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

[Rhila]

old anime were good like Dragon ball and some other shows. now everything is bad not only anime but everything else like movies and music are all terrible. we have a taste crisis in the world.

[Boblin the Goblin]

steven1mac původně napsal:

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.

Interesting thing about this case is it does involve images of real children.

So it looks like he's trying to remove only the charge related to the doujin he had received to make the category of his crime less severe.

[permanent name]

SlowMango původně napsal:

permanent name původně napsal:

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.

Someone blocked imgur links on my phone for me. So I can’t see that.

Why not link the justice website? You linked newsweek okay.

Maybe quote the post where you linked the justice?

[Boblin the Goblin]

permanent name původně napsal:

SlowMango původně napsal:

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.

Someone blocked imgur links on my phone for me. So I can’t see that.

Why not link the justice website? You linked newsweek okay.

Maybe quote the post where you linked the justice?

I did link the justice website, it's in my comment right here;

SlowMango původně napsal:

permanent name původně napsal:

“ 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.

justice.gov původně napsal:

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.

[Varsik]

No that would just be stupid ,also that anime is significantly more popular nowadays than 2003 so even less chances for this "law" to be real

[Boblin the Goblin]

Varsik původně napsal:

No that would just be stupid ,also that anime is significantly more popular nowadays than 2003 so even less chances for this "law" to be real

It's a real law.

The enforcement of it is a different story though.

[permanent name]

SlowMango původně napsal:

permanent name původně napsal:

Someone blocked imgur links on my phone for me. So I can’t see that.

Why not link the justice website? You linked newsweek okay.

Maybe quote the post where you linked the justice?

I did link the justice website, it's in my comment right here;

SlowMango původně napsal:

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.

Ah, I see. You edited it in, very well.

Obscenity charge. You can slap someone in a lower court for that, but it won’t hold up on federal appeal. Texas is infamously corrupt in this regard.

Anyway with the end of net neutrality only the website host is responsible for content, and they’re required to be issued a cease and desist not arresting the webmaster.

[Boblin the Goblin]

permanent name původně napsal:

SlowMango původně napsal:

I did link the justice website, it's in my comment right here;

Ah, I see. You edited it in, very well.

Obscenity charge. You can slap someone in a lower court for that, but it won’t hold up on federal appeal. Texas is infamously corrupt in this regard.

Anyway with the end of net neutrality only the website host is responsible for content, and they’re required to be issued a cease and desist not arresting the webmaster.

It was more than an obscenity charge. The charges he was convicted of are the same charges for CSAM content. It was also issued by a federal jury, not just on a state level.

The end of net neutrality did not do that. Article 230 is where websites get protections for UGC. Net Neutrality would have (supposedly) prevented companies from charging more to access 'high load' sites as part of your internet bill.

Regardless, do you have a source for SCOTUS ruling the PROTECT act being unconstitutional.

[permanent name]

SlowMango původně napsal:

permanent name původně napsal:

Ah, I see. You edited it in, very well.

Obscenity charge. You can slap someone in a lower court for that, but it won’t hold up on federal appeal. Texas is infamously corrupt in this regard.

Anyway with the end of net neutrality only the website host is responsible for content, and they’re required to be issued a cease and desist not arresting the webmaster.

It was more than an obscenity charge. The charges he was convicted of are the same charges for CSAM content. It was also issued by a federal jury, not just on a state level.

The end of net neutrality did not do that. Article 230 is where websites get protections for UGC. Net Neutrality would have (supposedly) prevented companies from charging more to access 'high load' sites as part of your internet bill.

Regardless, do you have a source for SCOTUS ruling the PROTECT act being unconstitutional.

No, just hearsay. Not interested in looking it up honestly; afaik it falls under obscenity laws anyway and the ruling simply established it as such. And also established that drawings of minors aren’t inherently illegal due to the lack of a victim involved. They’re simply obscene.

The only requirement for a federal jury to uphold an obscenity charge is for a lower court to convict. Infact it’s a mandatory part of the process and all the federal jury is doing is verifying that the obscenity conviction was legal. They aren’t passing judgement on the charge itself. It’s a reflexive action the feds have to take due to constitutional powers and fcc regulations over obscenity.

Net neutrality covered a variety of issues, and content protection and liability was one of them. Everyone’s content policing got a lot more aggressive following its repeal, and it’s one of the levers the government has used to get people banned from Twitter before.

Generally speaking the only form of censorship allowed in the us is obscenity censorship, so the government has taken as broad an interpretation of obscenity as possible in order to maximize its censorship potential.

Infact the only legal definition of pornography is the personal opinion of the judge. They could declare this post pornographic if they felt like it, and then pressure Steam into banning me or removing my post.

Whether a higher court agrees is entirely up to appeal, and generally speaking rogue judges simply convict people over and over until they leave the state.

[Shodan 2.0]

I doubt "all" because not all is (completely) degenerate (most is, though), but anyway, yeah, I sure hope so. I wish that ♥♥♥♥ would just completely go extinct and eventually be wiped from everyone's memories, though not in this generation, of course.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Shodan 2.0 původně napsal:

I doubt "all" because not all is (completely) degenerate (most is, though), but anyway, yeah, I sure hope so.

I never understood this mindset of wanting to ban fiction that isn't personally appealing to someone.

[Shodan 2.0]

SlowMango původně napsal:

Shodan 2.0 původně napsal:

I doubt "all" because not all is (completely) degenerate (most is, though), but anyway, yeah, I sure hope so.

I never understood this mindset of wanting to ban fiction that isn't personally appealing to someone.

It sucks and I would rather not have to see that ugly ♥♥♥♥ every now and then if I could choose.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Shodan 2.0 původně napsal:

SlowMango původně napsal:

I never understood this mindset of wanting to ban fiction that isn't personally appealing to someone.

It sucks and I would rather not have to see that ugly ♥♥♥♥ every now and then if I could choose.

You can(outside of some small exceptions) so why should it be banned because you are offended by it?

[Shodan 2.0]

SlowMango původně napsal:

Shodan 2.0 původně napsal:

It sucks and I would rather not have to see that ugly ♥♥♥♥ every now and then if I could choose.

You can(outside of some small exceptions) so why should it be banned because you are offended by it?

I didn't say it should, but theoretically, if I could somehow choose for whatever reason, hell yeah, I'd rather get rid of that ♥♥♥♥ than not.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Shodan 2.0 původně napsal:

SlowMango původně napsal:

You can(outside of some small exceptions) so why should it be banned because you are offended by it?

I didn't say it should, but theoretically, if I could choose, hell yeah, I'd rather get rid of that ♥♥♥♥ than not.

Shodan 2.0 původně napsal:

I doubt "all" because not all is (completely) degenerate (most is, though), but anyway, yeah, I sure hope so. I wish that ♥♥♥♥ would just completely go extinct and eventually be wiped from everyone's memories, though not in this generation, of course.

You are saying you hope it is banned right before wishing it 'would just completely go extinct'. You understand that similar arguments(for the children) were used when attempting to ban DnD or even when there was the giant push to heavily restrict/ban video games that portrayed violence?