soyjak.blog

Yes, child abuses are done by pedophiles, and we prosecute them for those actual abuses. We don't prosecute them for thoughts. Prosecuting people for cartoons is thought crime, as there is no victim - what's being criminalized is the thought behind the cartoons. That's an extremely dangerous slippery slope. It's the exact same logic used to justify criminalizing "hate speech".

Advocating violence is protected by the First Amendment, per Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The speech has to incite imminent lawless action in order for it to be criminalized.

Also, obscenity laws were pretty much exclusively used to criminalize books like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Ulysses. There really has never been a single obscenity case that wasn't a grotesque miscarriage of justice.

@MoonMetropolis @Username:Required if i hear the phrase 'slippery slope' from one of you again imma crash out fr

>Also, obscenity laws were pretty much exclusively used to criminalize books like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Ulysses. There really has never been a single obscenity case that wasn't a grotesque miscarriage of justice.
Yet people said the Texas bill is like that when I read it and checked it. It's hard to be abused since it isn't vague and the Miller test exists

All of this shit only protects pedophiles. You can't stop child abuses if you continue sitting on the fence allowing pedophiles to multiply and scheme in private chats. With the internet, pedophilia has become endemic.

So many people are encouraged by their pedo peers to molest their own siblings. Nothing can be done until after the fact when the damage has already been done. I've seen so many cases and realized it could've been stopped at the beginning but it doesn't

The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this, and the Texas bill is unconstitutional per its previous ruling:

The law is a blunt instrument, and its potential for abuse is unlimited. The last time a case like this was successfully prosecuted in the US, it was Mike Diana, who made crude shock value cartoons that certainly weren't intended to be porn: https://collider.com/boiled-angels-review/

If we set the precedent that we can arrest people simply for saying "I am a pedophile", then where does that end? The government would love to have that kind of sweeping power to criminalize thoughts, as it would be abused endlessly to criminalize anyone deemed a threat to the state.

The world is shit because our methods are shit. I'm not advocating for totalitarian government. I want people to see the causes, not just the effects. We never progress because we just play whack-a-mole endlessly instead of dropping a bunker buster on the ground and getting rid of the problem. If you don't understand and stop the cause, you can never prevent the effect

The government is corrupt lole. Didn't it say pornography is artistic and education, thus excempt from obscenity laws? It just protects people with money
>its potential for abuse is unlimited
It isn't. Another slippery slope fallacy. It only gets worse if the government tried to add more laws to ban shit

I understand what you're saying, but I feel like it's the exact same logic that was used to justify things like the Patriot Act. I simply am not willing to eliminate civil liberties in the name of fighting evil, whether it's terrorism or pedophilia.

All laws have potential for abuse, especially ones that pertain to criminalizing speech. Ultimately, the definition of objectionable speech will always be set by whoever is in power at the moment. That's why, in the US, we try to avoid criminalizing speech as much as possible. The massive risks outweigh any perceived benefits.

The Patriot Act targeted literally anyone who fit the criteria while banning lolicon just like how banned Ulysses is one thing. There's also the fact terrorism is political. The US government can accuse anyone it doesn't like of terrorism. Banning lolicon would shut down the lolicon boorus because no registrar would allow it after the ban

Nobody would be okay with a vague law that can ban anything but most people don't object to banning lolicon specifically

You said earlier that "the government is corrupt". I fully agree, and that's why I want the government to have as little censorship power as possible. The government always has ulterior motives with laws that expand their power. Virtually all First Amendment advocates oppose criminalizing lolicon, for exactly these reasons.

It also sets a precedent that can be used to criminalize all manner of fiction. Once you establish that cartoons can be criminalized the same way as actual CSAM, there is no end to how much that censorship power can be expanded. Hell, someone above already advocated criminalizing furfag shit too.

As much as I hate furfags, their entire identity isn't based on wishing they could abuse little kids even though a huge portion of them are pedos. The same can't be said for lolicon gooners however

It's about the precedent set, though. If we can prosecute lolicon gooners because they have pedophilic thoughts, then what's to stop us from prosecuting furfags because they have zoophilic thoughts? And what's to stop us from banning violent video games because they supposedly cause violence?

What if I shot you in the chest 24 times