File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
>> Anonymous
1. Do not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to, anything that violates local or United States law. This will be severely punished and strictly enforced.
>> Anonymous
Sage goes in the email field.
>> Anonymous
>>127564
This violates no current laws in the united states, however it does if you live in banada
>>127566
Bump doesn't need to go anywhere.
>> Anonymous
/hr/, I like this picture. Am I a bad person?
>> Anonymous
>>127577
nah, loli is good.

>>127564
i see no punishments. therefore, there is nothing wrong with the image in question.
>> Anonymous
>>127608
Then I request more. No loli flatchest bullshit though, just stuff like this one and upwards (breast size that is).
>> Megadeus
>>127564
Absolute fail. Artwork is exempt from United States child pornography law (you know, that little First Amendment / freedom of speech, press thing). I could post a drawing of a 6 year old girl being explicitly sodomized six ways to Sunday and, although it would violate 4-chan's rules, it would not be illegal.

Child pornography laws do not exist because pedophilia is necessarily wrong but, supposedly, to protect children. Since lolicon art does not feature actual human beings, there are no real children to protect. In fact, the primary reason lolicon art is sometimes frowned upon, in a legal sense, is because many people make the presumption that viewing lolicon art is a side or a gateway to raping kids. However, just as playing violent video games does not turn most people into mindless killers, looking at lolicon does not tourn most people into child molesters.
>> Anonymous
Art is still Art! whoever it may be, but drawings from this artist is great!
>> Anonymous
Oh lawdy, is dat some delicious loli?
>> Anonymous
>>127613Absolute fail. Artwork is exempt from United States child pornography law
wrong. US law forbids depictions (including drawings) of loli.
>> Anonymous
On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A which criminalizes both Miller Test obscene cartoon depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and, as noted by the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, cartoon depictions of a minor or what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) and need satisify only the third part of the Miller Test, that it lack serious artistic value.
>> Anonymous
>>127796

Same disproved bullshit as always. Silly Anonymous!

Loli remains a gray area in the US. The one case in which it was used to help send a guy away was only because he had REAL CP along with it.

When I'm given a case where a person was sent away ONLY because he had loli on his machine, then we can talk.
>> Anonymous
Too much blahblah....
Post moar of this artist.
>> MR. Anon
>>127798
actually, they struck that part of the law down as being unconstitutional, though sense he had actual child pornography, the end result was the same for him.

"On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT ACT, the "pandering provision" codified in 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The Williams court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. The government did not appeal this ruling."
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Same artist. Look on moe.imouto.org a few pages on and there was a bunch of his work posted there.
>> Anonymous
>>127934
so if I make a painting of a loli having sex and sell it in the states I should be fine right?
>> Doppelganger !.97.to9elc
>>128047
Always bear one thing in mind on the Net: ECHELON is watching.
>> Megadeus
>>128043
Under what tag? I found nothing searching for "toshiyuki_sato" and browsed through all of "loli" to no avail.
>> Nightlands !GR1R.oFZ5w
>>128131
http://moe.imouto.org/post/list/tags/mamoru_kun_ni_megami_no_shukufuku_wo
>> Anonymous
>>128205
Thanks, isn't there anything more of the white haired girl, though?