/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Yes, you can thank Gordon Brown.

Your last part doesn't make sense...dressing like a slut was never illegal, why would it be for anime? You said clearly yourself its basically 'anything illegal in RL would be illegal for 2D" how do you follow that with 'scantily clad lolis is illegal?'

Yes.

everything is illegal in the UK

>>3729675
Bullshit, that law has so many gray lines it's almost beyond pathetic.

>>3729682
"Child model" sites are illegal in the UK, which are children dressed in swimsuits and short shorts and stuff.

Therefore, logically, if "Anything that would be illegal with IRL people is now illegal for cartoons" is now in effect, it would also be illegal to have pictures of lolis in short shorts and stuff.

The UK is virtually a police state now OP

It's basically just "If we catch you with drawn loli vaginas we will hold it against you". They're not going out and searching computers or monitoring internet traffic for it. Serves you right for not keeping your unmentionables on a removable drive.

You could say so.
But it's not like we care.
We're still going to fap to loli

>>3729698
That doesn't fucking make sense, since it's fictional.

>>3729698
I don't think so. Images like that at sites like that are, for lack of a better term, lewd and provocative - even if clothed. A loli walking down the street in a slut outfit however will still happen and is not illegal...So I don't see how non provocative and non lewd 2d characters would differ from that.

>>3729705
Welcome to the wonderful world of UK law my friend.

Why do people care so much about what the UK thinks? Loli's been illegal in Canada for years now, but no one who likes loli actually gives a shit. It's not like they're going to come for your loli unless someone reports you for some unknown reason.

Is guro also illegal?

>>3729714
Yeah Canada is great. Ask the guy who's life they destroyed for writing stories about teenagers engaging in sex.

>>3729714
Because they are also on about making it so the police can search your home and possessions without a warrant if "You are suspected of terrorism".

Given the UK police's current track record on abuse of "anti-terrorist" laws, including using CCTV cameras to hand out £80 fines for VANDALISING ****ING BINS, I'd say it's reason to be worried.

>>3729712
UK and Canada, taking your freedom since 2009.

You know what's illegal with real people? Murder. You can't show murder in a cartoon now.

>>3729724
>****ING
...

>>3729724

I always liked how the UK used anti-terror laws to withdraw money out of that bank in Iceland.

>>3729682
Dressing like a slut is "sexual".
"Sexual" images of children are illegal.
Thus, slutty-Lolis are illegal. QED.

>>3729705
Someone stood up in the house of commons and said, word for word, I shit you not,
"Can it not be said that, if no single child is a victim of this crime, then ALL children are victims of it?"

People cheered. Hundreds of them APPLAUDED that train wreck of logic.

>>3729726
No, it's illegal to murder someone, but it isn't illegal to show someone being murdered.

Pretty sure it just means hentai.
You said it yourself that anything in real life would be illegal in cartoons/anime.
Ever been to the beach?
Compared to that your pic is somewhat light.

I don't know the laws in the UK however.

>the police can search your home and possessions without a warrant if "You are suspected of terrorism"

This happens everywhere. Just because there isn't a public law about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

>>3729721
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm just saying nobody actually gives a shit about anti-loli laws. Nothing's going to happen to you unless you show extremely sensitive people you are looking at loli.
>>3729724
Oh please. It's not like the average loli fan would have a reason to be suspected of terrorism.

>>3729745
>Implying that you actually need to be suspected of terrorism to be searched under terrorism laws in the UK.

>>3729738
Whoops, I meant to comment on little girls wearing swimsuits and such at the beach, but somehow I just forgot that line entirely.

Well, there you go.

>>3729734
lol, so by their logic, it's better to have a single child be a victim than no child?

>>3729734
Are you fucking shitting me? They can't be that retarded and incompetent. Fictional is fictional, it's created in your mind and nobody should be able to judge that.

>>3729755
Yes, they are going to show up at random doors and do warrantless searches just because they feel like it. It makes sense.

>>3729762
This is where the "thought police" jokes and comments come from. Yes.. I know.

>>3729738
>I don't know the laws in the UK however
And it shows.

