Advertisment
At least here the pages aren't sticky

On the (Il)Legality of Lolicon in the United States


As a matter of law, lolicon is illegal in the United States. In practice, things are more complicated.

“There is no such thing as justice — in or out of court.” — Clarence Darrow

There has been a lot written over the years about the legal status of lolicon in the United States, and most of it is wrong. Not completely wrong, but wrong enough to potentially misinform people who have their freedom at stake. Even a brief search on Avvo.com, a site where attorneys answer questions, yields multiple wrong answers. This article intends to address both the narrow question of whether lolicon material is legal in the United States [spoiler: it’s not], but also the broader question of when and why these cases are prosecuted. We will begin with a brief summary of the federal statute on point and its history followed by a breakdown of its provisions, and then a consideration of the practical factors that lead to people being prosecuted under these laws and the factors that increase and reduce risk to a consumer.

 The 2003 PROTECT Act — Why Lolicon is Illegal in the United States

In 1996, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA), which included a ban on so-called “virtual child pornography.” A number of groups, including the Free Speech Coalition, challenged the law in federal court and eventually won in the US Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). In response, a year later Congress passed the 2003 Protect Act, which included a number of provisions that were eventually struck down as unconstitutional, but the following provision survived:

Any person who … knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2). 18 U.S. Code § 1466A.

Incidentally, “the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2)” are that the person “shall be … imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.

This is a United States federal law, and so applies equally to all states and irrespective of any state law. There is no way to know for certain how many prosecutions there are under this law for lolicon, but they appear to be relatively rare.  The otherwise mediocre Wikipedia article on this topic lists five that have received media attention; however, most of those cases involve individuals charged with real child pornography as well and so are not particularly useful to us in evaluating the legality of lolicon material on its own.

The critical case is State v. Handley, in which an Iowa “comic collector” named Christopher Handley was prosecuted under this law based only on his collection of manga and doujin — he had no actual child porn or 3D renders. Handley’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case for a number of reasons (including the first amendment), and they were rejected by the judge in an 18-page order.  On the advice of his attorneys, Christopher Handley took a plea agreement where he would spend six months in federal prison.

lolicon example - unfinished school girl
Mikansei Seifuku Shōjo

According to the comic book legal defense fund, who assisted Handley with his defense, he went to prison for owning the following books:

  • 1. Mikansei Seifuku Shōjo (Unfinished School Girl) by Yuki Tamachi (LE Comics)
  • 2. I [Heart] Doll by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
  • 3. Kemono for ESSENTIAL 3 (THE ANIMAL SEX ANTHOLOGY Vol.3) by Masato Tsukimori et al (Izumi Comics)
  • 4. Otonari Kazoku (Neighboring House Family) by Nekogen (MD Comics)
  • 5. Eromon by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
  • 6. Kono Man_ ga Sugoi! (This Man_ is Awesome!) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
  • 7. Hina Meikyū (Doll Labyrinth) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)

This is the only time I know of where someone was prosecuted for only loli content (Edit: Since this article was published I found others, see below), but this one last provision of the PROTECT act clearly has teeth. The prosecution and imprisonment of an American citizen just for owning loli manga were upheld in this case and it is still good law unless a higher court says otherwise.

A Breakdown of the PROTECT Act

So, what exactly is covered by that last remaining provision of the PROTECT Act? The terms requiring definition for us to figure this out are: “depiction of a minor,” “sexually explicit conduct,” and “obscene.”

Depiction of a Minor

Lolicon example - Tamamo - Monmusu Quest“Depiction of a minor” is easy to define and apply. A “minor” is just “any person under the age of eighteen years.” 18 U.S. Code § 2256, so any material “depicting” a character under the age of 18 years is covered. This is ultimately an issue of fact rather than a matter of law, which means that it will be up to the jury to decide whether any given work “depicts a minor.” We probably always lose this prong – a jury is going to find that almost every piece of lolicon artwork “depicts a minor.” The standard is based on the depiction – the appearance – of the character, so comments like “but she’s a 1000-year-old demon” or “fictional characters don’t have an age” are irrelevant. In the very sober environment of a courtroom facing a judge, prosecutor, and 12 local upstanding citizens, these arguments come across as weak and disingenuous.

Likewise, the disclaimers often put at the beginnings of eroge saying “all characters in this story are over the age of 18” will do nothing whatsoever to protect anyone from prosecution under this law. If anything, they only provide ammunition to the prosecutors who will argue to the jury that the disclaimer proves that the creators and owners knew the material was illegal. The argument goes that if the characters weren’t underage, there would be no need to have a disclaimer. These disclaimers may have legal benefits in some countries, but not in the United States.


Sexually Explicit Conduct

“Sexually explicit conduct” is specifically defined, and is pretty damned broad:

[S]exually explicit conduct” means – (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse whether the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited; (ii) graphic or lascivious simulated; (I) bestiality; (II) masturbation; or (III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B).

This definition includes all hardcore loli material and any softcore loli that shows “lascivious exhibition of the genitals.” The strict contours of “lascivious exhibition” aren’t obvious, but will practically include everything except the tamest content. Anything involving obvious sexual elements can pass the test well enough to get to a jury and potentially leave the accused gambling with years in prison.

The following pictures (from Hizashi no Naka no Riaru, before anyone asks) illustrate the point. Image number one on the left is not sexually explicit, though it might raise some eyebrows; however, even a little bit of gameplay will take us to image two, which is already borderline. Maybe sexually explicit, maybe not, While image three on the right is definitely sexually explicit under this definition.


Obviously then, trying to nitpick over the definition of “sexually explicit” will not make any difference in the prosecution of someone sitting on a pile of hardcore loli games, doujin, or anime. Games and interactive lolicon material, in particular, will almost inevitably permit something that will run afoul of this definition; however, this is one of the few parts of this law with clearly defined criteria rather than impenetrably vague standards.  It can, therefore, be used as a more reliable tool to determine what content is safe to import (more on this later). This also should put the minds of many loli “dabblers” at ease, because as broad as this definition is, it excludes most cast-off loli figures or official retail materials for softcore or mainstream loli properties like Prisma Illya. While many of these items and images contain undertones of sexuality, they cannot reasonably be called “sexually explicit.”

Obscenity in America

Finally, the reasons this particular statute has so far been found constitutional is because of subsection (B) – the requirement that the material “be obscene.” For reasons too convoluted to get into here, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution – what we call “freedom of speech” – does not apply at all to material that is “obscene.” Obscenity is unprotected speech, and the government is free to suppress it (almost) however they please. Thus, so long as the statute includes obscenity as a requirement, the 1st Amendment is off the table.

The United States uses a different definition than that used in the UK that I’ve previously discussed, and the main case on what counts as “obscenity” is Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). In  Miller, the Supreme Court laid out a three-part test, though only two of the parts (A and C) are relevant to our analysis here:

(a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,  … and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

“Prurient interest” is just lawyer-speak for “sexual,” and is probably effectively the same as the requirement that it be “sexually explicit.” The last prong – that the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value – is where many want to plant their flag. Many people and organizations such as the excellent Comic Book Legal Defense Fund will fiercely argue that loli material is artistic work and not simple pornography, and thus within the first amendment. This is good as a matter of public advocacy, but tragically over-optimistic as a matter of practical reality.

The practical reality is that in one of these trials, the 12 jurors – teachers, doctors, retired factory workers, etc – will have been hearing for days from the prosecution about the defendant’s sexual deviancy and how they are a predator and a threat to children. Then, in his closing argument, the prosecutor (and imaginary prosecutors in these sorts of hypotheticals are always played by Sam Waterson) is going to put a photo up on the screen of a young-looking anime character being gangbanged by four fat, faceless men. The prosecutor is then going to gaze profoundly into each juror’s eyes and say something like “does this look like art to YOU?

Sam Waterson’s soulful eyes tell the jury to convict


At that point, odds are the case is over. With that image hanging around his neck like a yoke, the defense attorney has to stand up and try to argue that the work has “artistic merit,” probably making an argument about different cultures and how this is common in Japan. If this is a visual novel or such, there will be arguments about the hours of plot and characterization that are a part of it. All probably for naught.

In today’s political climate of “oh-god-think-of-the-children,” I wouldn’t bet on Phoenix Wright being able to pull off that defense. All of the free-speech arguments about art and expression and freedom tend to deflate in the face of a good old-fashioned witch-hunt. None of this is how it should be, but I am not saying that – I am only saying that this is how it is. Arguing to the average American jury about the artistic merits of lolicon is simply not going to fly. That, I would wager, is why Christopher Handley’s defense attorneys told him to plead to six months in prison rather than go before a jury.

The Practical Implications

So most lolicon is technically illegal (for now), but almost never prosecuted. Why — and more importantly, what steps can someone take to reduce their chances of being the next person on the list of people in prison for lolicon?

Why Prosecutions of Lolicon are so Rare

Obviously, prosecutions for lolicon are so rare because most members of law enforcement spend most of their time investigating and prosecuting actual crimes. In all seriousness, that is the reason. If we look briefly at the cases of lolicon prosecution that have got media attention, we immediately see a pattern to how the defendants came to the attention of the authorities. 

In the case of Dwight Whorley, from 2005, the defendant was a felon previously convicted for child porn. According to the judges who heard his appeal, he was caught printing hardcore loli pornography on a government printer hooked up to a computer set up for public use in the Virginia Employment Commission. He was ultimately caught with real child porn and prosecuted for both. Christopher Handley, discussed above, came to the attention of federal agents when they opened a package he was importing that contained hardcore loli doujin. Steven Kutzner, prosecuted in 2010 for animated porn of The Simpsons, was discovered because his IP was associated with actual child porn. Finally, Christian Bee, prosecuted in 2012, was reported to the police by his wife.

