SHE'S.
A .
CARTOON!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHES NOT REAL.
HER AGE IS LITERALLY JUST A CONCEPT SHE CAN BE 1600 YRS OLD BC AT THE END OF THE DAY SHE'S NOT REAL

>>936676825 (OP)
true

>>936676825 (OP)
you are preaching to the choir, here.

Блять нy кoнeчнo кaк жe нapиcoвaнныe дeти пpoдвигaют пeдoфилию? Дa блять лeгкo нaхyй я cлышaлa мнoгo cлyчaeв кaк нacильники cнaчaлo cмoтpeли нa лoли кapтинки a пoтoм этo пepepocлo к тoмy чтo oни к peaльным дeтeй лeзли блять и вooбщe кaкaя paзницa cкoлькo eй лeт нaхyй ecли oнa бyквaльнo BЫГЛЯДИT КAК PEБEHOК этo нaхyй oднo и тoжe блять я нe пoнимaю людeй кoтopыe этo oпpaвдывaют

>>936682756

Let me translate for some Anons.

---

Fuck, of course, how can drawn children promote pedophilia? Yeah, it's fucking easy, I've heard a lot of cases where rapists first looked at loli pictures and then it turned into them fucking going after real kids and what the fuck difference does it make how old she is if she literally LOOKS LIKE A CHILD, it's the same fucking thing, I don't understand people who justify it

>>936676825 (OP)
you are still playing into these peoples lines of harassment if this is your response

>>936682857
nobody in the history of mankind started raping simply from seeing something
same shit as if you were saying dogs first had to read through playboy magazines before they started humping legs
you are a retard

>>936683081

I only translated, Anon.

>>936676825 (OP)
Hottest part of drawings is that they can look however i want them to be.

>>936683118
i meant to reply to the original post but misclicked, but i apologize regardless

>>936682756
Kids are the furthest thing from lolis. They are loud, obnoxious, shit heads. Lolis are cute and funny

>>936683181

Ah, no problem. I hope you have a good day, I gotta head to work.

>>936683081
Этo ты пpидypoк кoнчeный пoтoмy чтo ты пoддepживaeшь этo! БЫЛO MHOГO TAКИХ CЛУЧAEB! Кaк жe вы мeня бecитe eбaнyтыe пeдoфилы мнe caмoй 13 лeт нo я yмнee тeбя гaндoн

>>936683283
underage gtfo

>>936683283
report this ruskie he said hes 13

>>936683514
Shut up

There's a lot of misunderstanding floating around regarding the legality of drawn loli images, specifically under US federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1466A). I wanted to share some info based on recent legal precedent, particularly the USA v. Arthur case from the 5th Circuit (2022), because it sheds important light on the "obscenity" debate.

First off, let's be clear: 18 U.S.C. § 1466A deals with "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children." It applies to drawings, cartoons, etc.

The law has two main paths for prosecution of non-actual child images:

If the image depicts a minor engaging in "sexually explicit conduct" AND is "obscene."

If the image depicts a minor engaging in graphic acts like bestiality, sadistic/masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse AND "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

The critical distinction is that for simpler "sexually explicit conduct" (like "lascivious exhibition" – a sexualized display of genitals), it must also be found "obscene."

This is where USA v. Arthur comes in. In this case, the Fifth Circuit reversed a conviction on one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1) because, even though the image depicted a minor engaging in "sexually explicit conduct" (masturbation), it was found to be "not obscene."

What does this mean for drawn loli?

It means that under this specific federal statute, if a drawn image of an adolescent:

>>936683617
Depicts "sexually explicit conduct" (e.g., "lascivious exhibition" of genitals, or masturbation)

BUT DOES NOT meet the full legal definition of "obscene" (i.e., it doesn't appeal to prurient interest, isn't patently offensive, or, crucially, possesses serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value)

...then, in principle, it would not be illegal under this particular section of federal law.

The Arthur case highlights that the "obscene" requirement for the first category is a separate, necessary hurdle for the prosecution to clear. It confirms that "sexually explicit conduct" alone isn't enough; the material must also meet the obscenity test.

This is a nuanced area, and legal interpretation can vary, but Arthur provides a recent federal appellate precedent that reinforces the importance of the "obscenity" standard, particularly for drawn/fictional content.

TL;DR: USA v. Arthur (5th Cir. 2022) suggests that for drawn loli images to be illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1) (which covers "lascivious exhibition" and similar acts), they must be found "obscene," not just "sexually explicit." The two aren't automatically the same.

