Lolicon to be made illegal in America?

Alzrius · Jul 28, 2006

A friend of mine, following some buzz over on 420chan, directed me over to hentaiid.com. There's an announcement there that Bush apparently signed new legislation today that, in the name of protecting actual children from sexual predators, makes "simulated" child pronography illegal in America.

The full text of the bill, House Resolution 4472, can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472

I'm not qualified to interpret the full text of the bill, but if it's as bad as hentaiid says it is, then it's a major blow to the artistic rights of everyone in America, to say nothing of the fact that I like lolicon, damn it! I can only hope that it's not as bad as is being reported, but from what I understand, this is already the case up in Canada. I can only hope that the Courts will overturn this again (like they did two years ago when this happened before).

Terdwilicker · Jul 28, 2006

What a mess. So much for any fics involving Shinobu or Su.

Israfel · Jul 28, 2006

Gah, this is so stupid, this reminds me of a couple of years ago when, just because some loser who was obsessed with Everquest killed himself, everyone began thinking that Everquest was evil and that it made you suicidal, which is complete and utter BS.

cilrais · Jul 28, 2006

the ACLU must save us!

wonga316 · Jul 28, 2006

If this is true then it could boost the genre like how numerous banned material and media have been sort after due to human curosity. So it may have a positive effect.

Terdwilicker · Jul 28, 2006

Boost in the way that RIAA lawsuits didn't boost illegal MP3 downloading? Except this will be jail as a child molestor, not a $10K legal bill from the RIAA lawyers. No, I'm afraid that this law ends lollicon rather thoroughly.

Terdwilicker · Jul 28, 2006

Also, they could apply this to any anime or movie where a girl in her late teens, but under 18, in even a limited adult relationship, say a crush, as a child porn star, even if the actress is much older but playing a teenage girl. That makes even common shows like Gilmore Girls porn under this law. And half the sitcoms... and quite a bit of anime. After all, just because Sasami is over 828 years old, she looks 12 so therefore her crush on Tenchi would clearly mean owning a Tenchi Muyo OVA DVD means you're a child molestor, right? That's what it says.

runestar · Jul 28, 2006

No wonder it has been said that congress is the opposite of progress...

Anyone with a firm grounding of legal jargon care to explain what that whole lump of text just meant? All I could make out was that part of how the change was supposed to protect who, but no sort of rationalisations/explanations whatsoever of how it was supposed to achieve this effect.

I see only a tenous link between the two issues, it seems more like some computer program randomly chose a scenario and a solution and tacked them both together... :huh!:

Technically, doesn't this make Negima porn as well? :sweat:

Legacy|iB · Jul 28, 2006

It's a bit of a tough call.

Personally, this is more in relation to combating child pornography. To do that, various things need to be enforced and prohibited by law, and in the end, lolicon could fall under that category. It still does involve what would appear to be underaged children. The question is whether it being animated is enough to be considered as actual kiddie porn, enough to warrent it being banned.

This isn't like video games. As far as violence and video games go, there isn't a technical link that would support people being trained to kill others, unless grossly exaggerated by either supposed crusader Jack Thompson or Hillary Clinton. As for lolicon and child pornography...that's different. What goes on through the mind of a pedophile vastly differs from normal thought, on a violent and disturbing scale.

The ultimate purpose is to stop child pornography. It has to be done - we've all seen the newspaper stories and reports about these sorts of things. It has to be ended. This whole deal is noble in its own way, but as for lolicon?

I can't answer that. Personally, my view is that something like this has to be done, but has to be redefined within what is considered right or wrong. My idea is to define how much of it would fall under the same category as child pornography, and ban that, for example, graphical sex, full nudity, etc. Everything else outside of that would be allowed, but in order for that to be allowed, a rating system would have to be slapped onto it, sadly, I suppose.

Look on the bright side - if we really want anime and manga there are always alternative places to 'acquire' them. And as for writing, well...out of curiousity, how many of us actually do write stories that involve lolicon? Would that affect a large number of people here? Personally, it isn't in my interests to do that, so it doesn't affect me drastically. The only thing that affects me is that certain animes I watch usually involve 'underaged' girls and the occasional implied sex, but otherwise, not much.

Terdwilicker · Jul 28, 2006

I just wrote a fanfic which includes Shinobu, aged 17, having implied sex (without details) with Keitaro. Now I'm wondering if I have to re-write that even though in Japan, they're almost certainly legal, and in half a dozen US states they're legal too. (In Mississippi age of consent is 12, which is too young, imo). The thing is, if you read it in states where 17 ISN'T legal (like California and New York), then you've violated the law. And I don't want to go to jail for honoring proper characterization. So, do I edit the story and make her 18 and Su 19? Change all the recitations of "Four years!" which has that nice social context over to "five years"? Or do I delete the story off this site to prevent myself from being named a child porn creator because I wrote a fanfic where adults from a japanese anime have fictional sex?

Terdwilicker · Jul 28, 2006

More importantly, do I now possess child porn because Shinobu has a crush on Keitaro in the original Love Hina Anime? And Su snuggles with him in her sleep?

Alzrius · Jul 28, 2006

Well, first of all, I'm relatively confident (though not totally certain, as the exact wording of that bill is far too complex for me to comprehend completely) that the bill only deals with pictures or other "simulated" materials of child pornography. Written words should be perfectly fine.

