ph0b0s123 said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Last I knew, the "virtual child porn" statutes were still upheld. I know the SCOTUS ruled and upheld it two years ago.
Which case was that? As I thought the last time they ruled on this was 2002 ashcroft vs free speech coalition. Which resulted in a law change as part of the 2003 Protect Act. But did not think the Supreme's had looked at it since. Not an expert, just spend 2 min on Wikipedia.
Now in my native UK the law is in no question on this, as in it there is no difference. But again has not been really 'tested'.
And before you ask (since some have been outing themselves recently), no I don't support loli, have any interest in that direction and wish it would go away. But I also don't think you can refer to things as loli all the way up to 18 as our UK law does. But anyway when you have side effects like thread, I think it bears discussing.
As my brothers 26 year old girlfriend just said when I explained the topic to her. 'What I can't have a character in the game who looks like me with my A cup chest, that's annoying and stupid.'
I think as a side effect of this some members of the female population may well have a discrimination case, but who knows.
I found the 2008 ruling (4th circuit appeals, not SCOTUS, my brain was elsewhere and SCOTUS is such an easy acronym) on the COPA with 2 seconds on Google.
Actually, one of the first links was TO wikipedia, and I quote:
The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "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".
So we've established, via Wikipedia, that the law we're discussing exists. Moving down a couple of lines....
On December 18, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.[47] The court stated that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists." Attorneys for Mr. Whorley have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court.[48][49] The request for rehearing was denied on June 15, 2009 and the petition for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court was denied on January 11, 2010.[50]
So it was upheld by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and will not be, as of yet, heard by the Supreme Court.
For now, it stands.
Since we're being preemptive here, I'll preemptively point out I'm not saying this is a good thing. I dislike the concept of making illegal something that "appears to be" child porn. There are some instances in which this bothers me, but there's a larger issue of that definition in my mind.
I honestly don't like either side of this case. Part of the logic behind both laws is that "it's impossible to determine the origins" of the art, that it could be based on a real child and thus a real child could be harmed. This goes against the concept of innocence until guilt is proven, and against the concept that the state should be burdened with proving your guilt.
Similarly, proposed piracy laws have tried to make accused pirates prove they aren't pirates. I am against this not because I'm defending piracy, but because such a law works from guilt and makes a person prove they're innocent, rather than making the police/feds/whatever assemble a case demonstrating actual guilt. That's a witch hunt.
Similarly, I don't like the thought of people having access to virtual child porn, but it chafes me delicate bits that the logic is "we can't prove it's NOT based on a real kid."
I still think a lot of stuff from Japan (for example) is pretty sick. I just don't think you should go to jail as a pedophile for reading it. This treads dangerously close to thought crime, as well.
As for a discrimination suit, because of avatar appearance in a game? I doubt it. Though more power to people if they want to try, I guess.