None of these people were the targets of police investigations for lolicon content. They were almost all investigated for real child porn, and Mr. Bee was reported by someone who knew him (i.e. he got fucking narced). Therefore, it seems that lolicon is rarely, if ever, the proactively investigated. Rather, various law enforcement agencies just occasionally stumble on one of these cases as part of another investigation and decide to pursue it.

Only Christopher Handley stands out as the exception. Handley was targeted after importing material through customs and is the only case I know of where a customs seizure led to criminal prosecution. Though, we can’t know for certain because no one really keeps track and the government classifies these things somewhat arbitrarily, there is a good reason to think the government seizes lolicon material on a regular basis. If you go to Forfeiture.gov — the website where federal agencies post property they have seized — you can see that an item called “ANIME CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE VIDEOS” was posted less than a week ago, as of this writing, and there are a couple posted seized “childlike sex dolls.”

Lolicon - Federal Seizure Notice

Careful readers might notice that whoever seized this incorrectly cited 18 U.S.C. 2252, the general provision for child porn


Once seized, these items can take years to be posted on the website but postings are only up for one month. Therefore, if my random search on a random day found an item posted just a week before, we can infer that there have probably been at least a few lolicon items seized over the years since Hadley’s successful prosecution. As far as we know, there have been no further charges.

As previously mentioned, this is likely because many police and prosecutors simply would not bother to file charges even when a case comes to them. Unlike in many countries, discretion exists at all levels in American law enforcement: the customs agent (or other law enforcement officer) who sees an “anime child sex abuse video” item gets to decide for themselves whether to seize it, and then whether to pass it onto someone to review for criminal charges. The prosecutor (state or federal) who reviews the report then gets to decide whether to actually bring charges. In both cases, the people involved can (and clearly often do) decline the case and either let the material go or just seize it (and probably send a vaguely threatening letter).

This means that possessing or importing lolicon content is a game of proverbial Russian Roulette with incredibly low odds. A person in possession of “obscene” lolicon probably won’t get caught, and even if they do they probably won’t face charges — but if they have the incredibly bad luck to be caught and charged, they face incredibly harsh consequences.

Sources of Risk with Lolicon

So what are the factors that increase and decrease the risk of prosecution? First is content explicitness. Some lolicon content will be clearly safe to import and own – the softcore “Prisma Illya” sort of material discussed earlier. Some content will be borderline material that is at the edge of the “obscenity” definition, such as art featuring spread legs or lascivious gestures that does NOT include any intercourse. Finally, there is truly explicit content, which more or less includes anything with a penis in the same shot. Borderline content is probably still obscene under the law, but is probably much less likely to lead to charges. The more explicit something is, the more likely it is to attract the attention of investigators and prosecutors and the more likely it is that such attention will result in criminal charges. Many games with lolicon content complicate matters further because they can be tame on the box art while having much more explicit content as part of the game itself. Because first impressions matter so much in things like random customs searches – the customs agent probably isn’t going to install and play the game to see what it is – box art is probably the main source of risk.

The second risk factor is medium and means of acquisitionthis to say how a person is receiving and storing their lolicon. The most obvious high-risk factor is importing physical lolicon material through US Customs. A random percentage of packages coming into the United States are opened for examination, so if you import enough lolicon by mail then sooner or later a federal agent will be looking at it. This is, of course, what started the investigation into Handley and eventually led to his prison sentence.

Most lolicon content is probably imported over the internet. So far, this has been statistically safer (though not actually more secure) than importing through the mail. There have been no known prosecutions for lolicon started through web traffic monitoring of lolicon sites (though many have started because of web traffic monitoring of child porn sites), but nothing prevents this from happening in the future. Purchasing lolicon material in person at a convention or store is likewise statistically safe, but not particularly secure. Though, it would be unlikely, nothing would actually stop the FBI from sending agents to watch the dealer’s hall at Anime Expo.

The last source of serious risk is being reported by third parties. This is entirely relative to the each person. It depends on their family circumstances, their social group and how open they are about their interest in lolicon.

Obviously, the absolute safest thing to do would be to not buy, import, or download any lolicon material. Absent that, softcore material imported through customs or material acquired over the internet seem to bear minimal risk. We don’t have anything resembling actual statistics, but even a cursory review of the evidence suggest there are thousands of lolicon fans in the United States. Given that there have been only a handful of criminal cases, most of which also involved real child porn, the odds of facing criminal prosecution for lolicon have so far been incredibly small.

Importing explicit material through customs bears the greatest risk that an official might see something they find offensive and seize/report it – we know this actually happens. It is probably unlikely that investigations lead to charges and maybe even unlikely that charges lead to a conviction, but even being accused of possessing “anime child porn” could have significant personal consequences.

It has been about 1,500 words since I included a picture that isn’t a screenshot of a federal seizure notice, so here’s Hachiroku from Maitetsu


Tangential Matters

Companies and Businesses Selling Lolicon Material

Some might ask why, if all of this is true, many companies sell lolicon content that is illegal under this law. People might think that because someone is selling it, it must be legal. There is some merit to this, and I’m sure some companies have done their own risk assessments, but there is no reason to think that people stop selling something profitable just because the government technically forbids it if the law is not enforced.

On the contrary, this whole situation is similar to the legal status of marijuana in the many states where it is legal under state law. Colorado, California, and other states have legalized marijuana, but it is still illegal under federal law. In those states, the federal government has said that it generally does not intend to prosecute people acting legally under state law. However, the feds still can (and occasionally do) raid the homes and businesses of people who think they are operating legitimate businesses selling marijuana. Despite this, there are still marijuana shops popping up all over in those states. There are plenty of companies that operate in legal gray areas, and it all comes down to one’s exposure to and appetite for risk. Companies selling lolicon from outside the US are at much less risk (from US authorities), and that is more or less the end of the analysis for them. Companies within the US are basically gambling the same as consumers, with the odds depending on the explicitness of the material they are selling.

The Comparative Irrelevance of State Law

There are a lot of different state laws that ban loli explicitly or else define it is a form of child pornography. However, there are no cases I’ve heard of where such laws have ever been used to actually prosecute someone. This is not to say that state law might not be problematic in the future, but while federal prosecutions are rare, state prosecutions have been non-existent. The exact reason is impossible to know, but it likely has a lot to do with the fact that state agencies and prosecutors have far fewer resources that the federal government. State law enforcement tends to operate on thin budgets and work long hours, and prosecuting someone for a loli flash game their wife found on their computer has obviously not been a priority. Anyway, being in a state where lolicon is also illegal under state law only has the effect of making the long odds of prosecution marginally greater. Unless and until some state starts a major push to enforce anti-lolicon laws, the main source of risk will be the federal PROTECT Act.


Everything above is based upon an assessment of the law today. It is entirely possible that the next judge to review the PROTECT Act will find it unconstitutional and start a new renaissance of lolicon in the United States. Until then, we are left with the terrible situation of lolicon being technically illegal under a law that is almost never enforced, such that once every few years one person out of the thousands of lolicon fans in the US is struck by proverbial lightning.

Nothing here is meant to be alarmist – as far as I know, there are no black vans of FBI agents on the prowl for purveyors of lolicon. However, there are a lot of people who buy or download lolicon content without understanding the risk. That risk – though small – is real. Each consumer bears the burden of deciding how much risk they will bear for products they want, and this hopefully provided information with which to better make those decisions.

TLDR; Loli is illegal in the United States, but most law enforcement doesn’t care about it. Though, you probably shouldn’t import hardcore loli material through customs.

For more on the subject of censorship, stay informed by following us on our Twitter and Tumblr accounts.


EDIT:

This article has received a number of comments  claiming this law is no longer used or cannot be used, and so I have done additional research on other more recent criminal prosecutions that received less media attention:

In United States v. Bowersox, 72 M.J. 71, 73 (C.A.A.F. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces upheld the conviction and sentence of confinement for Ryan Bowersox under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1for possession of “anime images that depicted minors engaging in sexual activities.” Id. Bowersox had no actual child porn or simulated child porn. He was convicted for 318 anime-style images depicting minors engaged in sexual activities.

In United States v. Taylor, No. ACM 38700, (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2016), from just last year, the same Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Blake Taylor under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) for “downloading Japanese ‘anime’ from the Internet that depicted adults engaging in sexual activity with persons who appear to be minors.” Id. Taylor possessed no actual child porn or simulated child porn.

In their opinion affirming Taylor’s conviction, the Court said: “[Taylor] informed the agent he did not seek out images of actual children as he understood child pornography was illegal. [Taylor] did not believe his possession of anime or cartoon images depicting sexual acts between virtual adults and children was illegal. This belief was based on [Taylor]’s limited personal research.”

Taylor’s “limited personal research” was wrong. The court upheld his conviction and sentence to 60 days confinement just 14 months ago.

Share This:


  • Kek

    Only in America

    • Dave6487

      Most countries have some kind of obscenity law(s).

      It’s just more popular to talk about them in NA -_-

    • Furluge

      Got at least one case in the UK. One of the CBLDF’s cases is actually in Canada, they thanfully won that one but the legal debt was quite high iirc.

  • Frenden

    “he was caught printing hardcore loli pornography on a government printer”

    Well you gotta do what you gotta do

    • and seeing as ALL PORN on Government systems is Illegal, including a soldiers personal effects. he was going to get screwed.

  • Ryo

    There goes the dream of owning every issue of Comic LO in print.

    • Go to Japan, buy, then ship using a bonded shipper. Do not carry on your person through customs, land, sea or air.

  • >constantly refers to the PROTECT Act

    The PROTECT Act was ruled unconstitutional. It’s still codified but no enforcement can be taken on it and still stand up in court.

