All anime and manga going to be illegal soon for the USA?

[Cyber2B]

Was just randomly scrolling until I found this.

I'm assuming the United States will soon ban all anime and manga based on this law passed by US congress? Hopefully I am misinterpreting legalese lol.

Well if I read this correctly the anime industry is going to take a huge financial hit soon


In 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act, which stands for the, “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today” Act. Under the Protect Act, it is illegal to create, possess, or distribute, "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is ‘obscene' or ‘depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” (18 U.S. Code § 1466A). To clarify, under federal law, drawing and animation are considered child pornography, and you can be convicted for possession or marketing of such material.

I didn't know the animated characters were minors!

It is illegal to own or distribute a depiction in which, “an identifiable minor is engaging in a sexually explicit conduct” (18 U.S.C. Section 2256(8)(C)). The word “identifiable” implies that you must be aware that the character represented was a minor.

This means that the onus is on the prosecution to prove your awareness. It is thus possible for your lawyer to formulate a defense that you were unaware that the character represented a person under 18 years of age.

Source: https://www.bayarea-attorney.com/can-you-be-charged-with-child-pornography-for-looking-at-animation#%3A~%3Atext%3DTo%20clarify%2C%20under%20federal%20law%2Cor%20marketing%20of%20such%20material

[permanent name]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: permanent name

The article is poorly written and does not mention that he hosted images of all kinds, including drawings and stories.

I stopped doing reference work when I sold my firm in the 80s. So no, it’s not my turn to disprove the point you have failed to make.

Автор сообщения: NewsWeek

Trial evidence showed that Arthur had run a website called Mr. Double since 1996 and began charging people to access the site two years later. The site contained numerous stories about and drawings of children, infants and toddlers being r**ed, tortured and murdered.

Now please, share your source of SCOTUS ruling the PROTECT act unconstitutional.

“ On Thursday, Thomas Alan Arthur, a 64-year-old Texas man, was convicted by a federal jury for trafficking stories and images of child sex abuse on a website he had run since 1996.”

The article then talks about drawings and stories, in an unrelated note. Typical sloppy newsweek tabloid journalism.

Maybe you want a source that actually says what you think it says? I wouldn’t want to waste the court’s time disproving something that doesn’t exist.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: permanent name

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Now please, share your source of SCOTUS ruling the PROTECT act unconstitutional.

“ On Thursday, Thomas Alan Arthur, a 64-year-old Texas man, was convicted by a federal jury for trafficking stories and images of child sex abuse on a website he had run since 1996.”

The article then talks about drawings and stories, in an unrelated note. Typical sloppy newsweek tabloid journalism.

Maybe you want a source that actually says what you think it says? I wouldn’t want to waste the court’s time disproving something that doesn’t exist.

It isn't unrelated, it's literally evidence shown during the trial for his conviction.

That's why it says "Trial evidence showed..." and even mentions him by name.

The part I quoted was not from a different trial, it was all part of the same trial.

Just for reinforcement, here's an article[www.justice.gov] from a government website saying the same thing.

Автор сообщения: justice.gov

According to court documents and evidence introduced at trial, Arthur began operating the Mr. Double website in 1996 and began charging members for access to the site in 1998. The website was dedicated to publishing writings that detail the sexual abuse of children, including the r**e, torture and murder of infants and toddlers...Some of the author pages contained drawings depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

[permanent name]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: permanent name

“ On Thursday, Thomas Alan Arthur, a 64-year-old Texas man, was convicted by a federal jury for trafficking stories and images of child sex abuse on a website he had run since 1996.”

The article then talks about drawings and stories, in an unrelated note. Typical sloppy newsweek tabloid journalism.

Maybe you want a source that actually says what you think it says? I wouldn’t want to waste the court’s time disproving something that doesn’t exist.

It isn't unrelated, it's literally evidence shown during the trial for his conviction.

That's why it says "Trial evidence showed..." and even mentions him by name.

The part I quoted was not from a different trial, it was all part of the same trial.

Sure, but is he there because of the drawings or the kidpix?

The reason photorealistic stuff isn’t allowed is because it’s undistinguishable from the real deal and creates an enforcement problem sufficient to be construed as aiding and abetting criminal activity.

Stick figure children with adult appetites are only illegal if displayed in public, not on private websites.

Maybe you want to dig out the court filing instead of hoping newsweek did?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: permanent name

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

It isn't unrelated, it's literally evidence shown during the trial for his conviction.

That's why it says "Trial evidence showed..." and even mentions him by name.

The part I quoted was not from a different trial, it was all part of the same trial.

Sure, but is he there because of the drawings or the kidpix?

The reason photorealistic stuff isn’t allowed is because it’s undistinguishable from the real deal and creates an enforcement problem sufficient to be construed as aiding and abetting criminal activity.

Stick figure children with adult appetites are only illegal if displayed in public, not on private websites.

Maybe you want to dig out the court filing instead of hoping newsweek did?

Check the edit, there were no pictures of actual children, only drawings.

[Rotan]

afaik any sexually suggestive stuff on children has ALWAYS been illegal. This includes drawings/storys/anything else.

Which always makes me wonder how those rule 32 stuff exists...

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: Rotan

afaik any sexually suggestive stuff on children has ALWAYS been illegal. This includes drawings/storys/anything else.

Which always makes me wonder how those rule 32 stuff exists...

It's a huge grey area legally speaking. It honestly depends mostly on the individual state.

