|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:14 am
Selene Aries If the law disagreed with me then I know of several movies that would not be legal, yet have been shown in actual theaters. The freedom of speech, press and expression is on the side of the artists. Only the actual act is illegal. Unless you can show me a law that states otherwise I will continue to hold to this as the facts at hand. However, I am aware that in other countries any material depicting minors sexual activities is illegal under certain child safety acts. And once again any link to furries from people that commit actual illegal sexual acts are unfounded. People commit them weather they are part of this fandom or not because of simple human nature. If you actually want to protect the furry name then you yourselves need to stop dragging it through the mud by making any kind of connection with the few idiots that get caught in their own depravity. Brush these incidents off for what they actually are, coincidence. That something can be prosecuted as obscene or unlawful doesn't mean that it will be - it depends on the prosecutor, and depends on the jurisdiction. I don't think it's non-criminal furries saying they don't want to be associated with the criminals who cause a news search for "furries" to pull up, along with some pop culture pages, stories about sex offenders. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=furries
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:19 pm
So found a law yet to prove your argument? No? Okay, good day then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:22 pm
Selene Aries So found a law yet to prove your argument? No? Okay, good day then. It's not just the written law, it's the case law. But hey, there are actually written laws that would allow people to be prosecuted for drawings, paintings, digital paintings, stories, or other non-photographic and non-video pornographic depictions of minors. Brian Dalton's case in Ohio (which bans "material", not just "images") would appear to be an example: he was prosecuted for the contents of some notebooks in which he'd written down some fairly disturbing fantasies. Recall that New York v. Ferber, 1982, states that "content that depicts children engaged in sexual conduct is 'a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment.'" See both that case and the adultweblaw.com article. The US Federal statute bans only images, but: Quote: “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where— (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (9) “identifiable minor”— (A) means a person— (i) (I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or (II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and (ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and (B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor. Okay, A and B here clearly are referencing actual photographic material and photomanips which are of a high quality and very convincing; but C is very broad, provided that the minor is "identifiable". I know how I would read the word "identifiable", but I'm not a lawyer and so I am unaware of how far the meaning can be stretched. Sources: http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm http://twiki.cageyconsumer.com/BrianDaltonCase http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=458&invol=747 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/JenkinsP/strangerThanFiction/ (very hard on the eyes, sorry)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:38 pm
You could just slap a "18 year old twink" label on them and not need to worry in most cases. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:42 pm
Selene do you want to tap that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:48 pm
Garek Maxwell You could just slap a "18 year old twink" label on them and not need to worry in most cases. razz Oddly enough, that's true. Isn't that amazing? Might not work in Australia, but most of us aren't Australians. IIRC a furry artist who drew a fairly adult-looking female lagomorph bending over a small cake, which has all the candles the artist could fit on it (thirteen), either almost got prosecuted or was prosecuted for child porn - "To hell with the picture, the cake says she's thirteen!" My recollection is that he didn't end up spending time in jail, which suggests that the prosecution failed to convince the jury, but even being charged with that is heavy s**t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:01 pm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-795
Read and learn the truth.
This is more more less a I am right and you are wrong moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:34 pm
Selene Aries http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-795 Read and learn the truth. This is more more less a I am right and you are wrong moment. I didn't refer to that statute, IIRC. Also, that seems to overturn the federal CPPA without addressing state laws. Speaking of state laws, how come a state like New Jersey won't let you buy firecrackers, but will let you... molest your dogs, provided no harm comes to them? I mean, Florida, well, it's Florida. But New Jersey is among the classic examples of a state of the union that intervenes a little too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:37 am
I dunno. if depictions of minors is illegal, then fapchan wouldn't have a lolicon board anymore. (or maybe that board is illegal and no one has felt the need to prosecute it at the moment)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