    Later codes in Federal law dealing with child pornography specifically exempt artistic interpretations:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

    • Tyrant

      So firstly, only half of the PROTECT Act was found unconstitutional, and the other half (which is the half we’re talking about) has been upheld by at least two federal courts, one of which is cited to in the article.

      Here’s the conclusion from the judge in U.S. v. Handley: “Subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) require the visual depictions be obscene and thus must satisfy the Miller standard.” Here the judge is affirming the part of the law I discuss on the grounds that the first amendment offers no protection to obscenity.

      Secondly, the judge says: “Because subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not require the visual depictions be obscene, and those subsections of the statute restrict protected speech, the Court finds those sections are constitutionally infirm and cannot form the basis of a charge under the superseding indictment.” Here, the judge is holding the part of the law not relating to obscenity unconstitutional because they violate the first amendment.

      No case I know of has struck down subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1), which is what I am talking about and what Handley was prosecuted under. Please let me know if you have a case to the contrary.

      Secondly, possession of child pornography is a separate and distinct crime. That definition is irrelevant here. The crime under 1466(a) makes no reference to child pornography, and is called “Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.” Your argument is like saying that the definition of heroin does not include meth, so meth must be legal.

      • >Your argument is like saying that the definition of heroin does not include meth, so meth must be legal.

        For a second there I thought I was dealing with someone who knew what they were talking about.

        Thankfully your entire argument can be disregarded wholesale based on this fallacy.

        • Tyrant

          18 U.S.C. § 2252A is the statute pertaining to child pornography. It is an entirely separate criminal provision from 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, pertaining to obscene visual representations. The two statutes are clearly aimed in the same direction and share sentencing provisions, but they define their crimes in completely different ways. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A does not define anything in terms of “child pornography.” It is explicitly not about actual child pornography, which was obviously already illegal at the time. It therefore makes no difference to prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A how child pornography is defined. The two statutes cover different things – neither supersedes the other.

      • Kaelath The Red

        Handley’s obscenity charges were under the context of him having a hard drive full of hardcore child pornography accompanying folders and photos filled with children from “modeling agencies” and under the circumstances the court was presented with the ability to charge him under obscenity laws using those images.

        • Tyrant

          Do you have a source on that? It was true in many of the other cases, but everything I’ve read on Handley (including the judicial opinion from the Court linked in the article) say he was only charged for manga and that no real child pornography was involved.

    • Furluge

      You are getting your court cases mixed up. The court case you are undoubtedly referring to is the 2002 ruling for Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition which was about the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. This article is about the PROTECT Act of 2003. Which if you look at the timing of it, is pretty clearly a response to the supreme court ruling. It is the reason the protect act requires the work be deemed obscene, which legally means your artistic works like the book Lolita or a film adaptation will be ok, but your Japanese origin hardcore loli porn is going to fail that miller test faster than a kindergartner in a calculus final.

  • We’ve already went through with this. The Supreme Court decided that it’s part of “free speech”, thus, what you’re mentioning is unconstitutional.

    So it’s legal.

    • UnverifiedBacon

      You’re really not a big fan of facts, are you?

      • https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256
        Someone posted this before me.
        Then there’s this:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
        So whatever they did after or before, it was unconstitutional.

        There goes an entire article.

        • UnverifiedBacon

          see you in the supreme court

          • Oh right, I forgot, you’re not only penniless, you also don’t know your own laws.

          • UnverifiedBacon

            nice ad hominem attack

          • You don’t know what that is, my dude.

          • UnverifiedBacon

            i’ll just ask you, oh god of Wiki.

          • Conclusions aren’t arguments.

          • UnverifiedBacon

            I conclude that you are a moron, but it’s okay because this isn’t an ad hominem attack, bruh.

          • Yes, you moron. A conclusion cannot be an ad hominem. It has to be part of the argument that reaches a conclusion and the ad hom must be irrelevant to the conclusion.

            Learn some logic.

        • Tyrant

          This case struck down the law that came before the PROTECT Act. The PROTECT Act was specifically written (with only moderate success) to get around/comply with Ashcroft.

          • “This case struck down the law that came before the PROTECT Act.”

            Unconstitutional remains unconstitutional for every similar case.

            “The PROTECT Act was specifically written (with only moderate success) to get around/comply with Ashcroft.”

            It wasn’t properly challenged, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be. It still remains unconstitutional.

          • Tyrant

            Every federal judge to address the issue (as far as I know) has upheld 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1). If you disagree with them, all the power to you – so do I, as a matter of fact – but what I am trying to do here is present an objective assessment of legal risk. So far the judges are against us, and their opinions are the ones that matter.

          • “is present an objective assessment of risk.”

            No such thing, otherwise you’d tell us it’s unconstitutional, able to be challenged and you wouldn’t use examples like Handley’s to push your argument.
            The 2002 case is a precedent too.

          • Clint
          • This isn’t how you use examples.
            I just opened the first two, one of them involved child pornography and the other involved sexual assault.

            Kys, my dude.

          • Clint

            So what? I know that. There is only a few relevant cases. I’m not reading throughall 200 cases when at least half of them don’t even concern 1466 at all. Fact remains there is a few cases in 2015/2016 and two of them are buried on some cbldf webpage somewhere.

          • Furluge

            You are not very good at reading what you are linking. Ashcroft vs the Free Speech Coalition, which is mentioned in the article btw, was about the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996. The ruling was in 2002. The supreme court ruled it was too broad because artistic works of expression could fall under it. So in 2003 Congress did, as they often do, set about to create a new law that would comply with the supreme court but still make illegal what they wanted. This was the Protect Act of 2003. That is why 1466A(a)(1) and 1466A(b)(1), the relevant portions of the act, specify the work must be obscene. Being obscene means the court stops recognizing it as protected by the first amendment, which means the 2002 ruling is no longer a legal issue. If you want to have the Protect Act of 2003 deemed unconstitutional you will need to go all the way back to SCOTUS with a new case and have the justices expound that the speech is protected, regardless of being obscene. While this is not impossible, it is a massive under taking, and someone will have to essentially martyr themselves to do it as in the best case you will have served the term before the case works its way up, and worst case you will spend the entire process in prison.

            Incidentally 1466A(a)(2) and 1466A(a)(2) have been ruled not to be constitution in the Handley case, mentioned above, because they lacked the obscene requirement specifically. If congress wanted to could fix this but they do not because 1466A(a)(1) and 1466A(b)(1) have the intended effect.

          • “the relevant portions of the act, specify the work must be obscene.”
            Obscenity is unconstitutional.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Henry

          • Tyrant

            Literally in the first line of the Wikipedia article you link: “The ruling made Oregon the first (and only state as of 2011) to abolish the offense of obscenity in its state law, although obscenity remains a federal offense.”

          • Indeed, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a precedent, my dude.

          • Furluge

            Ok, obviously a troll, going to stop talking to you now.

          • Furluge

            LOL, that is a case for OREGON you moron. XD You need a SCOTUS ruling. Lol, read you idiot, read.

          • Ever heard of precedents, moron?

          • Furluge

            You’re right the case at the OREGON supreme court, making on a ruling on the OREGON STATE CONSTITUTION does set a precedent for the constitutionality of laws… FOR OREGON.

            If you want to set a precedent for the constitutionality of a UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW you need a ruling made based on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Ideally from the SCOTUS. The last relevant ruling was the Hadley case mentioned in the article where it was upheld the law was constitutional as long as the work is found obscene according to the Miller test.

            Please actually read what you are linking.

    • Anon

      You’re fucking retarded.

      I bet you didn’t even read the article and if what your saying is “ture” where are your sources and information?

      How about this, YOU be the guy that challenge’s this situation and let’s see how far you get. I’ll send you letters in prison.

      • Kys, random. At least use an account. What’s the point if you can’t answer back?

        And don’t worry, unlike you guys, I don’t live in a shithole that tries to illegalize fiction.

    • Tyrant

      Anything that is “obscene” is not protected free speech. I discuss this in the article at length, but any hardcore loli content will be “obscene” and therefore not protected.

      • Narmy

        >but any hardcore loli content will be “obscene”
        Says who?

        • RocKM001 .

          Says just about every freaking prude and censor board in any anglo-sexon and christian country?

          That’s the issue w/ “obscenity” laws.. all something has to do is offend some random persons sensibilities and they scream loud enough and it’s “obscene”

          • Narmy

            No, that’s not enough to be considered obscene. It has a legal definition you know.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

          • Jane Doe

            Am I correct in presuming that you believe lolicon hentai isn’t going to be ruled as obscene because you recognize its artistic merit?

            You’re right that it has artistic merit, but there’s a strong possibility that most judges won’t see it that way, and if you get it up to SCOTUS you’re probably screwed anyway. I can’t believe that you would, in good faith, be so confident that you’d actually fight the charges.

      • Tristan (Chili1)

        Obscenity laws vary by state though

        • Furluge

          The miller test is a national standard though. It is mentioned in the article.

  • Narmy

    You guys are still pushing this narrative?

  • anon

    I’d just like to thank the author for writing a well researched and informative piece. It’s regrettable that you’re getting the kind of push back you’re getting from those whose hopes and wishful thinking leads them to claim that loli is legal when, as you’ve demonstrated, it isn’t.

    Out of curiosity, do you find there’s anything people can do to protect themselves online when downloading loli? Are the likes of tor or a vpn good enough to sleep easy at night after jackin’ it to lolicon hentai? lol *so crude…….*

    • Tyrant

      I mean, it all comes down to amounts and sources of risk. VPN and TOR help with some sources of risk, but don’t do anything to diminish the chance that someone else files a report with the police after seeing something on your computer.

  • strikezero01 .

    if this goes on forever, U.S. will be on the State of Civil War ( On a different universe of course ) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa2f066d9b92d4d7a04f807d3374da9948460f9b489d3ef27e253c5fcce65fb1.jpg

  • Domhnall

    I do have a couple of issues with the military court precedent usage here.

