2k17 /pol/

[ShadowDimentio]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition.

Loli pictures are only illegal when they're virtually indistinguishable from real kids.

[ColonicAcid]

let us be reminded that trump is still a human bean and has feelings.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-surprise ... d=49869503

[starmute]

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition.

Loli pictures are only illegal when they're virtually indistinguishable from real kids.

Except it already has been tried in US v. Handley and several other cases. And would you say that manga minors are "different" than drawings of "real minors". Would you argue that manga is a artstyle where they do not represent people?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_sta ... ted_States

And while the judge thought it was "unconstitutional" he eventually plead out due to him believing that he would be convicted.

[DemonFiren]

why the fuck are you discussing the legality of lolicon

[starmute]

why the fuck are you discussing the legality of lolicon

Its a example I thought he might be able to make a connection with. It seems I was right.

[XSI]

I don't know about you but apparently I cucked a guy once without knowing it
Also the girl didn't know it

That guy was just mostly really creepy

[FantasticFwoosh]

Were you using a mirror

[Malkevin]

Here's a example of another grey issue:
A website named "4chan.com" hosts a significant amount of Lolita or "loli" pornography that depicts "drawings of sexually provocative children".

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition.

Now should the police "raid" every computer that has ever gone to 4chan.com? Should they raid 4chan.com? There is freedom of speech you have to think about.

>Brings up Lolis, has an avatar of a loli but its totally okay because she's really 600 hundred years old

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition.

Loli pictures are only illegal when they're virtually indistinguishable from real kids.

>Knows and cares far too much about the statute on drawings of little girls.

Makes you think

[starmute]

>Brings up Lolis, has an avatar of a loli but its totally okay because she's really 600 hundred years old


Makes you think

Also what other game has you bake a actual cake to proceed! I actually like *Mute and I think I understand her on many levels...

To be fair *Mute has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. Her tale is rather tragic. The whole story is about politics, deception, pain, hate, and several other human feelings. It's well worth the buy.

Spoiler:

[ColonicAcid]

i think when we look back at the 20th century it won't be ww1 or ww2 that we'll remember, it'll be the creation of anime


the 1400s had knights
the 1700s had the american and french revolution
the 1900s was anime.

[Malkevin]

To be fair *Mute has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. Her tale is rather tragic. The whole story is about politics, deception, pain, hate, and several other human feelings. It's well worth the buy.

Mmhuh, and thats why you get your cyber waifuu a fully equipped real doll body, right?

[starmute]

To be fair *Mute has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. Her tale is rather tragic. The whole story is about politics, deception, pain, hate, and several other human feelings. It's well worth the buy.

Mmhuh, and thats why you get your cyber waifuu a fully equipped real doll body, right?

I don't think they make real dolls for girls. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I mean they already make dolls, like barbies. Not that I would have a whole basement full of those somewhere

Whatever. You know what I mean.

[InsaneHyena]

No Trump news in a while. Did he die or something?

[XSI]

You know he hasn't been on vacation either, because the media would report on that

[Malkevin]

No Trump news in a while. Did he die or something?

He made a skinny white kid mow his lawn and convinced the kid to join the SEALs so he can die for mother america when his time comes.

To be fair *Mute has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. Her tale is rather tragic. The whole story is about politics, deception, pain, hate, and several other human feelings. It's well worth the buy.

Mmhuh, and thats why you get your cyber waifuu a fully equipped real doll body, right?

I don't think they make real dolls for girls. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I mean they already make dolls, like barbies. Not that I would have a whole basement full of those somewhere

Whatever. You know what I mean.

Wait a minute, don't play coy and pretend you didn't read the first email on the second game, where the protag gets a shipping confirmation for a robot body for his ai waifu, complete with optional extras of lady parts.

[bman]

headline:

TRUMP ENDORSES CHILD LABOR

[starmute]

[
Wait a minute, don't play coy and pretend you didn't read the first email on the second game, where the protag gets a shipping confirmation for a robot body for his ai waifu, complete with optional extras of lady parts.

Actually I kinda played it as we were "just friends" in the first one so it carried over to the second one. I've never really gotten into the romance arcs. Also the protag can be a girl too : ).

[DemonFiren]

>unironically using smileys

[ColonicAcid]

heres a lil interesting thing

https://iai.tv/video/in-search-of-the-self?access=ALL

[Super Aggro Crag]

I like that movie.

[Grazyn]

Not new, in ye old times they used to put animals on trials

[starmute]

I want more of this.



Look at how goofy the trial looks.

[cedarbridge]

And while the judge thought it was "unconstitutional" he eventually plead out due to him believing that he would be convicted.

Why is that in quotation marks?

[starmute]

And while the judge thought it was "unconstitutional" he eventually plead out due to him believing that he would be convicted.

Why is that in quotation marks?

Reading the arguments I don't believe it is. If it was appealed to a higher court they wouldn't reach the same conclusion; thus the reason why he pleaded out.

[starmute]

I want more of this.

https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_582/w ... /trial.jpg

Look at how goofy the trial looks.

