The lolicon shit he had on his PC is literally illegal, sure many avoid prosecution for it through semantic arguments in court, but others have been convicted for this. There are literally laws on the books to arrest this guy for having virtual CSAM on his PC. Maybe these fans should shut up and think about that for 5 seconds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
Scroll down to the convictions section. People have had to take plea deals and were charged with possession of CSAM for exactly what vaush did
I mean people have been prosecuted and coerced into taking plea deals for possessing anime lolicon material before, so technically anyone with obscene content depicting minors could get in trouble with the law.
I guess what I meant was, it sounds like this stuff is out of plausible deniability, “they could be 18 year old high school seniors” territory and in straight up pre-pubescent territory (I don’t know for sure, no way I’m looking up what was on his computer).
My knowledge of US law is very limited, but I think it has to do with the Miller Test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[not
If the virtual work depicting minors fulfills all three criteria, it's classified as obscene and in violation of the law. This does allow for quite a bit of semantics and wiggle room in theory. Especially with regards to the last point.
Yeah, and point two is just shifting the problem of definition to "patently offensive".
I think the last point (while absolutely not what I would use to construct such a definition) would be the basic defense for most manga that aren't smut, since even if it has smutty elements (or just engages with the concept of sexuality), it is usually a minority of what is going on in the work, so you just need to defend the rest of the work as literary and legally it's done. I guess this is pretty precision-targeted at dedicated porn distribution and that sort of thing rather than really resolving the question of "what kind of sexuality is okay to depict?"
The lolicon shit he had on his PC is literally illegal, sure many avoid prosecution for it through semantic arguments in court, but others have been convicted for this. There are literally laws on the books to arrest this guy for having virtual CSAM on his PC. Maybe these fans should shut up and think about that for 5 seconds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
Scroll down to the convictions section. People have had to take plea deals and were charged with possession of CSAM for exactly what vaush did
Yeah but he's a CIA asset so they probably already knew about this shit and was dangling it over him.
If that's true (and I think there's a chance it is), what the hell is going to happen now that he's exposed all this?
If that was his default save to folder, imagine what he actually tries to hide.
Oh man the shit he had was that bad?
I mean people have been prosecuted and coerced into taking plea deals for possessing anime lolicon material before, so technically anyone with obscene content depicting minors could get in trouble with the law.
I guess what I meant was, it sounds like this stuff is out of plausible deniability, “they could be 18 year old high school seniors” territory and in straight up pre-pubescent territory (I don’t know for sure, no way I’m looking up what was on his computer).
Some dude got arrested a few months ago for having Simpsons incest porn lmao. Of all the things, I just can’t take this one seriously.
deleted by creator
My knowledge of US law is very limited, but I think it has to do with the Miller Test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
If the virtual work depicting minors fulfills all three criteria, it's classified as obscene and in violation of the law. This does allow for quite a bit of semantics and wiggle room in theory. Especially with regards to the last point.
I could be wrong though.
Yeah, and point two is just shifting the problem of definition to "patently offensive".
I think the last point (while absolutely not what I would use to construct such a definition) would be the basic defense for most manga that aren't smut, since even if it has smutty elements (or just engages with the concept of sexuality), it is usually a minority of what is going on in the work, so you just need to defend the rest of the work as literary and legally it's done. I guess this is pretty precision-targeted at dedicated porn distribution and that sort of thing rather than really resolving the question of "what kind of sexuality is okay to depict?"
Kinophiles who have the Criterion edition of Salo: 120 Days of Sodom on their wishlist: