Update: New banner. Maybe it won’t get you busted outright at work. Haha.
I’ve been doing a lot of researching here. A lot of reading if you will. This is because of the recent talk I’ve been hearing about the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act thing. Let me just start out by saying that we will be posting loli all day every day if I feel like it. All day.
Anyway, the Adam Walsh child protection act is basically another one of those standard “we all agree that kids are good and shouldn’t be abused, but we somehow still don’t have proper laws in place to protect them” sort of acts. Article 5 of the bill has some people up in arms because of the section regarding child pornography. The bill, however, does nothing to change the previously accepted definition of child pornography(see US Code 18 Section 2256). If you don’t want to read that previous link, it basically says that child porn has to, wait for it, CONTAIN A CHILD, you know… a REAL ONE.
Furthermore, as relates to the PROTECT Act, even with the need to prove that something is obscene (which is legally impossible) section 504 was essencially overturned in 2004 with22.214.171.124/search?q=cache:g1NCFXSQzHsJ:www.cdt.org/speech/copa/20040629copadecision.pdf+Ashcroft+v+ACLU&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a" title=""> Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union(Google Cache, because PDFs are gay). If you don’t want to read the 41 page decision on the previous link, I will lay it out for you. Basically it sets post-PROTECT precendent that no law can be made abridging free-speech and (in particular) potentially offensive images are a part of free speech and are therefore protected-speech (or expression, whichever). Which means any legal action already has post-Act precendent, even though proving obscenity and lack of artistic value is on the prosecution in the first place.
That being said…
Oh, is that not good enough? Jesus Christ, you people.