Secondly, the material still needs to be pornographic in nature. Underage girls having a crush, or even sleeping in the same bed as someone aren't pornographic, unless they're exposing parts of themselves or otherwise engaged in something sexual.

Thirdly, there's still no concrete concensus on EXACTLY what this law means, in regards to lolicon material; to say nothing of how it's quite likely to be struck down when it reaches the courts if it does outlaw lolicon anyway. And that's not even taking into account that this sort of thing easily flies under the radar - I just visited a forum where people are posting lolicon pic after lolicon pic in mocking protest, and so far nothing's happened.

Don't change your story.

runestar · Jul 28, 2006

Or it could simply be eradicating other sorts of media in the name of combating child pornography. You can't really argue with a stance like that without looking like some pervert yourself, not when it has the backing of such a "noble cause". It's like arguing against the ban will you look like some sort of child molester yourself. :sweat:

My point is that while I too advocate stamping out child porn, I am wondering if said move is even a step in the right direction or not. :huh.: Or just some random move "just because they were bored".

Ah well, time will tell. And I don't even live in the US anyways...

SimmyC · Jul 28, 2006

This bill could be thrown out in court again. The reason why it was before was again, due to issues like what constitutes simulated porn and so on. Supreme Court doesn't like ambiguous bills.

That being said, I'm not a huge fan of 'simulated' child porn either. I mean, I like looking at pictures of hot sexy women and all but, should they really be dressing like 12 year olds? That being said, I don't think the solution is to ban them either. That's the slippery slope down the shit hole of Fascism. After all, what looksl like Child Porn now, might turn into regular porn later. And then the animated stuff. And then fanfiction, and then... NO GOOD!!! <_<

Moshulel · Jul 28, 2006

Heh, good that i don't live in the US then.

Oh well... if a law like that will ever pass then a lot of stuff will be banned, including fanfic.

Guess we'll just have to relocate then. <_<

Israfel · Jul 28, 2006

I live in the States so I guess I'm gonna' have to relocate, hey GH, you got a spare bedroom? Always did wanna' see what Italy was like this time of year...

GenocideHeart · Jul 28, 2006

Israfel said:

I DO indeed have a spare room, in the upper floor, though it gets really hot in Summer and the bed is more of a recliner... :snigger:

Israfel · Jul 28, 2006

What no AC? And I've slept on tile floors before, so a recliner is heaven to me, I'll see you in a few days, hehe.

toraneko · Jul 29, 2006

I'll just sit here, smirk, and smugly remember tales the days when several overeager politicians (and their wives, especially) tried to have heavy metal music censored. There was even a point where a few cases of teen suicide were blamed on backwards-masked messages in heavy metal music, and at least one band (Judas Priest) was brought to a court hearing about it.

The censorship movement failed, and the hearing concluded that it was foolish to think that backwards-masked messages were responsible for a couple idiots blowing their brains out.

I honestly think that, like the bullshit that Jack Thompson and Her Imperial Majesty, Former President Hilary Clinton* bring to the media all the time, it's little more than smoke. I don't think there'll be any success in censoring mature gaming content, and likewise I sincerely doubt that there will be any success in blocking (or even enforcing the laws on) lolicon content. The majority of lolicontent (heh, new word!) is found on the internet, and not in English, thus making it less likely that the law will be enforceable - and as any student of law, government, politics, or history can tell you, any law that fails at the enforcement level is powerless.

sarcasm? mockery? moi? surely not! ^_~

runestar · Jul 29, 2006

Sometimes, it still amazes me how computer games can get away with animated violence of demon brains being blown out with a shotgun, yet so much ruckus is raised over a little smut...

Ah well, keep me updated on what transgresses, nonetheless.

Israfel · Jul 29, 2006

Meh, it seems that the battle against violence in video games was lost back in the days of Mortal Kombat and they have just decided to let the issue stay dead (thankfully), so they've moved onto the next big ticket item...porn!

GenocideHeart · Jul 29, 2006

The Hot Coffee mod in GTA:SA didn't help things any... WTF was Rockstar thinking? :no:

EDIT: Although I mainly blame Jack Thompson.

And... it'd be poetic justice if, after banning lolicon, the number of pedophilia-related cases INCREASED. I'd love to see what lame excuse they'd pull out then.

My opinion is that lolicon is an outlet for potential pedo urges... and it hurts no one.

As for me, I don't mind it, but I prefer shapely women... so there.

Israfel · Jul 29, 2006

Gah, Rockstar is a bunch of idiots, pure and simple.

Yah, that's pretty much my view of it, I don't think it's really bad or anything, and I don't think it's hurting anyone, but frankly, I like my women with breasts thank you very much.

runestar · Jul 29, 2006

Maybe then they will release a law making it mandatory for lolicon to be broadcasted in every tv station...

It would seem like the most logical follow-up.

HEY, I can daydream, can't I? <_<

Moshulel · Jul 29, 2006

runestar said:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Well that's a interesting twist that the problem could take, but i know they'll find a lame ass excuse in that case and say something like: "Fanfiction is at fault!"

<_<

Lolicon to be made illegal in America?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member