The reason it is a grey area is because it does not harm anyone. There hasn't been anything showing that drawings with that content actually bleed over into harming actual children.

There also is the issue of therapy. When AI Dungeon started prohibiting anything that involved minors and sexual content, there were a lot of users who claimed that, as victims of sexual assault when they were younger, they used AI Dungeon as a coping mechanism to go through their trauma in a safe environment.

[permanent name]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: permanent name

Sure, but is he there because of the drawings or the kidpix?

The reason photorealistic stuff isn’t allowed is because it’s undistinguishable from the real deal and creates an enforcement problem sufficient to be construed as aiding and abetting criminal activity.

Stick figure children with adult appetites are only illegal if displayed in public, not on private websites.

Maybe you want to dig out the court filing instead of hoping newsweek did?

Check the edit, there were no pictures of actual children, only drawings.

The article implies pictures, and cannot be meaningfully said to refer to drawings exclusively.

If this were a real court displaying the filing would be enough to dismiss your claim, but the judge would probably just ignore reality and force an appeal.

[talemore]

Hentai, not anime lmao

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: permanent name

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Check the edit, there were no pictures of actual children, only drawings.

The article implies pictures, and cannot be meaningfully said to refer to drawings exclusively.

If this were a real court displaying the filing would be enough to dismiss your claim, but the judge would probably just ignore reality and force an appeal.

Автор сообщения: justice.gov

According to court documents and evidence introduced at trial, Arthur began operating the Mr. Double website in 1996 and began charging members for access to the site in 1998. The website was dedicated to publishing writings that detail the sexual abuse of children, including the r**e, torture and murder of infants and toddlers...Some of the author pages contained drawings depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

You are claiming it isn't a 'real court' when I have literally linked the Department of Justice website's article pertaining to the case and conviction. There is no implication of real pictures in the whole article. If it involved pictures of real children, that would be mentioned in the article along with the drawings.

Despite all of this, you have yet to show an case of SCOTUS ruling that the PROTECT act is unconstitutional.

So, again I ask, do you have a source for that claim?

[permanent name]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: permanent name

The article implies pictures, and cannot be meaningfully said to refer to drawings exclusively.

If this were a real court displaying the filing would be enough to dismiss your claim, but the judge would probably just ignore reality and force an appeal.

Автор сообщения: justice.gov

According to court documents and evidence introduced at trial, Arthur began operating the Mr. Double website in 1996 and began charging members for access to the site in 1998. The website was dedicated to publishing writings that detail the sexual abuse of children, including the r**e, torture and murder of infants and toddlers...Some of the author pages contained drawings depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

You are claiming it isn't a 'real court' when I have literally linked the Department of Justice website's article pertaining to the case and conviction. There is no implication of real pictures in the whole article. If it involved pictures of real children, that would be mentioned in the article along with the drawings.

Despite all of this, you have yet to show an case of SCOTUS ruling that the PROTECT act is unconstitutional.

So, again I ask, do you have a source for that claim?

You linked news week and then changed a quote to justice.gov.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: permanent name

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

You are claiming it isn't a 'real court' when I have literally linked the Department of Justice website's article pertaining to the case and conviction. There is no implication of real pictures in the whole article. If it involved pictures of real children, that would be mentioned in the article along with the drawings.

Despite all of this, you have yet to show an case of SCOTUS ruling that the PROTECT act is unconstitutional.

So, again I ask, do you have a source for that claim?

You linked news week and then changed a quote to justice.gov.

I didn't change the quote, I added the justice.gov site and a quote from there that echoed what was stated in Newsweek.

Since you seemed so hung up that it came from Newsweek, I retrieved a more official source. There was no changing quotes, just adding more.

So please, share your source that shows that SCOTUS deemed the PROTECT act unconstitutional.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Автор сообщения: Rotan

afaik any sexually suggestive stuff on children has ALWAYS been illegal. This includes drawings/storys/anything else.

Which always makes me wonder how those rule 32 stuff exists...

Actually it's rule 34. What you just said means
"32. You must have pictures to prove your statements. rule 32"
I know the rules of the internet are bs and for fun but come on

[permanent name]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: permanent name

You linked news week and then changed a quote to justice.gov.

I didn't change the quote, I added the justice.gov site and a quote from there that echoed what was stated in Newsweek.

Since you seemed so hung up that it came from Newsweek, I retrieved a more official source. There was no changing quotes, just adding more.

So please, share your source that shows that SCOTUS deemed the PROTECT act unconstitutional.

You wrote a quote and attributed it to the justice department. That’s libel.

Please stop my counter suit by providing the link to where it says your quote on the justice.gov site.

[steven1mac]

U.S. v. Whorley seems to be the case that is the closest I could find, it looks like the decision is being appealed, but it was a case after the cares act was passed.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: permanent name

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

I didn't change the quote, I added the justice.gov site and a quote from there that echoed what was stated in Newsweek.

Since you seemed so hung up that it came from Newsweek, I retrieved a more official source. There was no changing quotes, just adding more.

So please, share your source that shows that SCOTUS deemed the PROTECT act unconstitutional.

You wrote a quote and attributed it to the justice department. That’s libel.

Please stop my counter suit by providing the link to where it says your quote on the justice.gov site.

I attributed the quotes to the proper sites. all you need to do to verify it is click on the linked websites and see.

I'll actually help you, here is a screenshot[imgur.com] from the Department of Justice website with the quoted text highlighted.

If you are still doubtful after that, there's nothing I can help you with.