    For one, it’s military court. People in the military are held to stricter and different rules than the general populace. In both cases the defendants were actually charged under UCMJ Article 134, which basically punishes you for, “Anything that might possibly make the armed forces look bad.” They were not actually charged under any federal offense, federal law was merely used as a basis for their military trial. Article 3, which they were both charged under, uses any non-capital federal offense, and it’s true that military court can be used as precedent in civil cases, but I don’t believe that applies here, as I’m going to clarify.

    The government does allow you to own obscene material within the privacy of your own home, as long as there’s no intent to sell or distribute, via Stanley vs. Georgia. That ruling, however, does not apply here, as both of these men were living in military barracks (i.e. government property). Both rulings make it explicitly clear that the soldiers are being charged because they have this material and, as they’re living in government property, are not provided the same privacy rights as someone living in a private home. That’s why the precedent set by Stanley vs. Georgia does not apply to these cases and, as such, someone living in their own property need not worry about the precedent behind these cases.

    • Tyrant

      You are well informed and I like the way you think, but I don’t agree the distinction is relevant. What is important for our purposes is that the courts uphold the law against all constitutional and vagueness challenges. The privacy issue has an entirely different posture in the context of a private citizen because any such case will almost inevitably involve a warrant.

      Likewise, it is not just distributing that is forbidden – any moving of the item through interstate commerce is forbidden, and so importing the material (either physically or over the internet) qualifies. “We are not disposed to extend the precise, carefully limited holding of Stanley to permit importation of admittedly obscene materials simply because it is imported for private use only.” United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Film 413 U.S. 123 (1973). So importing for private use is not protected.

      • Domhnall

        I kind of ignored the fact that it was downloaded from the internet since, strictly speaking, all internet pornography can possibly get you convicted of receipt of obscene material. That’s the downside of having such a loose and local legal definition of the term “obscene.” Internet pornography in the US is, in general, a massive legal gray zone, so far as I can tell, which is absurd given its popularity. I doubt there’s ever going to be any case on that because no sane prosecutor would, in this age, want to be seen as the guy who’s attempting to make it illegal to watch PornHub.

        Moreover, I do actually think there’s a legal case to be made about a distinction between physical importation and internet “importation,” seeing as how Congress has been creating laws specifically to deal with the internet (and from what I can tell, the SCOTUS has found most of these to be at least in part unconstitutional). Additionally, many state legislatures have created laws directly concerning internet pornography. If, legally speaking, they were to be treated the same, then there would not be any need to create a separate set of laws for one against the other. Both the specific court case you reference and its predecessor, Thirty-seven Photographs, specifically deal with importation of physical media across international lines, so it’s possible that the SCOTUS would hear about a case where the “importation” is digital. I do admit, however, that this is purely speculation. What SCOTUS decides to hear is based purely upon SCOTUS’ whims. And I suppose its possible they already have heard such a case and I’m just not aware of it.

        I guess what I’m saying in general is that I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say that possession of lolicon artwork is illegal, even with the stated proviso that it’s unlikely to be prosecuted. We know:

        (1) importation of physical obscene material is illegal (via Reels of Film, Thirty-Seven Photographs, and hinted at though not confirmed via Handley because he consented to a plea deal instead of going through trial to be convicted)
        (2) possession of any obscene material, even digital, in military barracks is going to get you punished under Article 134, at the very least

        However, I’m not convinced that pure ownership of lolicon material in your own home is illegal, and I’m not convinced that SCOTUS would treat downloads from the internet as identical to their previous stances on physical importation (especially given that even those cases the SCOTUS heard had a significant number of dissenting opinions for various reasons). I’d argue the most we can say is that it’s a noticeably dark shade of gray.

        • Tyrant

          I agree with a lot of what you say here, but it depends on untested legal arguments. The implication that something isn’t illegal because its illegality can be challenged doesn’t hold up in the real world. Constitutional challenges are expensive, take years, and often fail.

          When I say illegal, I just mean under the caselaw today. I think all obscenity laws are bullshit going all the way back to Miller, but they have held up for 40 years now. If someone takes one of these cases up and wins, no one would be happier than me. However, I take issue with the implication that victory is certain or even particularly likely with so few cases, and all of them bad.

  • Viceroy

    This is a fancy way of giving themselves an out on covering this kind of content in the future and not looking like the hypocrites they are.

    Cause if they really believed this was illegal they would’ve never covered it in the past, or would’ve removed that content from the site in general.

  • Yoshino Chan

    Well, lest just pray to the loli goddess that some day in the near future it will become fully legal, because you know that something is fucked up when 99% of law forces ignores it

    • Furluge

      That is actually a lot more common than you think. But yes it is fucked up. :p

  • Anon

    This article makes me lose a lot of respect for LewdGamer as a whole. I feel they are singling out Lolicon as this horrible thing that no one should ever see that will just get you locked up forever. I thought the goal of this was to give everyone a place to belong regardless of what they were in to. I personally like a lot of different things and think they should all be treated with the same amount of respect.

    If you wanna start nitpicking this stuff like this, the monster girl stuff could be considered bestiality and get you thrown in jail just as quickly.

    • tillerman

      I don’t know how you could possibly read this article and come up with the conclusion about the author’s intent that you did.

      Hint: If Tyrant was trying to demonize lolicon, he wouldn’t have included multiple images of explicit lolicon just for the the fun of it.

      The article is just trying to clear up misconceptions, and give an objective and unbiased report about the risks of lolicon, so that the reader can make an informed decision about it.

      • Anon

        Folks without a law degree shouldn’t give folks legal advice on anything, let alone a gray area like this. This piece does nothing but promote fear and censorship. LewdGamer being one of the leading voices in this part of the industry should be defending free speech rather than fear mongering for hits.

        They are no different than the people at Polygon or Kotaku with pieces like this.

        • tillerman

          If anything, the article is leaning more towards “Go for it, chances are you won’t get caught”, rather than trying to promote fear.

          • Anon

            You run the exact same risk with monstergirl porn being bestiality but they chose to leave that out this piece and focus on this. After the post a couple weeks ago it makes it look like LewdGamer has an agenda here IMO.

          • Jane Doe

            Depends on the monstergirl porn in question; that said, in some states, the act of bestiality is illegal, but possession of bestiality porn is not. But you’re right that there’s something in common here…

            … that said, what agenda are you implying LG has? To persecute lolicons? To abandon you? There’s multiple loli images on this page; if anyone’s going to get in trouble with the law, it’s them, as a publicly visible editorial, so clearly if they’re trying to cover their ass they’re doing it poorly. If they wanted to not get in trouble for loli porn, they’d scour their site and remove every instance of it from it and never talk about it again, take the hit in readership, and keep rolling.

            If they want to alienate lolicons, they could be a hell of a lot more judgmental than this piece is, and really, with the way most of society is? They don’t even have to. Other people are already doing it.

            So what is their agenda? One where the action makes sense with the motive?

          • Anon

            They are giving themselves an out so ppl don’t get pissy when they exclude a loli announcement from a PR post again.

          • Jane Doe

            They already had an out in that they’re a private website that can choose to curate their content as they see fit. As this article demonstrates people get pissy whether or not LG wants them to.

          • Anon

            Right, but this way its the law. They cannot be hypocrites if they are just following the law. Which the is very much question to being with.

          • Jane Doe

            They didn’t write the law. At worst, you’re accusing them of not wanting to run awry of the law, which…

            1) Is reasonable. They have lives and would like them to not be ruined by legal battles.

            2) is not something they’re doing a good job of in this article. If this was part of a movement toward bringing LG into line with ‘the law’ it wouldn’t have a half dozen pics of lolicon hentai in it in the first place.

          • Anon

            This article calls gives them an out on censorship anytime they want to take it. It also creates an environment where devs and pubs will leery of doing this kinda of content since LewdGamer, who is one of the bigger voices for the adult gaming industry is calling it illegal. Instead of defending the industry they claim to love, they are doing nothing more but opening a door for more censorship.

          • Anon

            It says your a criminal for liking this fetish. Furthermore if they truly believed this they would stop covering it altogether. Cause they certainly would promote illegal materials on their site. All they have done with this is fear monger and the result will be that few localizes and developers of this material we have will shy away from it.

          • tillerman

            I understand that this might be an issue that you’re passionate about, but I really think that you and many others are misinterpreting the article.

            I don’t think the author or the website is anti-loli in any way, and I’d go as far as to say that they’re probably pro-loli.

            Where I live, riding a bike without a helmet is illegal. But it’s not a law that’s enforced. Nobody cares. You can ride a bike without a helmet every day of your life and you’ll probably never get in trouble. But it’s still important to be aware that there is that remote possibility.

            The article is basically saying the same thing about loli. It is illegal, but unless you’re extremely overt about it, you’re not gonna get in any trouble, so knock yourself out.

          • Anon

            You have two articles on this topic in the past two weeks now. One saying they support loli content, and the other saying your a criminal for looking at it. That’s mixed messaging from the at best or just plain them being hypocrites at worst.

            I honestly don’t care if they cover the content or not, but they shouldn’t promote the idea that art is illegal, that only brings more censorship and will make devs and pubs leery. This doesn’t help the adult gaming industry in anyway, in fact I think it hurts it. This is a very gray area to begin with that writer is not qualified to make the claims he made. There’s not even a disclaimer in this saying this doesn’t represent lewdgamer as a whole, so I guess the entire site feels that loli folks are criminals.

          • Jane Doe

            The article isn’t in support of lolicon hentai being illegal.

            It can report about the fact that it is illegal to own without approving of the laws in question.

          • Anon

            The writer doesn’t manage to even prove that is or isn’t legal, nor is he qualified to do so.

