@fluffy @matrix @Terry @p @sjw there is no "without artistic merit" if "all art is political" as they say.

And how can one person decide what is porn for 300 million people?

Who decides if Big Mouth is porn?

@zemichi @Terry @matrix @p @sjw
>who
presumeably a jury

@fluffy @Terry @matrix @p @sjw a jury of 12 people deciding for millions what speech or art is appropriate.

Majority of people would probably say hate speech isn't appropriate but it's still legal despite what they think.

How can anything be considered "obscene" and actionable in the first place when a majority of Americans have watched porn?

I'm just saying a lot of the logistics of anti Loli laws are confusing but Big Mouth exists so is there really a threat? I really don't think there is. Especially in degenerate America today. Maybe if this was 30 years ago maybe something would have happened.

@zemichi @Terry @matrix @p @sjw

Sure. Keep in mind a jury can be told by the #boomer judge in which narrow perspective to consider their judgement.

He might realistically instruct them that they are to interpret obscenity for example, as whether or not it would be out of place on CNN.

@fluffy @Terry @matrix @p @sjw discrimination over appropriate speech though.

How could a trial be justified over the obscenity of Loli when Big Mouth exists and is not on trial.

There better be a good reason given why you need to arrest someone over Loli vagina when cartoon girl vagina is also shown l but not arrestable.

@zemichi @Terry @matrix @p @sjw

>how could
bad judge, bad jury, the stars align.

precedent is set for 10 years until someone overturns it. this happens all of the time. nobody wants to lose ten years of their life because they made the mistake of thinking justice will prevail in court

@fluffy @Terry @matrix @p @sjw so it's not legal because nobody will ever challenge a bad conviction?

I can assure you the person who thinks Loli is obscene will also think Big Mouth is also obscene.

So how will a court justify charging one person for Loli but not going after 139 million subscriber people for funding Netflix and big mouth with their subscriptions? It would be discrimination and they would need a damn good reason why they have to go after one but not the other.

This is how big mouth has protected lolicon artworks.

@zemichi @Terry @matrix @p @sjw

>i can assure you
You underestimate the impact of "this was on netflix" has on normies

@fluffy @Terry @matrix @p @sjw 139 million people are ok with it. So Loli is legal and not obscene. Therefore the first and only pillar of the law against this doesn't work. If those 139 million aren't calling for the arrest of the Big Mouth guys then anything else similar is legal.

@zemichi @fluffy @Terry @matrix @sjw

> how can you convict me for murder OJ got away with it



> yes your honor i was speeding but there was another guy speeding and he didn't get a ticket



> how can pot be illegal when alcohol is legal and nobody ever like smoked so many marijuanas that they hit their children

@p @Terry @fluffy @matrix @sjw
Yeah yeah I know.

But the point is how would anyone justify getting anyone for obscenity when Big Mouth, a larger target, has presumably violated in 50 states because of Netflix distribution. The answer better not be "because they have lawyers and are bigger" because that isn't an argument.

Everyone's argument is pretty much "you can be found guilty of any thing" and it's not legal because of that. It purposefully ignoring the past instances where obscenity was challenged. Nobody has clear arguments as to the why and how.

@zemichi @Terry @fluffy @matrix @sjw The reason that people tend to focus on that, or at least the reason I focus on that, is that whether or not a prosecutor will prosecute you and if they do, whether or not a court will convict you are the only things that actually matter in law. That's what makes the difference between a real law and irrelevant cruft on the books.

Principles matter when you're drafting the laws or deciding which ones you ought to break, not when evaluating whether or not the government is a threat. In this case, it is.

@p @Terry @fluffy @matrix @sjw
I maintain that is too narrow a focus for something that I would consider a free speech issue. It's "illegal" because it's "obscene" and not protected speech sounds clear on paper but doesn't when you consider people not prosecuting the people surrounding Desmond is Amazing or pride parades. People say that doesn't matter but to them I say that you're thinking 1 dimensionally. Any obscenity case in US history factored in what the public thinks at bare minimum. And I would go so far to say maybe the public doesn't matter when speech is involved.

Basically, I don't think there is clarity on the law and if there is I'm opposed to it. Like Japan will prosecute you for vagina statues, that's pretty clear and I'm not making vagina statues in Japan anytime soon. Does America do that? At this point I'm not seeing it. Either way I'm opposed to these laws, you should make vagina art of any age because I really don't care about it.

@zemichi @p @fluffy @matrix @sjw
I think its the case that the boomers and many normies arn't really aware of loli or how prevalent it is. If the government really wanted to come after you for whatever reason, they'd grab all the TB of lolis on your HD as evidence. Try explaining that to one to the jury or to the public for that matter.

@Terry @fluffy @matrix @p @sjw "Try explaining that to one to the jury or to the public for that matter."
giphy (1).gif

@zemichi @fluffy @matrix @p @sjw
All these scenarios are hypothetical anyway and like it doesn't matter anyways since 3d child prostitutes will be legal by 2025. Just don't get arrested before then

@zemichi @Terry @fluffy @matrix @sjw Okay, I think I get what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong: first that the reason you're talking about the stuff that nobody is prosecuting is because it affects the "community standards" component of the definition, and second that it is impossible to know where the line is before you do something.

That's all fair enough, but the practical reality is that for some stuff, I have to "act out of an abundance of caution", as the lawyers say. (This means, to anyone that is not used to interacting with lawyers, covering your ass.)

I do not think any of that stuff should be illegal. As long as it's not a direct threat, I do not think any artwork at all should be illegal to create or distribute.

@p @Terry @fluffy @matrix @sjw
This is not in reference to you btw. I know you had the same argument a few days ago and I'm not harping on you or your rules just everyone in general.

But basically my "Big Mouth for Loli legality" argument is a response to "you can get prosecuted for it" argument. Everyone has an abundance of caution for loli because "well someone could do something about it" when Big Mouth guys are running free. It destroys their arguments with facts and logic and I'm exposing that they are weak arguments. Like people are out there really thinking that if you get punished by the government for something that's the end of the line. Like people aren't out there fighting parking tickets, wrongful arrests, wrongful convictions?

the freedom loving person in me is seething

@zemichi @p @fluffy @matrix @sjw
fighting parking tickets is different than allegedly (allegedly) having CP

@zemichi @p @Terry @matrix @sjw lolis grey area, it should be protected but often is not. its the moral cunts that ruin all other worthwhile things that are to blame... as much trash as that show is its good it exist just to piss off moralfags.

@LoliKing @zemichi @p @matrix @sjw
Can't wait to see the look on the moralistic faces when president Kamala Harris lowers the age of consent to 12

@Terry @p @matrix @sjw @zemichi even a hedonist lolicon like me understand there is moral faggotry and then there are reasonable laws

@LoliKing @p @matrix @sjw @zemichi
You're gonna seem like a paragon of virtue once the 3d loli lovers come out of the wood work

@Terry @p @matrix @sjw @zemichi oh there around, its a pain dealing with them. they hide around the 2d lolicons currently

@alyx @matrix @Terry @p @sjw it's tv-ma rated so there is no confusion if it is for children or not. It's clearly for adults.

That said if a child did watch Big Mouth nobody would face any repercussions in America. At this moment anyway.

@zemichi @alyx @matrix @p @sjw
Propaganda for man childs

@zemichi
>if a child did watch
>if
Oh, somewhere out there a kid is watching that. At the very least just because he isn't allowed to.
@Terry @matrix @p @sjw