Should lolicon be illegal?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Child pornography is illegal, why is lolicon still legal? Should it be?

[Jack]

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.[27] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children." On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography.[28] The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A which criminalizes both Miller Test obscene cartoon depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and, as noted by the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, cartoon depictions of a minor or what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) and need satisify only the third part of the Miller Test, that it lack serious artistic value.[29] In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted[30] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[31] Whorley was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) on fourteen accounts for receiving "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."[32][33] Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes at the time of the violations, although these convictions were independent of Whorley's violation of the terms of his parole.[34] The same FOIA-requested November 2006 United States Attorney's Bulletin describing the details of the conviction, concludes by suggesting that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions of possession of such obscene cartoons. It is worth noting that Whorley's charges were coupled with charges for possession of conventional child pornography and that he was on parole at the time making the legal possibility of appealing the charges far less feasible and far less attractive to civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year sentence in jail to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act.[35]

I think the greater question is, should any cartoon or CGI depiction of an activity that would be illegal if performed by real humans be illegal? Exactly what harm is being done if the depiction is a drawn or generated image? If caricatures can be legislated against, is there a potential for abuse of that legislation? Could drawings of Jesus engaged in a sex act become illegal? Will we eventually adopt an Islamic-like intolerance for cartoon depictions of "sacred" symbols?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Lullaby why is lolicon still legal?

It says on Wiki that it's illegal under the PROTECT Act of 2003. As far as I could tell from the article, the law is unenforced, but still technically prohibits lolicon.

Quote by: Lullaby Should it be?

Yes. Child porn is illegal because creating it involves abuse of children. Lolicon or other forms of simulated child porn don't. No victim; no crime.

[leftcider]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Yes. Child porn is illegal because creating it involves abuse of children. Lolicon or other forms of simulated child porn don't. No victim; no crime.

Agreed, I think it's a fairly simple judgment call. It seems like it takes Courts to overturn things like this, because there are few in Congress who want to be on seen on record as supporting the legalization of simulated child pornography [whatever their private feelings about the law may be]. We'll see if PROTECT gets further challenged in the courts...

[Night]

lol, sad what people get off to these days. No, it shouldn't be illegal imo. Its better for the pedos to get off to that instead of the real stuff :S

[Maybe-not]

Lolicon and animated CP should not be illegal. The concept of the Government as a judge of taste, is bizarre. Nobody are harmed from Lolicon nor animated CP, so there is absolutely no reason to outlaw it, except for "But WE think it's filthy".

On the other hand, i say we enforce a harsher punishment for production and possession of real CP. I don't know about America, and other places, but in Denmark, the harshest punishment for that, is 1 year.

Another interesting think we could be debating, is the morality of Child Modeling forums, and cooperations. I'll start a tread on that, ASAP.

As much as I don't like anime, or Child Porn, or Generally Cartoons from Japan, I don't see anything about this that is worthy of banning it. It's a drawing made for creepy adults, nothing more.

I think Child Porn however, should stay illegal, and that is human to human contact, or the exploitation of minors.

[Jack]

In the wake of the Jon Benet Ramsey case, many people react negatively to the topic of "the morality of Child Modeling".

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy It says on Wiki that it's illegal under the PROTECT Act of 2003. As far as I could tell from the article, the law is unenforced, but still technically prohibits lolicon.

I did not know this. o_o


Does anyone feel the general continuation of such material spawns a sexual attraction towards children in some people? Is this not a concern?

[Jack]

Why else would it be popular? It certainly isn't the quality of the artwork. I don't believe it "spawns" anything, it appeals to pre-existing interests.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Isherwood Why else would it be popular? It certainly isn't the quality of the artwork. I don't believe it "spawns" anything, it appeals to pre-existing interests.

How does it not inspire sexual feelings towards children in some people? I don't think pre-existing sexual interests are the only or even largest cause people look at lolicon. It could be by accident, while looking at hentai. It could be curiosity. Even pre-existing sexual interests may be enhanced if one is turned on by material they may have never seen before.

[Jack]

I think we're saying the same thing. If a person has no sexual interest in children to begin with, these images won't evoke a sexual response. Viewed strictly as art, they're amateurish, cartoonish. Image the Madonna and Child rendered by an artist from DC Comics.

