@TopBep GURAAAA 😭😭😭
@keisuke man that last one looked like it hurt
@PonyPanda cumiverse
@lewdthewides @LouisConde @Remi I think this is what most people are saying lol
@bartholin this is what happens when passion is commercialized
@Humpleupagus @roboneko @sjw @lanodan @hj SJW should maybe just get an actual lawyer's advice instead of a bunch of internet randos who think they know shit lmao.
@Humpleupagus @roboneko @sjw @lanodan @hj it is weird that the press can get away with it because there is no situation where they would ever need to unless they were like, SPECIFICALLY a newspaper/magazine/whatever that reported only on porn industry shit. no normal news site is going to have 1/3 content that is considered harmful to minors.
but i think at that point the intent is that it's more of an access-to-information issue than it is just a bunch of people going somewhere specifically to enjoy sexy pics. there is probably a line to be drawn somewhere when the press is no longer operating as the press, you know?
@roboneko @sjw @Humpleupagus @lanodan @hj
what the material is:
"(4) "Material harmful to minors" is defined as all of the following:
(a) Any material that the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest.
(b) Any of the following material that exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of any of the following, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors:
(i) Pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals, or nipple of the female breast.
(ii) Touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals.
(iii) Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act.
(c) The material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
--------------------
it probably doesn't clarify distinctions because the lawmakers don't actually know what those distinctions are, or there don't need to be distinctions because it is all included. it is almost a guarantee that showing any politician a website with a bunch of photos on it will think they are all a part of that website, not embedded from somewhere else. if it can be accessed from your site, it is probably considered to be on your site.
--------------------
i don't think an individual counts as an entity. they use "person" when referring to an individual.
"(7) "Publish" means to communicate or make information available to another PERSON or ENTITY on a publicly available Internet website."
i think that, at least in this context, it's more referring to if the website and business you run with the website is something that you could use when filing taxes. for instance, if SJW were to have bae.st/shitty services as a licensed, legally recognized business, and used it for tax write offs in the form of business expenses, then baest would certainly have to follow this law. if not, if it's just a website he runs for fun and it's not an actual recognized entity, whether that's a legitimate LLC or just a sole-proprietorship, it's not subject to this.
--------------------
the best news is that at the end it only talks about lewds with "ACTUAL CHILDREN" so the lolis are safe ![]()
@hfaust this shit is why i'm not going to use firefox just because it's the alternative browser to chromium. "but there needs to be competition" the tech bros cry out. well not when the competition is shit and takes money from their competitor anyway.
i'll keep using the browser from the guy who founded mozilla and then left when people found out he was homophobic.
こんにちは、私はひげさん。はじめまして!