this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
529 points (96.6% liked)
Not The Onion
12344 readers
975 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The feds define it as:
Visual depiction includes cartoons.
Don't argue with me, call the feds and debate it with them. Maybe give them your hard drive, too. That's probably better for everyone.
"Thanks for calling the FBI, how may I direct your call?"
"I like to discuss what actually constitutes child pornography and how to rectify the laws that are causing my beautiful sensual artwork to be unfairly maligned on the internet."
"I couldn't agree more. What's your home address, we'd love to hear your complaint in person"
Does a cartoon character actually count as a person?
Same energy as "I'm actually an ephebophile!"
Turns out with laws definitions can be pretty important. Here it's the whole difference between if your quoted definition fits the situation or not.
No it absolutely does fucking not include cartoons. (Edit: at least in the US)
And yes, even if it's of a real person/child. Apparently they're working on changing that.
Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.
Which seems fine in spirit, but we don't really want the letter of the law making something like this
O/-<
illegal
The fuck....you pedo shits are some brazen fuckers aren't you.
Edit: lots of neckbeard ass pedos apparently in this thread. CP is fucking CP even if it's AI or fucking Anime you sick fucks
What indicated that I would be a pedo?
And kind reminder, child sexual abuser != pedophile. (And the other way around)
Might be the fact that you're defending this shit and acting like it's completely ok.
Are they defending it? Seems more like they're saying that the US legal system doesn't consider it to meet their classification of child pornography, as opposed to saying that it's okay.
It would be like saying the UK criminal justice system only considers penile penetration to be rape, with other forms being folded under sexual assault. That doesn't mean that they're defending rape, and saying it's just sexual assault.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13281179
Dude literally was saying this isn't CP...
Let me explain now that I have actual focus.
For me at least, calling Cartoon CP just "Child Pornography" is kind of like calling lemonade food.
Does that make sense?
Where did I do that?
https://lemmy.world/comment/13282924
That's you defending it. CP is not magically going to increase because it gets banned, it's not fucking smoking for teenagers. It's literally grown ass men being fucking pedos, who feed into this shit. It's like giving a taste of some drugs to an addict. You think they're not going to go further into their addiction?
What? Read my comment again carefully.
I said don't argue with me. You know what to do with your hard drive.
Okay, dickhead. Do you treat everyone who talks about child abuse laws as a predator?
Let me tell you EXACTLY what will happen if the federal government treats cartoon pornofraphy the same as real CSAM: the amount of CSAM being viewed goes up. Way up.
The reason why real child sexual abuse is heavily penalized and cartoon stuff isn't is because real child sexual abuse is worse. Would you rather have people looking at cartoons or real children?
On top of that, shows like Euphoria,/and others would become just as illegal as real child pornography. After all, the characters depicted are minors, but the actors are adults. Would you be okay with someone watching Euphoria being punished the same as somene looking at real child sexual abuse?
"Oh but I would rather people not veiw anything of sexualized children, real or not-" well I hate to break it to you: its going to happen anyway. The point of criminal punishment is harm reduction. And punishing looking at a cartoon and child pornography the same is only going to increase viewership of real child pornography.
And I'm not even defending it [cartoons] but I definitely would like for real child sexual abuse to decrease, so I'm okay with (edit: CARTOONS) existing. YOU are reading into my comment.
Holy shit. Before you "ackchually" maybe you should look up this shit? Images or video of a minor that depict an act of sex abuse against an identifiable minor CAN include drawings. There have been some cases where people have been convicted of only that (in other cases the person usually had "real" CSAM so it's hard to determine what the outcome would have been). Here's a highlighted excerpt from a case in the 5th circuit from a great thread literally about this:
https://bsky.app/profile/jackscellphone.bsky.social/post/3ksissuq2ft2w
And, yes, before you push your glasses up your nose and "buh buh buh", it does say the charge is obscenity. But, again, I encourage you to read the full thread linked below to understand why that doesn't fucking matter at all.
The thread this is by someone that has extensive experience in trust and safety in social media. This very long thread has a lot of information you should read before you "okay, dickhead" and then slippery slope something that already happened:
https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3kuuk2nlkrk2a
Oh good.
Well, the Supreme Court says it's art and that means it's protected under free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition