@tarperfume I was curious as i am getting into a good autism groove researching this
@rats ooooh? i'm curious as to the sourcing for this in the original spanish, specially those comments, let me take a look
@rats okay i've found the original memo the state attorney general office circulated with respect to child pornography crimes. i'm going to sift through it a bit now, but i'll leave this first quote through which i found it
"No deberán los Sres. Fiscales, entender incluidos dibujos animados, manga o representaciones similares pues no serían propiamente 'imágenes realistas', en tanto no perseguirían ese acercamiento a la realidad"
"No deberán los Sres. Fiscales, entender incluidos dibujos animados, manga o representaciones similares pues no serían propiamente 'imágenes realistas', en tanto no perseguirían ese acercamiento a la realidad"
The State Attorneys must not understand [as child pornography] animated cartoons, manga or similar representations, since they would not be properly "realistic images", insofar they do not pursue that approachment to reality.
@tarperfume I'm finding a bunch of contradictions in usa legal precedent that I'm really curious to sit down and work through
@rats i'm generally curious about what you find and would love to see as you gather info, but i'm *specifically* curious as to how United States v. One Book Called Ulysses fits into these contradictions you mention, if it does at all
@tarperfume it doesn't really because that is a matter of obscenity and obscenity is a retarded concept that doesn't mean anything
@rats right, but i thought child pornography laws in the us were an offshoot of obscenity laws. maybe im wrong, or maybe its too removed either way
Follow
@tarperfume @rats Look up the protect act of 2003 It's an illegal law and violates the 1st amendment like all obscenity laws
@Jazzy_Butts @tarperfume like these days I'm mostly in a state with a comically large libertarian contingent or NYC (where mike diana lives and was taken off of probation for being one of the only artists I'm aware of where it was made illegal for him to continue making art)
@Jazzy_Butts @tarperfume but also while reading these cases that resulted in conviction, like...
they are old or feel like someone got caught with simpsons porn and wanted the case to fucking go away, where if someone was footing the bill i think it would be fucken fascinating to actually go battle about this. like they'd see me walk into the courtroom and dismiss the case instantly because they'd realize how deeply annoying and retarded the entire thing was about to become
they are old or feel like someone got caught with simpsons porn and wanted the case to fucking go away, where if someone was footing the bill i think it would be fucken fascinating to actually go battle about this. like they'd see me walk into the courtroom and dismiss the case instantly because they'd realize how deeply annoying and retarded the entire thing was about to become
@Jazzy_Butts @rats congress acronyms are so goddamn stupid...
also the three prongs of this test are all so openly debatable is this on purpose.
also the three prongs of this test are all so openly debatable is this on purpose.
> Due to the fact that obscenity is determined by a sitting judge or jury in reference to local standards and definitions on a state-by-state, case-by-case basis, the legality of drawn or fictitious pornography depicting minors is left in a 'gray area', much like other forms of alternative pornography. Some states pay less mind to the contents of such materials and determine obscenity based on time and place an offense may occur, while others may have strict, well-defined standards for what a community may be allowed to find appropriate.
im tempted to colocate a server while im still living in the libertarian epicenter of USA