[CoffeeSaint]

I don't see how cartoons would encourage behavior in someone that wouldn't commit the same acts without the cartoons. It isn't as if someone could become obsessed with the model and stalk the cartoon character, as is the worry with Jon Benet and child models/beauty contestants. Hell, anime and manga are so far from realistic depictions of people that you couldn't even find a young girl who looks like the cartoons, at least not that I've ever seen.

I think that men who look at stuff like this do it because there is an odd fascination in mixing something that would be stimulating (the sex acts) with something that is not stimulating, namely the young "girls" in the images. That sort of juxtaposition is just, well, interesting. But I think the taboo against sexual exploitation and sexual attraction of children is strong enough that only cartoons allow people to explore that interest, and so lolicon sells but child porn does not, except to actual pedophiles.

That's my theory, at least. I have a hard time seeing any cartoons as sexually interesting.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I don't see how cartoons would encourage behavior in someone that wouldn't commit the same acts without the cartoons. It isn't as if someone could become obsessed with the model and stalk the cartoon character, as is the worry with Jon Benet and child models/beauty contestants. Hell, anime and manga are so far from realistic depictions of people that you couldn't even find a young girl who looks like the cartoons, at least not that I've ever seen. I think that men who look at stuff like this do it because there is an odd fascination in mixing something that would be stimulating (the sex acts) with something that is not stimulating, namely the young "girls" in the images. That sort of juxtaposition is just, well, interesting. But I think the taboo against sexual exploitation and sexual attraction of children is strong enough that only cartoons allow people to explore that interest, and so lolicon sells but child porn does not, except to actual pedophiles. That's my theory, at least. I have a hard time seeing any cartoons as sexually interesting.

I agree with this statement. It reminds me of the Shooting at Columbine and how they tried to blame it on the music of Marilyn Manson.

I'd have to say that Music and Images do little to a warped person besides keep the fire kindled.

What about Children that look at this kind of material, find it to be suitable for them?

A friend of mine from the University has a younger sibling who finds it interesting to download "Kim Possible Porn." Which is along the same lines as this lolicon mess or what have you.

[Jack]

My own opinion, unsupported by evidence, is that it's inappropriate for children under, say, 13 or so. Exposing young children to sexual stimulation of any kind is risky and potentially harmful to their mental health.

Another risk associated with anyone fascinated with these images; the internet is rife with virus-laden files and jpegs being offered for download. Because of its popularity, pornography of any kind and degree is a prime target for the virus writers. Want an infected computer, download a lot of porn.

[Slevin57]

The way I see it if you are going to prosecute people for viewing "art" on the basis it influences child abuse, then pornography as a whole should be assessed. If child pornography = child sexual abuse; then adult pornography = adult sexual abuse.

Obviously politicians have just enough morals to stop short of actually trying to ban pornography outright.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Slevin57 The way I see it if you are going to prosecute people for viewing "art" on the basis it influences child abuse, then pornography as a whole should be assessed. If child pornography = child sexual abuse; then adult pornography = adult sexual abuse. Obviously politicians have just enough morals to stop short of actually trying to ban pornography outright.

That would be assuming a child is equal to an adult. The difference is, well, exactly what Isherwood said above.

[USDL]

Hi, I am ADr. Akemi Loli Mokoto, and Im the President of the United States Department of Lolicon and Current Director of the "Lolicon Defense Task Force."
I will settle this one and for all, and let that be it.

Lolicon is Legal in the United States. The U.S.Surprime Courts ruled Lolicon to be Legal IF it is not 3-D/Realistic. UI Looked over the Protect Act, and it doesnt spcificly name Lolicon as a banned form of materal.

I was watching Bill O'Rally a few weeks ago because my TV Got stuck on Fox, and they was discussing some man arrested in aulstraila for Simsons Pornography which is Banned there. and he said "VIrtual Child Pornography is Legal "and he contuned to say "[he] wished that american laws on Virtual CP was like Aulstralia's."

So Lolicon is not banned in the USA. BUT heres the thing:

On December 19, 2008, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the PROTECT Act of 2003 DOES apply to cartoons of child pornography. However, this appears to be in defiance of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling on the PROTECT Act. The 4th Circuit may have done this in order to persuade new justices on the Supreme Court to ignore the Supreme Court's prior precedent in regards to the PROTECT Act. Attorneys for the defendant (Dwight Whorley) say that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, asking them to re-iterate their prior verdict on the PROTECT Act.

Now just becuase the 4th Circut court says this, its up to the Surpream Courts to deside this now. So Wait for this case to end then deside on the next corse of action.