          • Jane Doe

            You damn well know it’s illegal, regardless of whether that’s just. Want proof? Get yourself caught for possession and see where it goes. If you’re so sure it’s legal, you’ll be fine.

          • Jane Doe

            No, it says possession is illegal. “You’re a criminal” has a judgment going on that the article doesn’t. The article even begins…

            ‘ “There is no such thing as justice — in or out of court.” — Clarence Darrow ‘

            … That projects a message that loli is illegal, but that such a law is not just. You’re fighting shadows that exist in your own mind; the author and LG are not trying to persecute you, this is a researched opinion piece trying to let you know more about the prosecutions that have happened in the past.

            Forewarned is forearmed.

        • Jane Doe

          Oh come on, please, can we all calm down and not go to extremes, here?

          You’re absolutely right that lewdgamer’s articles are almost certainly not written by anyone qualified to give professional legal counsel. I agree with you on that…

          … but ‘no different than … Polygon or Kotaku with pieces like this’ ? Imagine Kotaku or Polygon writing this article. 1) They wouldn’t. 2) If they did, the tone and the image content would have been different.

          At least give Tyrant this: the article is clearly written with good intentions and isn’t about judging people who enjoy lolicon, just his (I’m assuming his?) attempt to clear up some misinformation on a topic which has a lot of it.

          • Anon

            This is their very own brand of misinformation at best. I’m sure this won’t be the last we hear of this here either. This agenda will be pushed forward because they wanna figure out a way to self censor themselves and not look like hypocrites.

          • Jane Doe

            Do you think they thought they’d post this article without knowing (or at least suspecting) people would call them out the way you are? If their goal is to ‘self censor themselves and not look like hypocrites’ they’re not doing very well. Your attitude is condescending; do you really think they do this website but aren’t smart enough to anticipate the cries of persecution and censorship?

            Also, censorship by the government (which illegal lolicon is) is reprehensible, but private individuals or groups can engage or not engage in whatever legal conduct they so please. The problem is government or societal mandated censorship.

          • Anon

            This content has never been proven legal or not. This article is no different than a major gaming site calling gamers criminals. Lewdgamer should be supporting freedom of art not fear mongering based on one person’s unqualified opinion.

          • Furluge

            I am sorry but no amount of forum posting will actually get the law changed or make the prosecutions stop. Have you never heard the phrase “don’t shoot the messenger?” LG is just giving you warning. If you decide to roll the dice and ignore it that is your call but anger at someone telling you the truth because you don’t want to accept it is irrational.

        • DDD-kun

          You’re old enough to know to look into your own rights, your laws, receive proper, professional advice, and commit actions in secure knowledge of what you’ve researched. No one should have to hold your hand. And I say this because god forbid the worst happens and you are before a judge? LewdGamer won’t be there with you. Nor will Polygon, Kotaku, Niche Gamer, or any other pub. And if they are, it will be for their own services.

          You will be defending yourself, as is expected of you as a citizen of this land. Representation and “voices of communities” have nothing to do with this issue. It’s an attempted exposition into your personal rights that you should already be aware of. Git Gud.

      • Amber_terasu

        The only reason why Tyrant was including those pics in the article is so that the demonizing does not look too obvious.

    • Carpis

      You are not very smart, are you?

  • Karo

    So let me get this straight, because you used a vague, garbage “obscenity” law that has never been properly challenged (and the one time it had, was proven unconstitutional), that loli is now 100% illegal? Man, isn’t it crazy how despite it being illegal, all those large servers in the US containing loli, including sites like 8ch, haven’t been raided by the FBI? I mean, 8ch has multiple specific boards for loli and its servers are located in California. Pretty crazy, don’t you think? I mean you clearly know more about this law than 2ch’s (8ch and 2ch are owned by the same person and share a server room) lawyers. Maybe you should report them and update this thread on the response!

    • Tyrant

      You are assuming the obviously false premise that because something is technically illegal people won’t do it. Many, probably most, people break the law on a regular basis and do so not based upon ignorance of the law but based upon a decision to take a calculated risk. Laws are only as good as their enforcement.

      Every marijuana store and dispensary in the U.S. is operating in clear violation of federal law. There’s no any ambiguity there at all – marijuana is 100% illegal in all states under federal law. The feds could bust every one of those thousands of businesses whenever they want to and send the owners to jail, and yet they still operate stores completely out in the open. That is way higher risk than hosting loli.

      I expect that any major website hosting loli will have spoken to lawyers and then have decided for themselves what level of risk is acceptable to them. Some obviously do block or censor loli content to varying degrees, some put it behind a registration or paywall, and some put it out in the open. These might reflect different legal opinions, or might reflect different levels of acceptable risk to the owners.

      • Elilla Shadowheart

        Just because I can’t be bothered to skim through the entire comment section, United States v. Bowersox was in a military court(note the M.J), also United States v. Taylor is a military case.

        Military law is so unlike other sections of US law, you can be tried and convicted over adultery. And people have been convicted of it numerous times in even the last decade over it. It’s not an easy or even proper thing to compare, or use as a basis of an argument with regards to civilian life. Short summary, this is like comparing apples to oranges. While both are a fruit, they’re still two separate things. In the first case, he wasn’t convicted of lolicon. In the second case, he was convicted of obscenity per USMJ definitions not civilian first amendment definitions.

        Note that in Taylor’s case he was convicted not of any crime relating to “lolicon” in and of itself, but rather bad conduct of an officer of the military. That was actually thrown out under appeal, and he was given a demotion, bad conduct discharge, and 60 days in jail.

        Bowersox’s case is very similar and again was not in direct-relation to “lolicon” but other infractions relating to obscenity — something that is also under terms of military justice. The more telling precedent setting issue is that the court ruled that “some instances” a barracks is not a persons home, even when it is their home. The case itself has and had further impacts on the personal right of privacy. CAAFlog’s coverage of the case put’s this more into laymans terms, but even someone like me who’s studied law has problems following everything since there are USMJ specific legal jargon in it.

        • Tyrant

          You substantially overstate the distinction (for our purposes, at least). Federal laws can be enforced in the military by means of a court martial:
          “crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.” Clause 3 of Article 134, UCMJ. Furthermore, “If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law. ” Id.

          The court martial therefore had to prove every element of 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1), just as in any other court, and depended on the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1).

          The issue for review in Bowersox was, as explicitly stated by the Court, “Whether Appellant’s conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1), as imported through clause 3 of Article 134, UCMJ, is unconstitutional as applied to him because the minors depicted in the material at issue were not actual minors.” Bowersox (and Taylor) could and did make applicable constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1) as part of their cases and both lost. The only meaningful difference is that the court martial is not bound by the federal sentencing statutes, and so could sentence Bowersox and Taylor to only a few months jail rather than the 5 years.

          • Elilla Shadowheart

            No, actually I’m be factually correct. The wording of the law is as important as the case law surrounding it. The problem is you don’t understand the law in and of itself, and are actually understating the component of the laws in use for charges.

            You’re right that the court does has to prove all elements of 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1), along with the relevant subsections in other sections of 1466A. Which is why it was thrown to the wind and not convicted of such. Taylor didn’t lose his constitutional challenge, he won it. That’s why the charge was thrown out on appeal. He was convicted of other elements of the crime. Bowersox also won his constitutional appeal, he lost again on other elements of the case.

          • Tyrant

            If you are going to such make claims, please offer citations. There were no charges thrown out on appeal in the Taylor opinion I am familiar with. “The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred…. Accordingly, the findings and the sentence are AFFIRMED.” United States v. Taylor, No. ACM 38700, (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2016).

            Here is a link to the text of the case:
            http://afcca.law.af.mil/content/afcca_opinions/cp/taylor-38700.u.pdf

  • Shee

    Thank god you barely write articles or I’d stop coming to this site… Technically illegal, odds of getting caught are astronomical at best. This is a dead topic and every time it’s brought up like this, it increases the chance of people freaking out / people bitching at Congress to ‘save the children from the perverted monsters’…

    Do you remember 2006-2007? I sure as fuck do. Every hentai site on the web was under red alert deleting every picture that depicted a short person or a woman with size b tits. And why did all the sites start freaking out? Because some idiot’s thread on a forum went viral and suddenly John fucking McCain is running for president promising to enforce harsher laws and penalties against lolicon. Thankfully he picked the worst running mate possible and lost. Ever since, he’s shut the fuck up and gone back to only bitching about whatever war we’re in. But because someone wrote a thread, that argued something and they HAD TO BE RIGHT! We almost got our first amendment rights gutted again.

    So yes, you’re right, congrats… Now please stfu about this topic… We already have an idiot running our country, we don’t need an idiot trying to censor shit too.

    • Jane Doe

      Probably the most well thought out criticism of this article in this comment section.

    • Tyrant

      You win the award for most intellectually honest comment.

  • Tristan (Chili1)

    Didn’t in both the United Stats v. Taylor and United States v. Bowersox, the convicted didn’t fight it and plead guilty? If they didn’t fight it, how can one reasonably ascertain that those court cases definitively resulted in it being illegal? Its evidence that you can be convicted for it to be sure, but without a court fight over it how can that be deemed definitive? You can be convicted over all sorts of stuff but you can’t win if you don’t fight it.

    • Jane Doe

      Fact: The laws, whether they’d be thrown out in a higher court or not, are currently on the books.

      Fact: You can be charged for illegal possession of the porn in question.

      Fact: Faced with that charge under the laws in question, you are at risk of 5-20 years in prison if you are found guilty.

      Regardless of whether the laws are unconstitutional, the government and the charges can wreck your life. A cry against injustice is not sure to save you or me. Being discreet probably will, because though you could be charged for this, no one is actively trying to find anyone.

      • Anon

        But you said a while ago this was certainly illegal. If it is unconstitutional for them to charge you that makes legal.