Stay informed, stay safe.

>>936683568
A чтo тaкoe? Oбидeлcя пoтoмy чтo я нaмнoгo yмнee тeбя и я пoнимaю чтo этo плoхo? И кcтaти я нe oн я OHA

>>936683679
If you were smart, then you wouldn't be here

>>936683649
the key point is that the drawing must be "patently offensive" or in other words "must describe or show patently offensive sexual conduct."

This ruling clearly shows that meeting the "sexually explicit conduct" definition does not automatically mean the image is "obscene.

>>936683743
Я здecь нe пoтoмy чтo мнe этo нpaвитcя я здecь пoтoмy чтo я пытaюcь вaм вceм cкaзaть чтo этo HEHOPMAЛЬHO! Tы cлышишь этo?

>>936683649
can't wait for someone to make loli art that is
>sexually explicit
>appeals to prurient interests
>patently offensive
>possesses no serious artistic, scientific, or literary value
BUT they made it explicitly in order to raise the matter in court, which would be
>political value

I agree that all fictitious drawings should be considered as a serious work of art. Thereby passing the 3rd prong of the miller test always.

>>936683851
Not really. I drop the opinion of underage kids, who come into porn or adult sites.

it's true. I saw drawn porn of a woman growing an udder and now i'm working on a serum that makes it real. It's all because lewd cartoons.

>>936683908
Кoгдa 4chan cтaл caйтoм для взpocлых?? Hy oбъяcни мнe paз ты тaкoй взpocлый

>>936684094
it's pretty simple. This part of 4chan is the non-blue board, where people posts explicit pictures. In the most simplest terms, porn. Kids shouldn't be here. Not that i can stop you from coming here.

loli (.) com is primed and ready to go for when these crazy laws get removed from the justice system. Somebody owns that site and is ready to host these art works.

Art work is something that you have to try to create. If a human being is trying something then I believe that fact that he is trying make the work of art hold serious artistic value.

>>936684193
it was proof enough because nobody tried contacting them

>>936683875
You just described my entire careeeeeeer.

>>936684215
You bring up something that I think will be much more debatable now with the presence of AI image generation. If something is hand drawn it now inherently holds artistic value, does it not? A human spent possibly hours rendering something from their mind.
However, should this offer any protection at all to the artists using real CSEM for reference? Personally I think that because it is a crime on its own, regardless of its use, the artist would be essentially self-reporting.

>>936685442
Along with with the advent of mind reading and mind's eye reading technologies these laws will become obsolete because the average citizen will be able to simply view CSAM directly from their minds. There soon wont be any need to even render such things. The mind reading tech will render whats in your minds eye automatically then you will be able to screenshot those images.

Directly from the human being.

>>936686082
fictional* CSAM

>>936686082
Yeah see I thought this would be what happens when generated imaging released to the public but I still get people wanting to commission it over generating it or paying someone to generate it. They want someone to make it for them, they want it from someone else's head as much as possible. And with mind's eye stuff, I think what will occur is a lot of people will realize their imagination is not as crisp and coherent as they... well imagine it to be.

>>936683649
what about site booru's like atf?

>>936688050
please be more elaborate. i dont understand your question

>>936676825 (OP)
Sure but if she depicts someone prepubescent and you get off to that, that means that you are a pedophile.

Dude brah where is lacypet?

Er that thing what’s it called I AM THE VOICE OF NEVER NEVER LAND

>>936682857
Bceм дoбpый вeчep или дoбpoe yтpo! Я вepнyлacь чтoб пpизнaть cвoe пopaжeниe нo знaeтe чтo я пoнялa? Bы вce paвнo пeдoфилы кoтopыe гoвopят "eй 110191818 лeт знaчит eй мoжнo!!" и кoгдa я пoпытaлacь впихнyть вaши мoзги нaзaд вaм в гoлoвy вы кинyли нa мeня peпopт!! Кoнeчнo нeмнoгo oбиднo нy лaднo зaтo я ocoзнaлa чтo вы нa вceгдa oбpeчeны и мнe вac жaль.... Пoкa пoкa <3

>>936688191
I meant, is if you would host a booru site like ATF would it be considered illegal?

>>936689018
you are underage you just got banned gtfo

>>936689774
Oкeй я пoнялa eщё paз пoкa пoкa нaдeюcь вcё-тaки ты oдyмaeтcя и пoймёшь чтo вce этo нe пpaвильнo