Judge - "I just can't believe that we're in the same room as that... that sow."
Friar - "I know my Captain, I just can't draw my eyes away from them."
Friar (foreground) - "That was the devil, they defecated over all of my ambrosia deus trays, oh, oh sweet baby jesus, the room draws dark."
Clown (behind friar) - if I just keep smiling, they might step back onto my peel
Sec (either) - "Would ya believe I caught this little piggy running all the way home? Home being cargo and all the way being disposals in the Cap's office."

The clown and the lawyer set up the trial. Everyone else is just along for the ride.

[A3STH3T1CS]

"The animated GIF image Trump retweeted spliced together footage of Trump taking a swing on a golf course with footage of Clinton tripping and falling as she boarded a plane in 2011 as secretary of state. The footage is edited to make it appear as though Clinton is hit in the back with a golf ball before her fall."

"The White House did not respond to a request for comment Sunday about the President's tweet and whether Kelly was aware of it."

""The President of the United States just retweeted a video vignette that imagines him assaulting his political rival. The man is unfit,"

CNN in a nutshell these days

[Super Aggro Crag]

Obama posted videos of his fursona

[Super Aggro Crag]

Because islams use the no true Scotsman fallacy a lot

[A3STH3T1CS]

If these sandniggers are going to continue to revert back into the 19th and 18th centuries, we ought to just fucking destroy them so we can have more land for the 4th industrial revolution.

We're never going to progress far enough to watch bio-genetic engineering take a mainstream hold as long as have these savages roam the planet.

[K-64]

What have you been doing, world? Scotland has nothing to do with that mess of religions.

You say that, but we do have a reputation for punching burning muslims and all that.

[Super Aggro Crag]

Yikes...

[A3STH3T1CS]

What have you been doing, world? Scotland has nothing to do with that mess of religions.

You say that, but we do have a reputation for punching burning muslims and all that.

Hey I remember those videos.
Then Finland got the bright idea from them to start a nationalist sector to drive out the refugees flooding the streets, the music they overlapped made it feel like some Benny Hill joke.

[XSI]

I can understand that logic

If they want to live in medieval times, we should treat them as such and put the peasants to work in the fields under threat of a flogging

[InsaneHyena]

So... there's a bunch of nutjobs in Charlottesville.

you're posting in the wrong place, half the people in this thread were probably there

Still cracks me up. What even came out of that Challenger thing anyway?

[XSI]

Still under investigation

Charges unlikely

[starmute]

Still under investigation

Charges unlikely

..... He's already been charged on August 15. He was denied bond August 25. Still in jail awaiting trial.

Where are you getting your news? Actually curious. I just want to know.

[ShadowDimentio]

What he's talking about is how the Prosecution is at a lose-lose situation and the trial is about to pull a Zimmerman

Either the prosecution can try and push a murder charge and it'll likely get rejected for lack of evidence, or they can settle with a manslaughter charge and get ridiculed for failing to jail the evil nazi scum for forever

[ShadowDimentio]

[youtube]VJFaD9ClX2M[/youtube]

[XSI]

Still under investigation

Charges unlikely

..... He's already been charged on August 15. He was denied bond August 25. Still in jail awaiting trial.

Where are you getting your news? Actually curious. I just want to know.

My bad. I meant him being convicted of crimes/called guilty is unlikely. Charges are a thing they throw at everyone or they can't hold them or trial them
So yeah, he got charged, that was the wrong word to use on my end

[starmute]

What he's talking about is how the Prosecution is at a lose-lose situation and the trial is about to pull a Zimmerman

Either the prosecution can try and push a murder charge and it'll likely get rejected for lack of evidence, or they can settle with a manslaughter charge and get ridiculed for failing to jail the evil nazi scum for forever

... how is there a lack of evidence?

[Screemonster]

they'll try and weasel the "i felt threatened which is why I ploughed my vehicle directly into the centre of mass of them instead of trying to evade them" or some bullshit that technically leaves room for reasonable doubt

in other news some dipshit decided to go out in seattle with a swastika armband and pick fights and harass people on public transport and tell everyone he had a gun and he got knocked the fuck out

the usual handwringing wannabe-reasonable middle-ground "-b-b-but free speech is it right to throw the first punch a bluhbluhbluh" crowd are naturally hammering out a million thinkpieces as we speak

None of them are asking "if some dipshit was out on the streets harassing people on public transport and yelling about how he had a gun and threatening people and he got knocked the fuck out for his trouble, would anyone give a shit?"
but oh no put a fucking swastika on his arm and suddenly it's a muh free speech issue about whether we can justify violence against him

[XSI]

Thats retarded
Going out with a swastika armband is a pretty good sign that you're not up to anything good and you shouldn't be surprised if you get punched. Kinda like carrying an antifa flag or a KKK outfit, instantly tells everyone around you that you have no interest in anything except pissing people off or fighting

As for the car guy
Yeah, good chance he'll get off. Because evidence does show his car was hit by a bat before he hit anyone. And the cause of death was technically not directly related to being hit by a car so they can leverage that too