        • Jane Doe

          I am saying that my belief is that it is certain that if these laws went to the SCOTUS right now it would almost certainly be supported that lolicon is illegal, but that regardless of how the SCOTUS ruled on this matter even a victory of lolicon is legal would be a Pyrrhic Victory for the accused who brought their case to the SCOTUS, as it would devastate their reputation in the Puritanical public eye… to say nothing of the costs of the legal battle in terms of time, money, anxiety, etc.

  • Anon

    Personally I’m done with this site. They have proven to me they care more about hits by putting out this half baked opinion piece that this writer is not even qualified to talk about rather than supporting freedom of art in the adult industry. All things like this lead to is more censorship, so if that was your goal here I’d say your in good shape.

    • Furluge

      Did you even actually read the article? XD What would you prefer the author lie to you about the law? It is not a secret, go look it up yourself.

  • Testy

    Even if the law is wrong, the jury of public opinion will most likely biased against it. I can understand that, but this article gives a strong negative implication that the material is more trouble than it is worth. If this is the subtext you wish to use to not cover it in the future, fine. But do note that sometimes inaction can be the best action; simply being upfront that you do not wish to do anything you do not want, or simply even not mentioning it anymore, will achieve the same result without decrying on the topic like this article has.

    If Lewdgamer is willing to cover it in the future, then I still want to see an article in support of it, if only to prove to others that this site is not going to censored that material.

    • Viceroy

      I wouldn’t hold my breath, they make it pretty clear they think this is criminal. Which is a shame since a site the always promoted itself as being open to everyone regardless of their kinks now has decided this one in particular is too much. I’m sure the list of what is unacceptable here will only grow over time. That is how self censorship usually works.

  • Imputresco

    “In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that itself is the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children, as were the materials in Ferber. 458 U.S., at 759. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, see infra, at 13—16, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal
    acts…”

    “the Court recognized some works in this category might have significant value, see id., at 761, but relied on virtual images–the very images prohibited by the CPPA–as an alternative and permissible means of expression: “[I]f it were necessary for literary or artistic value, a person over the statutory age who perhaps looked younger could be utilized. Simulation outside of the prohibition of the statute could provide another alternative.” Id., at 763. Ferber, then, not only referred to the distinction between actual and virtual child pornography, it relied on it as a reason supporting its holding. Ferber provides no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction and makes the alternative mode criminal as well…”

    “The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct…”
    Etc, Etc

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html

    The supreme court seems to consider the Protect Act to be insufficient justification for criminalizing Lolicon imagery. Most of the cases of the Protect Act being used to convict people involved them taking a plea bargain and/or being charged with posession of real CP. If you’re worried about getting arrested for posessing loli you have ample consitutional support for fighting a conviction as the link states. The only real issue is the U.S.’s outdated and overbroad definition of obscenity under which pretty much all pornography is consided, let alone more “extreme” variants such as bdsm, exhibitionism, or lolicon. Besides people make too much of obsenity as it is, the government does not consider pornography and indecent works to be inherently lacking in value. There are plenty of cases of indecent publications winning SCOTUS cases despite their subject matter and in fact “Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value…where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.” It could easily be argued that loli and shota have artistic value due to the fact that they are drawings meant to be visually appealing and often come as part of stories and narratives, not to mention their social utility in providing a safe alternative to real CP. I appreciate the effort that went into this article but jumping to the conclusion that loli is outright illegal in the U.S. only serves to encourage paranoia and further chill the actions of artists and patrons who want to see these works continue to be produced freely as they are legally entitled to be.

    • Furluge

      The case you are linking from, ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION, is actually mentioned in the beginning of the article. ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION is a 2002 decision about the CPPA from 1996. The PROTECT act of 2003 was written by Congress to address the SCOTUS ruling made in that case and it is the reason why the work must also be obscene, not just about minors in sexual situations. If you had read the whole article rather than jumping down here to post you might have noticed that the author already read about this ruling and knew it did not affect the PROTECT Act of 2003.

  • Dave6487

    Even though it seems that quite a few people don’t appreciate this article, I still like it. If only for the constructive debate its started 🙂 And it is important that people talk openly on this subject, if only to make people feel somewhat comfortable talking about a very charged topic. There is nothing worse then letting a topic become a taboo subject.

    Although this article seems to lean on a glass half empty vibe, as a person that is trying his hand at making his own games, I can understand the legal driven fear that accompanies the loli archetype. We have a lot of ignorant people in this world that would use simple ideas and thoughts as reasonable
    grounds to make a conviction.

    Anyway, I think that LewdGamer is worrying on a somewhat non-issue, as far as this site is concerned.
    This site is only a reporting outlet. If the LewdGamer staff are worried about possible legal ramification concerning some imagery. The simple solution is to just pick what images you feel won’t get you into trouble, and then just report as usual.

    As the article pointed out, it’s very rare for this kind of stuff to actually make it to a court room. And if you are only reporting on an already established game, I don’t realistically see how that would lead to a trial and conviction.

    • Viceroy

      This article does nothing but incite fear to creators and localization folks. After reading this i’m sure you could be more reluctant to include a flat character in a game for the very reasons pointed out here. Not to mention this article is an opinion and not a fact, but that doesn’t change the fact that it will make some very leery.

      • Dave6487

        While I won’t disagree that some creators and localization teams may get a knee jerk out of this, I personally believe that the fear is already there. And this article dose nothing more than air out those fears/concerns.

        By my observation the LewdGamer staff are very worried about this, and this is a way for them to reach out to us for feedback/consoling. At least the way I see it.

        As for me being more reluctant, that is actually not true. The article brought a touchy-charged topic out in the open and has caused people to talk about it in a constructive manor. I find this to be a very refreshing change of pace, compared to the usual ego driven mud slinging you typically get when discussing topics like this. It makes me realize that some people are willing to stand defiant against such laws.

        Furthermore, if big publishing companies and/or localization teams see this topic, it allows them to gather feedback. If they find that indecency laws are are driving off potential artiest, it gives them an incentive to fight these laws whenever possible.

        • Viceroy

          This article is full of half truths and speculation. This will only lead to more censorship in a part of the industry the sees enough of that as it is.

          as far as this being constructive, that would require LG to listen which they are not. Its illegal, your criminal, and that’s the end of the story. If they didn’t want to cover this content it was their right to do so, but don’t incite fear over something that is very unlikely to ever cause an issue to begin with.

          • ZekaZeka

            The only people I see not listening is the some of the people in the comments.

            Yes, because reporting actual court cases is “speculation” also how is LG “not listening”? There are still more than likely going to cover this content because they are willing to take the risk to do so. How about you, what risk are you taking? The owner of the site has in FACE behind LG which I bet you don’t even have the balls to do.

            The fact that you’re coming to extreme conclusions about their stances (despite multiple times they have said they are fine with this content) means you didn’t read this article at all. I don’t know what fantasy land you live in where you think society is completely understanding of this content.

            Call it speculation all you want, but you know this is the truth. How about you go a prove LG wrong and get yourself caught in a court case?

            Good luck fighting this off in a court of law with a jury of normies, especially if you have no money. LG is just explaining why companies and people in general stay cautious about this content and telling you to be careful, but fuck them right?

            Who cares about the safety of people translating and giving you this content right? I just want content! I’m entitled to it! Fuck your calculated risk assessment and just GIVE ME WHAT I WANT!

            If anything going around and telling people “this is totally fine and nothing bad will ever happen to you” is the real half truth here. Not even the biggest supporters of weed are this fucking delusional.

        • SamTheMan

          They’d have to actually cover this content bring any change. LewdGamer has never been big on loli content and that’s not gonna change. If anything I think they will avoid even more since they are apparently scared of it. Otherwise they wouldn’t be raising this much of stink over it, and they wouldn’t have self censored which is what got them ass hurt and out on this quest to prove all lolicons are criminals. Which this doesn’t prove either way.

          • ZekaZeka

            If you actually read (which I guessing half the comments didn’t do honestly) the owner’s previous statment, the owner of the site lives in a state where this content is defeinatly illegal and he has to be really careful. He has made constant mentions of this in streams too that he is making plans on moving to another state as to futher protect himself just in case.

            Why are we condeming people for not wanting to get in trouble with the fucking law? Why is that a bad thing? Is the safety of the site and it owners not important to you?

            If not then you were never a “fan” in the first place and you need to go back to the shitty dark hole in the internet that you have came from.

          • SamTheMan

            “This article is for people to understand what those risk are instead of pretending that everything is fine. Which is false if you think it is.”

            but then they say well the odds of anything happening is next to zero, so which is it? They have sent mixed messages out about this ever since they got called out for censoring that PR. They can cover it or not, but throwing out this article filled with speculation about a legal gray area didn’t help their problem, and in fact made it look like they were either against loli content or looking for an excuse not to cover it.

            If he does live somewhere that puts him at risk which he a said in that previous write up that’s fine, but it should’ve been left at that instead of basically going on the attack for our protection for something they say likely won’t get you into trouble. This entire thing is one huge hyperbole from hell, and it will probably cost them credibility in the long run.

  • Bushidospearit

    This article is nothing but lies,Fakku which is based in the US has been selling lolicon hentai manga a quite a long time now and let me make it clear that i don’t mean flat chested girls, i mean straight up lolis,they even have 2 separated tags one for flat girls and one for lolis.

    https://www.fakku.net/tags/loli

    https://www.fakku.net/tags/pettanko

    Lewdgamer has lost all credibility with this article,it’s time to vote with our feet and leave this site,there are better alternatives,for example Sankaku Complex.

    http://www.sankakucomplex.com/

    • ZekaZeka

      The first link doesn’t work and the other link is a tag for flat chested girls. Fakku does have a Loli tag, but you have to new member to see it.

      I guess we should carry out pitchforks over to Fakku too and tell them to stop censoring themselves.

