I’d recommend checking out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund when it comes to the dangers of restricting certain topics in fiction (including child abuse or child sexual abuse), and the dangers of censorship in general.
The US went over this before in the Aughts with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and the PROTECT act passed in 2003 (with certain parts of it later declared unconstitutional), and later with SESTA and FOSTA, which had a chilling effect, forcing closed online resources that sex workers used to protect themselves. The more recent bills like KOSA and the KIDS act are modeled similarly to close the internet as a vector of free speech under the premise of protecting kids from porn, with the intention to also silence subjects that are ideologically controversial, such as LGBT+ content, ( trans ideology ), sexual education material, women’s health information and political speech that criticizes the Trump administration.
I still submit that media should be restricted as little as possible. Yes, we should restrict CSAM that creates actual child victims (such as filmed CSA and deepfakes of real kids), in order to protect the victims. And yet, when we criminalize fictional depictions of CSA, it not only starts cutting into legitimate artistic content (such as A Game of Thrones, or The Sandman comic series, Superman 1978 is an edge case), but it then becomes very easy for conservative moral guardians to creep the mission and expand the list of restricted content.
i don’t think this is normalising, is it? if anything the tone of the tweet almost makes it feel like they’re offended that the two things are being compared.
not that i really want to continue the discussion (we agree that SA is bad and the people doing it should be put in prison) but isn’t this a bit like saying furry porn is pretty much the same as bestiality?
i mean… i’ve seen that kinda porn on furry sites. there’s a whole subgenre. usually the animals can talk, but they’re still animals. as in, not anthropomorphic.
I get the angle you’re going for: if Beast Boy from Teen Titans turns into an actual horse and fucks Raven, is it bestiality? The answer is, we have no precedent in law or morality for intelligent animals above the age of consent engaging in inter-species intercourse, so the response will depend on who you’re asking. That’s clearly not what I was referring to, though, and it feels like this is turning into whataboutism.
Lolicons and MAPS are both Pedophiles by any other name. Stop fuxking normalizing child abuse, drawn or not.
Are you Australian?
I’d recommend checking out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund when it comes to the dangers of restricting certain topics in fiction (including child abuse or child sexual abuse), and the dangers of censorship in general.
The US went over this before in the Aughts with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and the PROTECT act passed in 2003 (with certain parts of it later declared unconstitutional), and later with SESTA and FOSTA, which had a chilling effect, forcing closed online resources that sex workers used to protect themselves. The more recent bills like KOSA and the KIDS act are modeled similarly to close the internet as a vector of free speech under the premise of protecting kids from porn, with the intention to also silence subjects that are ideologically controversial, such as LGBT+ content, ( trans ideology ), sexual education material, women’s health information and political speech that criticizes the Trump administration.
I still submit that media should be restricted as little as possible. Yes, we should restrict CSAM that creates actual child victims (such as filmed CSA and deepfakes of real kids), in order to protect the victims. And yet, when we criminalize fictional depictions of CSA, it not only starts cutting into legitimate artistic content (such as A Game of Thrones, or The Sandman comic series, Superman 1978 is an edge case), but it then becomes very easy for conservative moral guardians to creep the mission and expand the list of restricted content.
“Drawn child abuse” is something new to me
Because it’s basically just thought crimes when they feel icky about it
And now I wait for people to accuse me of liking that stuff just because I’m not as dumb as they are
Are we just quoting big brother here?
i don’t think this is normalising, is it? if anything the tone of the tweet almost makes it feel like they’re offended that the two things are being compared.
The two things are pretty much the same thing though.
not that i really want to continue the discussion (we agree that SA is bad and the people doing it should be put in prison) but isn’t this a bit like saying furry porn is pretty much the same as bestiality?
No, it’s like saying drawn porn between a human and animal is the same as bestiality, which it is. A cartoon sheep is still a sheep.
Furries are basically alternate humanoids like elves. With your logic every time someone fucks with cat ears on then it’s a crime, nya.
i mean… i’ve seen that kinda porn on furry sites. there’s a whole subgenre. usually the animals can talk, but they’re still animals. as in, not anthropomorphic.
I get the angle you’re going for: if Beast Boy from Teen Titans turns into an actual horse and fucks Raven, is it bestiality? The answer is, we have no precedent in law or morality for intelligent animals above the age of consent engaging in inter-species intercourse, so the response will depend on who you’re asking. That’s clearly not what I was referring to, though, and it feels like this is turning into whataboutism.
It is. They’re mad because they don’t consider lolicon to be pedophilia.