[lntigracy]

[cedarbridge]

USA USA USA USA USA
S
A
U
S
A

[cedarbridge]

Thats retarded
Going out with a swastika armband is a pretty good sign that you're not up to anything good and you shouldn't be surprised if you get punched. Kinda like carrying an antifa flag or a KKK outfit, instantly tells everyone around you that you have no interest in anything except pissing people off or fighting

As for the car guy
Yeah, good chance he'll get off. Because evidence does show his car was hit by a bat before he hit anyone. And the cause of death was technically not directly related to being hit by a car so they can leverage that too

Words are not violence. Thoughts and beliefs are not violence. Justifying violence against somebody else for what they think, feel, or say is lunacy. Allowances can be made for speech that is intended to lead to immediate unlawful action or harm, but anything short of that is unacceptable. Punching a person for wearing an armband is justified the same way as punching somebody for having the wrong haircut, liking the wrong sports club, or arriving from the wrong country in peacetime. I can, if I were so motivated, walk around all week wearing full Klan regalia without intention to start a fight with anyone. I can do this same thing in full Nazi dress or decked out in full Black Bloc uniform. None of this is an invitation to violence because clothing is not violence. Words are not violence. Initiating violence against somebody else is not justified unless you are under imminent threat of violence from that person against yourself or another. Because words are not violence, saying something you disagree with, even something you consider beyond the pale, is not grounds for violence against the speaker and no self-defense mental gymnastics will suffice.

[Screemonster]

did you miss the part where he was walking around getting up in people's faces and screaming at them and threatening them and telling them he had a gun

whether he had a swastika on his arm or not is irrelevant because he's doing shit that would provoke a reponse from literally anyone, if you really want to get technical it's legally defined as fighting words, which are treated differently in each state but pretty much recognised as "no shit if you get up and scream obscenities in someone's face they're going to be inclined to fucking deck you to get you out of their face"

but noooooooo, he had a swastika on so that makes it political and it's free speech and now people have to get on their high horse to defend him and tut at people who react poorly to having obscenities screamed in their faces by a total stranger

[cedarbridge]

if you really want to get technical it's legally defined as fighting words, which are treated differently in each state

I swear to God if you use the words "fire in a crowded theater" I'm banning you from the server forever and I'll get the freg and the emu to let me.

No. Restrictions on 1st Amendment speech are not controlled "differently in each state" unless you consider different federal court districts to be different "states" and even then the difference is minimally important.

https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions- ... exception/

tl:dr The "fighting words" exception is more or less dead in American jurisprudence. The only place you'll find it still with any breath at all in it is if a guy literally gets up in another person's face and says "I'm going to hit you." or direct analogue. So yes, if I misunderstood the original point and we're discussing a guy literally threatening violence against somebody and getting in their face to do so, you would likely not get protection for that speech. If its just about anything else, there's no carve-out. There is no "nazi exception" to the 1st Amendment.

[Screemonster]

the fire in a crowded theater thing was the supreme court arguing in favour of censoring a journalist who criticised the draft, which is a totally different situation.

[XSI]

I'm not saying it's a good thing. Or a moral thing. Or even a normal thing to punch people who are clearly just looking for trouble. Ideally it wouldn't happen and people would just avoid causing shit, or maybe a policeman would come over and tell him to stop being a douche to random people or they take him along for disturbing the peace. And ideally they'd go "You know, I'm being a dick here. I should not do that"

But they went looking for trouble and they found it. Good job them. That's exactly what they were after and that's what they got.
I wouldn't have punched them most likely, but there's a whole lot of people with less patience than me out there. And it is very understandable if someone with little patience decides he's had enough of this random guy coming up to him and shouting at him in public and punches the guy
Not the right thing to do, and it's not exactly moral to apply violence to solve your problems
But it's going to happen because some people just are not in the mood for dealing with that shit and that's the easiest way to make the problem go away

[cedarbridge]

I'm not saying it's a good thing. Or a moral thing. Or even a normal thing to punch people who are clearly just looking for trouble. Ideally it wouldn't happen and people would just avoid causing shit, or maybe a policeman would come over and tell him to stop being a douche to random people or they take him along for disturbing the peace. And ideally they'd go "You know, I'm being a dick here. I should not do that"

But they went looking for trouble and they found it. Good job them. That's exactly what they were after and that's what they got.
I wouldn't have punched them most likely, but there's a whole lot of people with less patience than me out there. And it is very understandable if someone with little patience decides he's had enough of this random guy coming up to him and shouting at him in public and punches the guy
Not the right thing to do, and it's not exactly moral to apply violence to solve your problems
But it's going to happen because some people just are not in the mood for dealing with that shit and that's the easiest way to make the problem go away

And this is what I missed when I read the post the first time. I understood the complaint to be that he was "clearly looking for trouble" because of his dress. Where the guy was literally just harassing people on a bus and acting like a fool and literally menacing the passengers with a supposedly concealed weapon, he was probably not within 1st Amendment protections.

[lntigracy]

reading comprehension is hard