, we have stories, we have anime pictures posted of under 18s with ZERO issues. No bannings.

Click to shrink...

Hell, a vast, vast, VAST majority of nearly any anime fics depicted on this site would qualify as 'underage', given the sheer amount of which focus on school-age protagonists.

If banning underage stories was a thing, like 3/4ths of content, at the least, would get thanos-snapped instantly.

I appreciate the try but...

18 U.S. Code § 1466A

18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

www.law.cornell.edu

"Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—"

I will note that written works are not included, but yeah....

Click to shrink...

Quite possibly the most asinine and anti-child law I've seen in a while, tbh.

Considering an 'affirmitive defense' to having been in possession of it is 'referred it to the authorities and police as soon as possible', which, if actually done, would waste massive amounts of time and resources, while also obfuscating actual child abuse by absolutely filling reports with lolicon art.

Welp... looks like QQ might have issues then. Along with most of the writers on QQ and HF and AO3. Basically anyone what wrote a fanfic or quest with NSFW stuff involving Under 18s.

Click to shrink...

Considering the "Apr. 30, 2003" at the bottom of the act, and how many lewd loli pics are hosted by/posted from america, and how few people I've ever seen hit by the law (zero), it seems like kind of a non-issue.

Hell, Cuties was on American Netflix, and child beauty pageants exist. And those are closer to CP than any lewd Tanya pics I've ever seen.

Unlike the UK, where there are actual prosecutions of people with lolicon art, and people arrested for facebook posts. America seems to be far more interested in, y'know', actual fucking CP.

I think both are valid concerns. But, in my recollection, the self-admitted pedophiles seem aware of the moral issues surrounding their condition, so I'm not sure how necessary pushback is, whereas I think the wall stopping kink-shaming is very much load-bearing for this site (and frequently seems to get tested for any give).

Click to shrink...

I am absolutely, 100%, completely in favour of never changing that rule or making a single exception for any reason, because in all honestly it's the bedrock of the entire site.

 

[Rin]

18 U.S. Code § 1466A

Click to shrink...

Welp... looks like QQ might have issues then. Along with most of the writers on QQ and HF and AO3. Basically anyone what wrote a fanfic or quest with NSFW stuff involving Under 18s.

Click to shrink...

Not this shit again.

It's been over a decade since the last time trolls tried to cite US obscenity law as a way to get QQ in trouble, and it's just as stupid now as it was then.

TLDR conclusion from the *first* go around: US obscenity law is so ludicrously broad that almost every time it's used as the basis for a prosecution, it gets shut down on free-speech grounds. The Simpsons and Rick and Morty fall afoul of it, nevermind Ao3 and HF and FF.net and the rest of the internet. AFAIK, QQ has already been reported to the authorities on this basis several times, and it's never gone anywhere.

I'd suggest banning any user that cites it, because, historically, they're just a bad-actor trying to stir up trouble.

 

[zmikez]

Welp... looks like QQ might have issues then. Along with most of the writers on QQ and HF and AO3. Basically anyone what wrote a fanfic or quest with NSFW stuff involving Under 18s.

Click to shrink...

The law only states graphic depictions, text is not included.

Not this shit again.

It's been over a decade since the last time trolls tried to cite US obscenity law as a way to get QQ in trouble, but it's just as stupid now as it was then.

TLDR conclusion from the *first* go around: US obscenity law is so ludicrously broad that almost every time it's used as the basis for a prosecution, it gets shut down on free-speech grounds. The Simpsons and Rick and Morty fall afoul of it, nevermind Ao3 and HF and FF.net and the rest of the internet.

I'd suggest banning any user that cites it, because, historically, they're a bad-actor trying to stir up trouble.

Click to shrink...

United States v. Buie, No. 18-2942 (8th Cir. 2019)

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for possession of child obscenity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1) and (d). The court held that the statute of conviction was neither overbroad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The...

law.justia.com

That argument about "ludicrously broad"

Yeah... link to a case where someone was charged, tried, convicted, appealed based on your argument, then got denied.

Also, the cases where it was thrown out referenced subsection (B)
"lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

If the content can be argued to contain "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," key point here being literary....

Also, the law has been tested at least 4 times on this context alone that I could find and NONE of them have actually been a successful defense. I'd really like to know where you get your information from, maybe a cited source with the claims?


Edit: Also, I would like to add that social media of any kind, forums included, where the general public has free access to post whatever they please are granted significant protection from prosecution. The main reason why it's not an issue. As long as the platform in question makes a good faith effort and does not knowingly host, or allow to be hosted, illegal material. A direct confession of

We will NOT ban fictional material, ie shouta or loli. I dare you to ACTUALLY look at the youjo senki tag or the sailor moon tag or most anime/movies with teenage protagists or younger... we have quests, we have stories, we have anime pictures posted of under 18s with ZERO issues. No bannings.

Click to shrink...

might change that, since there is no longer a protection of good faith effort or plausible deniability.

But with that I think we have a pretty clear answer to the question.


Lastly, I'm just pointing things out I know to be verifiably true, I still 100% intend to go off and read worm fanfics knowing full well about the cast. This place and Ao3 are really the only places where I can find good NSFW stories so I'd much rather the site err on the side of caution and avoid landmines instead of kicking one and saying "oh, it's been there for a decade" only to lose a leg. I'm paranoid enough to where I wouldn't allow images on the forum itself due to concerns about this exact issue and many other possible issues. As it stands though I'll enjoy the parts of the site that I'm actually interested in and hope that the more questionable areas don't cause any issues.

 

[Biigoh]

The law only states graphic depictions, text is not included.

Click to shrink...

Please go look at the Worm picture thread, the Sailor Moon Picture thread, the various anime picture thread with teenage characters.

Now, go look at the various boorus. Pixiv. The various chans...

Congrats, your browser now has child porn in its cache because graphic depiction of naked teenagers who are "under 18".

 

[alethiophile]

Regarding the original question, the rule issue here is primarily under Rule 1. Under Rule 1, it's a violation to attack or insult users for their tastes in fiction. Likewise, we also don't allow people to insult everyone who likes a given kink or genre.

When the topic shifts to RL concerns, things become more difficult. In dealing with this, one can't avoid the fact that many acts depicted in fiction would be extremely harmful and illegal in an RL context. Advocating for criminal behavior, or more generally trying to normalize or destigmatize it, is against the rules. Our very permissive approach to fiction requires that the line between fiction and reality is carefully respected.

As regards people's discussion of their own attractions or proclivities, this again falls under Rule 1. Rule 1 forbids harassment or excessive personal attacks, including in this context. However, it is not a Rule 1 violation to say that e.g. pedophilia is disgusting. In general, we consider it wise to refrain from talking much about personal issues along these lines, and we aren't going to go out of our way to run cover for people who do so anyway.

As regards US law, the nature of "obscenity" as a legal concept means that making determinations here is challenging. QQ's policy is to allow any fictional content that is not illegal under US law. However, content that leaves the realm of pure fiction is subject to much more scrutiny. In particular, we don't allow any sexual content that includes any real person who is under 18, and sexual content including real people in general is questionable. In general, we reserve the right to take down any content that seems likely to cause legal issues.

Generally, we prefer not to host detailed discussions about legalities in this area. Laymen's input about difficult legal matters like this is not necessarily much use, and we don't want people relying on random Internet discussions to understand what the law is. Therefore, this thread will now be closed.