      We should also tell the owners of ExHentai to stop hiding behind a rather hard to get sign up system to see Loli and Shotacon too.

      LG has not once said they were against this kind of content. This article was a rather informative piece that reminds me of the risk MG and JAST put themselves through just to give us content. If all hell broke loose for whatever reason, they would be the among the first to get scrubbed while you and your band of idiots can sit behind your anon status and not have to worry about anything.

      The comments section here is embarrassing and only proves why this article needed to be made.

      Great work LG, I hope you guys tackle other material in the future.

      • Bobo

        The only thing embarrassing here is a site that supposed be anti censorship is promoting more of it with fear mongering on a subject they are not qualified to give advice on

        • ZekaZeka

          If you think all this is 100% false or that there are no potentially negative implications then your sadly mistaken. Its like half the comment section here is not even intelligent enough to understand what going on here.

          And if LG was planning on “abandoning lolicon and shotacon” then they wouldn’t have it in the article or even make pieces or talk about games that have them. Its really sad how people are coming to this kind of conclusion just cause there feelings are hurt.

          Reminds me of a certain over sensitive group of people that have been pretty popular lately.

          This article can be summed up like this:

          1) Be careful and mindful of what your doing.

          2) The courts and normies have always been against us. Expecting this to change is silly, especially with today’s political climate in the US.

          3) Companies and Websites still cover and host this material because there is a low risk. We should learn to understand their situations instead of demeaning them for trying to protect themselves form being locked up for 5 to 25 years or be labeled as sex offender even if they mange to not get jail time. They are the ones taking the risk not us while we sit behind Tor and other privacy systems.

          If you think this is perfectly fine I dare you to go through customs in the US with this kind of material and see how far you get. I’m sure everything will be fine when a Jury full of normies decide to send to to jail.

          It’s a legitimate concern and it’s important for us as Adults not to live in fantasy land.

          • Bobo

            It can be summed up by them saying no one should make this kind of material because it is illegal. Which has never been proven and again this piece is an opinion not a fact.

          • ZekaZeka

            Your just assuming that cause your feelings are hurt. Going to these conclusions based on presented facts is the same as SJW rhetoric in how they see things.

            “Not everything is going my way so they must be the enemy because HOW DARE THEY challenge my worldview.”

            If anything this just proves that we have extremist on all sides who are not willing to have any kind of decent discussion.

          • Bobo

            No, cause they picked this kink because it is the easiest to target and the one that gets censored the most often, and this was done because they got ass hurt when people called them out for self censoring a loli title out of MG’s press release at Sakura con. I’m sure they won’t cover any content like that in the future despite what they say. Since they said they were fine with this content not long ago and just outright attack it with this trumped up opinion piece.

          • ZekaZeka

            I’m 100% percent positive LG will continue to cover what they want. You haven’t been to their streams in the past. They really don’t give a fuck.

            But they aren’t going to pretend that the world is rosy and everything is fine. At the end of the day they and other companies are taking the risk not us.

            Even if they continued to do what they want and covered lolicon and shotacon (which they have in the past) I’m sure you won’t change your mind anyway. People like you will just come up with some other BS reasoning behind it.

            I’ll make sure to screen cap your comment.

          • Bobo

            Actions speak louder than words, prove that you support this kind of content and truly support freedom of art and it will put this issue to rest. Until then I don’t believe a damn word they say since they have already contradicted themselves in a very short time,

          • ZekaZeka

            I already win since there is Loli in this article, but I guess we can just wait till next time. 🙂

          • Bobo

            I’m sure that was done to make this look less condescending. Which makes it more infuriating honestly.

          • Bobo

            “I’m 100% percent positive LG will continue to cover what they want.” I’m pretty sure at this point they don’t want to cover this content. This article gives them an easy out without them being called hypocrites for self censoring, but again we shall see.

          • Viceroy

            I assume the goal here is to scare everyone out of making it to being with.

      • 44KPanda
    • Waifu Engineering

      This article was a bad step for LG, but Fakku and Sankakucomplex have even less integrity, come on man.

      • Kraid

        Aside from charging for porn, what did Fakku do?

    • Furluge

      Yep, LG totally made up that federal law and all those cases. It is all just a mass conspiracy between LG, Cornell, and the US Government Publishing Office to lie to you about a law while telling you that you will probably never get prosecuted unless you attract the wrong kind of attention. XD

  • MrSaporito

    If I recall Shadman had a run in with shit for Lolicon work and won his cases against them.
    Something about “they’re fucking cartoons” or something and he won.
    Also, holy shit this comment section never gets this many posts… This sure is a hot topic!

    • ZekaZeka

      I’ve been following Shadman for a long time. This has never happened, it wasn’t until recently that he has had to deal with underaged stuff that he puts on his site.

      I love Shad’s work, but Shadman is far more dangerous in when to comes to this content getting attacked by political officials. He draws LOLI OF REAL FUCKING PEOPLE AND EVEN MAKES LOLI VERSION OF REAL PEOPLE. If LG is “bad” because they are simply warning people to be careful and not be stupid, then Shadman is far more of a problem then LG will ever be.

  • Mower

    A lot of thin-skinned people in the comments. Not for a second did I feel like the article was condemning lolicon or its fans, and this is coming from someone who owns issues of Comic LO and some of their tanks. The idea that this article is a ploy to justify avoiding reporting on loli content is funny enough, but I feel like they could just avoid it if they wanted to.

    • ZekaZeka

      Im rather surprised too. You have people in the comments even saying that this article is full of “lies” which is fucking hilarious. I wonder how many people getting so butthurt actually live in US.

  • SamTheMan

    Don’t really know why everyone is upset or shocked by this LewdGamer has always been pretty anti loli. They only basically ever covered it when they felt they had to. The laws have always been this way, and this is a very gray area that pubs like to avoid at times. I think the most important thing to do is support releases with this content when they are released and just not worry about it.

    They even say here the odds of anything happening are extremely low. I’m just not sure why they had to make sure a huge deal out of all this when like I said they rarely ever cover loli stuff anyways. If they don’t wanna cover it then just don’t. The genre has made it years without their support and will continue to be fine without it in the future.

    • ZekaZeka

      “Don’t really know why everyone is upset or shocked by this LewdGamer has always been pretty anti loli.”

      This is so fucking stupid. Do you have any idea how much porn they cover that has had loli in it already? Or are you just going to play selective memory?

      Using that Logic, LG is “anti f=Furry”, “anti NTR”, “anti Guro”, and “antiSCAT” because its not covered all the time.

      You people are dumb. I can’t belive how triggered you guys are. It’s like I’m dealing with SJWs.

      • SamTheMan

        If you click that lolicon tab at the top page you’ll get 10 pages of results. Most of those are ecchi games like Senran Kagura or some Compile Heart game. There are very few actual eroges that will be listed.

        • ZekaZeka

          https://www.lewdgamer.com/tag/scat/

          Fuck man there are barely any articles on scat! I guess LG is “antiscat”!

          Explain to me how do you function in society with that kind of logic?

          • SamTheMan

            Maybe they are, who knows. My point is they started a lot of shit over something they rarely cover in the first place.

          • ZekaZeka

            My point is don’t go into generalizations without evidence. You are nothing better than a SJW using the rational.

            “I guess JonTron is anti hentai because he never talks about it.” is the kind of logic your using and that with them saying they don’t have any problems with it and already covering it in the past.

            Hell when LG got banned from HitBox, they were PLAYING a lolicon game. You must be really fucking new or just got your feefees really hurt.

          • SamTheMan

            When the content isn’t here, and it isn’t, that’s not generalizing that’s a fact. They do not cover that many things with loli content and this has been blown way out of proportion for nothing. If they want to avoid loli content, like they always have, then do so. Don’t start a bunch of shit about it to make yourself a good excuse. Just simply say say were not gonna do it cause we could get in trouble, even if it is like very very unlikely and be done with it,.

  • Zero Kurapika

    What a good article. I liked it. You actually researched it ?
    It scares me than people can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
    I love shooting people and exploding things on games. I would never dream to do it on real life.

    Same happens with drawings or animated despictions of young looking anime characters.

  • OneInkerOne

    Maybe now that LewdGamer has put up their article with their grand excuse to self censor they can get back to not covering loli content. I figure the next piece we will see out of them is why Nutaku is 100% correct to censor all their loli and rape content cause why not, for a site with a supposed anti censorship stance they sure like to give you a lot of reasons why you should censor content.

  • grgspunk

    You guys are fucking idiots. If you’re convinced lolicon is illegal, then why in the fuck are you guys plastering loli porn all over your goddamned article?

    • OneInkerOne

      I dunno if they needed clicks or they just are looking for a good excuse to censor themselves. I guess this could go either way. All they have really done is spread fear for no good reason. Other than they don’t care for this content and I guess if everyone is scared to produce or publish it they won’t have to deal with it.

      • grgspunk

        “I dunno if they needed clicks or they just are looking for a good excuse to censor themselves.”

        Yeah, you pretty much summed it up. Them being in bed with Nutaku is also a telltale sign.

    • Clint

      It’s not alarmist.

      Even though the old law has been shot down, I don’t think the new law has made it to the supreme court to be shot down again.
      This ‘obscenity’ loophole is ridiculous – if it were obscene it would be illegal regardless like 2girls1cup and should instead be punished under the actual obscenity law.
      I firmly believe if the surpreme court looked at it, it really would be shot down again, however that takes years and due to the mandatory minimum sentencing, and prison time. It takes as long as the minimum sentence to get to the supreme court for appeal – and then it’s still a crapshoot. They might not even be willing to look at the case at all.

      You should take the article as informative. It merely tells you that you are at risk. You ARE. What you do with that information is up to you, but seriously, stop being delusional.

