Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Victor Wynne :tooters: (victor@tooters.org)'s status on Sunday, 05-Nov-2023 11:05:56 JST Victor Wynne :tooters:

   On October 23rd we defederated the instance `kasumi.loliimoutolove.com` for violating community rule 11 of Tooters by hosting Lolicon.

   While the legality of this content varies depending on the country you look at, it is federally illegal in the United States since the Protect Act (2003) added language which specifically forbids it.

   Now that our blocklist is publicly available any new suspensions we enact are monitored by numerous bots that broadcast it. The owner of ^ the domain noticed… 🧵

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Sunday, 05-Nov-2023 11:05:55 JST feld

     in reply to
     @victor
     
     first: yeah Loli is disgusting.
     
     > it is federally illegal in the United States since the Protect Act (2003) added language which specifically forbids it.
     
     I don't actually think this is true. I can find multiple lawyers website saying loli is not illegal and others where it says it is. It seems very gray area unless there is federal case law.
     
     e.g., https://anthonyricciolaw.com/is-lolicon-legal-in-the-us/
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Sunday, 05-Nov-2023 11:27:42 JST feld

     in reply to

     • feld
     @victor I'm just confused how the Protect Act could possibly supersede Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition -- that's not how it works.
     
     It seems to me like they're just trying to discourage it by threatening the public with obscenity laws and hoping nobody has enough money to hire lawyers for defend it (which would be quite an unsavory and difficult thing to do in the eye of the public). But if you really wanted to fight it and had the resources you should win easily. Congress can't override the SC here, so they're just trying to sidestep them
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Sunday, 05-Nov-2023 11:33:50 JST feld

     in reply to

     • feld
     @victor this ruling was also before the existence of our modern AI image generation models which ughhh 🤮 🤮🤮🤮
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@bikeshed.party)'s status on Sunday, 05-Nov-2023 11:48:47 JST feld

     in reply to

     • feld
     @victor okay yeah it's all down to obscenity and so far there has only been one person charged with violating the PROTECT Act:
     
     > Also in 2008, Christopher Handley, a "prolific collector" of manga,[28] pleaded guilty to charges related to the PROTECT Act, in exchange for a six-month plea deal, five years of probation, and forfeiture of his collection of manga and anime that had been seized by police.[27] He was facing a maximum sentence of up to twenty years. While not convicted by a jury, he was the first person charged under the PROTECT Act for the lone act of possessing art deemed obscene, in the form of seven manga graphic novels ordered from Japan. In the case United States v. Handley, district court Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act that criminalized certain depictions without having to go through the Miller test were overbroad and thus unconstitutional.[29] Handley still faces an obscenity charge.[30] Both prosecutors and defense attorneys noted that the plea deal was due to the high risk of a constitutional challenge, and the federal government agreed that Handley would not be required to register as a sex offender.[citation needed] A later ruling in United States v. Dean challenged the Handley overbreadth ruling because the Handley ruling did not prove that the sections had "substantial overbreadth".
     
     
     So it's kind of at a deadlock right now? They were afraid of having the Supreme Court knock it down again.
     
     What the hell man :bigwhat: