@Tony God damn now I know why he always made me uncomfortable, I wasn't able to face that he's a qt
Fack, I made mistake! The band in new design is on her right arm!! Apologies! m(_ _)m
Here is the correct version of #LoliBunny
You're sending a CLEAR message, and the message is "minorities are BETTER"..........all I can say to that is NO, WRONG, RACIST
@get I think she's hot because I have a fetish for "ugly" people
@coolboymew He has the cuban flag because he's a filthy fucking woke commie not because he's super patriotic about peurto rico
sid x linc
support me on
fanbox (you MUST have discord)
https://p0k4.fanbox.cc/
ko-fi (you MUST have discord)
https://ko-fi.com/chokapu
To all the people who have been nasty to me about saying nigger or retarded or whatever, I have recently self diagnosed as having tourette's syndrome, anyone who tries to ostracize me for any "mean" or "inappropriate" or "unacceptable" or "unwarranted" or "fabricated" things should just stop, it already looks bad enough for said people now that this has come out.
I have attempted to learn what #Censorship_Law applies intending to #Erotica featuring children ( #Child_Erotica ) in the USA. I have learned that different courts have decided differently. I have been unable to determine with certainty what the judgements would be if prosecution were attempted. By the most expansive interpretation of prohibition, the overwhelming majority of adolescents and adults would be guilty of breaking the law. If it could be absolutely enforced, there might be 1% of the adult and adolescent population who were not guilty. Anyone who had retrieved an image of a child with any eroticism (by a broad definition) or wearing clothing adults wear but unusual for children would be guilty.
The other end of the spectrum of definitions is that the media must show children engaged in lascivious sexual acts. That is also a judgement of the #USA_Supreme_Court .
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=student_scholarship
However, Bristol also notes in New York v. Ferber, the Supreme Court took a different stance, holding that images must “visually depict sexual conduct by children” in order to be “lascivious,” and prohibited under § 2251. In United States v. Knox, Solicitor General Drew Days made a similar argument, claiming “lascivious” must mean that the child is depicted as lusciously engaging in sexual conduct.
I suspect that “lusciously” was a spelling mistake and “lasciviously” was meant. The essay is not well written, but it has many leads to other sources.
FREE EXPRESSION IN MOTION PICTURES: CHILDHOOD SEXUALITY AND A SATISFIED SOCIETY
Notably, the Court acknowledged that the production of materials classified as child pornography required an act of abuse upon the child. … Child Protection Act of 1984 … increased the age of majority from sixteen to eighteen.
So, media depicting sex acts of 16 year-olds was legal in the USA before 1984.
The site hosting that document, cardozoaelj.com , could be useful for news on #Freedom_Of_Expression law. They also have news feeds. Feeds for tags of interest,
https://cardozoaelj.com/category/blog/media/feed/atom
https://cardozoaelj.com/category/blog/information/feed/atom
https://cardozoaelj.com/category/blog/privacy-blog/feed/atom
Project ended.
Project status: Failure
Debrief complete.