      • grgspunk

        Bull-fucking shit it isn’t goddamned alarmist.

        The article hasn’t fucking covered any fucking cases that hasn’t been absolutely covered to hell and back.

        The author uses Handley’s ruling as a solid evidence of illegality while conveniently ignoring the fact that he had over 80 loli titles seized, but only convicted for 7.

        The author conflates military rulings with civilian rulings.

        Inspite of how “informative” they try to be, they expose countless viewers to risk of having what they refer to illegal content by putting up pictures of loli porn all over the article that supposedly “proves” their illegality.

        The article “merely” tells us we’re at risk. Guess what? Anyone that views porn is at fucking risk. Obscenity laws have applied to any type of porn since the dawn of fucking time. The only thing the PROTECT law ever did was reaffirm the fact that obscenity laws applied to all porn, fictional or otherwise. If you have a pic of a kid fucking, you’re going to get busted with child porn, regardless of whether it’s “obscene” or not. Yet you have a fictional picture of a kid fucking, it has to be subject to obscenity laws before a conviction can take place. Remind me how exactly this makes loli porn on par with CP in the eyes of the courts?

        The only fucking things that need to be banned or censored are shit articles like this. The subject of legal issues involving lolis have been constantly overblown by underqualified fearmongering dipshits who prefer to think like activists instead of lawyers, so much so that it’s adversely affected various localization companies’ willingness to deal with it. This is one of them

  • Clint

    The people trashing this article are absolutely delusional.

    People are charged under 1446A every year. I had found a link to a searchable gov site (google fucking sucks and doesn’t list it) and there were recent (it was 2015/16 then) prosecutions and denied appeals (mostly guys in jail who had drawings – were in for real sex offenses).
    I had googled the names – they were actually on the CBLDF website. However, they are not prominently listed anywhere…I couldn’t find the site or cbldf articles again but I assure you they are there.

    As much as it sucks… you have a chance to get prison time for it. No matter how low that chance is.

    This coming from a guy who has wall scrolls on every surface! I got rid of the dodgiest ones, but some of them could still fuck me over as I can’t see it going any other way if it actually landed me in court.

    • OneInkerOne

      In almost every case they had something other than just art that landed them jail time. The cases were it was the art were usually 3D images, since the law says some of those look so real it would hard to tell them apart from the real thing.

      • Furluge

        Dem goal posts, they are a movin’. They must have bionic legs!

        Look, the text of the law is easy to read, there are convictions. There are convictions for just drawings. Pretending they do not exist is silly.

        • OneInkerOne

          No one is acting like they don’t exist, but you have to see the content of them. You wanna just cherry pick the results the fit your logic. Arm chair lawyering doesn’t impress me and it shouldn’t impress anyone else either.

          • Furluge

            I really don’t see the need to impress someone who has nothing to say but is just ranting hysterically. 🙂

            PS: Actually read the article this time.

          • OneInkerOne

            Always the simple minded folks that go straight to insults. Pull you head out of your ass and you might learn something, but oh wait, I forgot you seem to already know everything.

            P.S. Your fucking an arrogant dickhead.

          • Furluge

            It’s “You’re a fucking arrogant dickhead.” What you said means something entirely different. XD

      • Clint

        Yes, obviously. But the fact remains the risk is there, it has been used more times than wikipedia tells you, and appeals get shot down. If they feel like putting you away, they can use it. Do you like to gamble with your life? If it comes to that, you have two choices: accept a weak plea deal, or fight it, get mandatory minimum sentencing (5 yrs) and sit in jail until it reaches the supreme court.

        Our government sucks massive republican cocks.

  • Shippoyasha

    People should be allowed to have fantasies as long as they exercise it safely and with respect to others. Not that different from consuming any other type of pornography, it shouldn’t be jail-worthy as long as there’s no actual victimization taking place in the process.

  • Furluge

    Good work. You have gone through the, thoroughly thankless job of compiling all the research in the best package I have seen yet. Don’t be too bothered by the people wailing and gnashing their teeth that “That is not true, that’s impossible.” They are just retreating into delusions and fantasies because it is easier than accepting the truth: That something they like, maybe can’t help liking, is illegal. And some may mistakenly extrapolate from this that they are bad people and thus may feel this attacks their identity. I have seen these reactions countless times before and no amount of prosecutions, law, or cited cases will dissuade them. They are simply being irrational. You can’t use reason to calm someone being irrational.

    • OneInkerOne

      People like you pick whatever laws and cases fit into your logic without looking at all of the details in context. So long as you think your right that’s all that matters, even if information to the contrary has been presented to you. There’s nothing irrational about people not just accepting your logic as law when it has not been proven your right.

      Most times it comes down to I don’t like this, your a sick fuck and this has be illegal when that’s not 100% certain.

      • Furluge

        I’m sorry a big pile of federal us law and cases supports my argument and not yours?

        But maybe I am wrong, please, point out the law that repeals the protect act of 2003 in its entirety. I eagerly await to read it.

        If you can’t point that out, then yes, you are being irrational, as the protect act of 2003 is still on the books and there is proof it is being enforced.

        • OneInkerOne

          Because your fear mongering over something that is likely to never happen, and the fact is if that did happen any kinda porn could get you in the same amount of trouble by this logic.

          • Furluge

            Got it, so, you don’t have a point, an arguement, and you didn’t read the article at all. Good job. I shall graciously accept your surrender and stop verbally pummeling you now.
            Have a nice day.

          • OneInkerOne

            Sadly we are all not blessed with common fucking sense, but I will stop this now since I honestly don’t give a fuck what one simple minded asshole thinks on the internet.

  • mew

    The law clearly states lolicon is only illegal IF it is obscene though. Your article is misleading. In the end even normal pornographic manga could technically lead you to jail if it was found obscene from what I recall.

    • Furluge

      So, are you trying to say you think that hardcore loli pronography in manga or video form won’t be ruled obscene? Because I can tell you with complete certainty unless the work is part of some long form artsy material with some sort of serious message behind it, like the novel Lolita, that whatever it is will be ruled obscene.

      • mew

        Don’t be retarded please.

        • Furluge

          Thinking that hardcore loli porn won’t be ruled obscene during the trail, the time and place that ruling occurs as it is then and only then that the judgement and ruling on obscenity is required to take place, is the very definition of retarded. You would literally need to have a mental handicap to think hardcore loliporn won’t be ruled obscene in a court of law.

          • mew

            It won’t. Now stop replying with retarded crap.

          • Furluge

            Wow, you are delusional. XD Here’s the miller test.

            The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:

            – 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 specifically defined by applicable state law,
            – Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

            Please tell me which one of those three rules you think you have a snowflake’s chance in hell of convincing a middle aged white bread christian normie that your child pornography drawings don’t violate. XD Better yet if you think it will pass in court so much *please* turn yourself in, I wanna see your shocked face on that sex offender registry. XD

          • mew

            And you’re a retarded SJW cuck. Kill yourself.

  • Kuato

    I read for like an hour the comment selection, here’s my conclusion:
    -This article is right.
    -This article was made to:
    a) make the topic clear;
    b) calling LG out for future lolicon content;
    c) alarm people.
    -This article damages the loli game industry.
    -This article ruins LG reputation.
    I expect a future article to further clarify LG intenctions.

    • OneInkerOne

      The damage has been done now sadly. I fear more folks will shy away from loli content more than ever now. Its pretty bad when a site that supposed to support the adult gaming industry is working so hard to get content censored in it.

  • LameDuckie

    Nice when a site treats a certain section of its readership like criminals. I hope you avoid covering loli stuff in the future since you clearly want it more criminalized and censored.

  • Bushidospearit

    Since LG is sponsored by Nutaku and Nutaku doesn’t sell any lolicon content,LG was asked to write an article that would push people away from the only kind of content that Nutaku doesn’t sell on their store…this sucks.

    • 44KPanda

      lmao

  • Masakan

    Honestly if these guys wanted to use this as justification to censor loli content, I really don’t see why they would immediately do an interview with mantis-X a content creator who is known for making very slutty loli’s

    That said I do have to acknowledge the abuse of this law, because as it stands now, all this law is good for is using it as an excuse to get someone you don’t like in trouble.

  • First one, the ALL PORN in the Military is Illegal.

    Second,
    (8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—

    (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

    (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

    computer-generated image or picture (Shooped, edited, or actaully photo shopped with a knife and scanner)

    such visual depiction is a digital image (digitized image including a digital computer)

    computer image (See above)

    computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from (High End CGI Images that look “too much” Like the real thing)

    such visual depiction has been created, (Shooped to a real body)

    adapted, or modified (shooped involving “see through” and “Xray” Editing, )

  • Moreover, the government doesn’t care what’s constitutional. You’ll serve time even without being convicted.

    Some might ask why, if all of this is true, many companies sell lolicon content that is illegal under this law. People might think that because someone is selling it, it must be legal. There is some merit to this, and I’m sure some companies have done their own risk assessments, but there is no reason to think that people stop selling something profitable just because the government technically forbids it if the law is not enforced.

    Simply put, criminalizing absolutely anything does increase demands of goods produced accordingly. This is why laws never have worked, and never will – even the law against murder. Laozi was absolutely correct when he said, “the more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” If one wants to put an end to an act, it must start with his own person.

  • Layman

    I think that you guys missed something, with the three part Miller test B is actually VERY relevant as it requires that the material must be “patently offensive” which itself has a three tiered test. They are:

    The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex,

    The material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters,

    The material is utterly without redeeming social value
    While I’m pretty sure lolicon content would fail the first two requirements, an argument could be made that by being able to give pedophiles a safe outlet for their sexual urges (and last I recall pedophilia is legally recognized as a mental illness) a redeeming social value argument could be made, which means that it’s not patently offensive which thus means that it’s not obscene which means it’s 100% legal.