The UK's anti-CP law covers anything sexaully suggestive, not just pornography. There are exemptions for things where it's in-context as non-sexual (such as Donnie Darko's Sparkle-Motion scene, or Little Miss Sunshine's dance-routine), but if a still was taken of one of those scenes and kept seperately, it becomes pornography.

>>3729745
You don't have to be suspected of terrorism to be investigated under the anti-terrorism laws. The "reasonable suspicion" clause in them was deliberately made to refer to *any* crime being committed, rather than just crimes that fall under terrorism.

They routinely use anti-terror legislation to break up fuckin' house parties that get too loud.

>>3729762
>They can't be that retarded and incompetent.

We're talking about the UK here. This is run of the mill for them.

>>3729755

Unless you are muslim or Irish, its not really ever going to happen.

This is pretty much a model case of a "I don't like it, therefore it must be forbidden" law. Everybody knows this shit won't help one single child anywhere - it only exists to protect grownup normalfags from the feeling of being repulsed.

UK has been a trainwreck of a country for a while now, but if EU starts adopting this shit just to fit in, I'll go for the high score.

>>3729726
The law, as I recall, only concerns depiction of children. The fundamental problem is, how do you know any given image is a depiction of children and not just particularly flat-chested adults? There is, for example, XX gonadal dysgenesis where you never really develop secondary sexual characteristics. This new law is akin to saying people with such a disorder cannot star in porn.

The law doesn't even concern me given I neither have loli, nor enjoy it, nor even live in UK, but the sheer stupidity of it is astounding.

>>3729780
Actually, they also go after the odd middle-class white person, because all the sandniggers complained that just searching them was "Racist".

>>3729787
That's also covered. If they LOOK like a child, it doesn't matter what their back story is. They can celebrate their 18th as part of the show, but if they're flat chested, it's illegal.

And none of this is decided by the jury, it's level of wrongness is decided by whoever is putting the case together. The jury never gets to see the picture, they just get told it's "sick", and therefore it's pretty much a guaranteed guilty verdict if you get taken to court.

>>3729762
The official line is that pedophiles can use the art to show children something that appeals to kids (a cute character that they can identify with as another child, for example), and convince them to do the same thing they're doing (such as being buggered with a carrot).

It's complete bullshit, they don't have ANY evidence of plans to use it or cases where a similar method has been used, but that's standard procedure for the UK. Just like banning katanas when there was a spate of kitchen-knife stabbings.

They can't tackle the cause, because they don't know how, but they have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING.

>>3729787
I believe the phrase is "acceptable losses". They honestly don't care if flat chested shortarses can't star in porn anymore, so long as the next time someone says "Somebody think of the children!" they can point at this and say "We are! Look at all these DANGEROUS PEDOPHILE CRIMINAL CHILD RAPING MURDERERS we just caught!"

計画通り

>>3729811
They may as well ban all blunt, heavy objects, since any one of those could very well be used to bash someone's skull in.

Society is quickly going down the shitter. I honestly can't see us lasting another century.

>>3729823
Heh, I find it funny that the BBC of all people predicted that this would happen.

>>3729823
It's been so long since I've seen that show. That was a pretty truthful sketch.

I'm waiting for UK to ban bees because they can sting allergic people to death.

>>3729823
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

Next step: United Nations declaration of Fictional Human Rights.

I'm waiting for the UK to ban sex because the fetus might miscarry.

>>3729840
Soon people will be arrested for murdering fictional people by turning on the tv.

>>3729840
Marriage with 2D characters, fuck year!

Why don't the British people ever protest this kind of stuff? Are they just that cynical?

>>3729852
I adopted cynicism as a way of living a long time ago.

Tonight I'll fap twice as hard to my loli manga for you UK bros.

>>3729852
The majority basically have the mindset of:

"I'm okay with them taking away all of my privacy and rights, as long as they catch those damned terrorists and paedophiles!"

Those that actually care, and aren't just lazy fuckers, are generally too scared to protest, due to the fact protesting against anything "anti-terrorist" or "anti-paedo" basically brands you as a terrorist or a paedo in the eyes of the public.

>>3729675
>"Anything that would be illegal with IRL people is now illegal for cartoons"

Does this mean I can no longer play first person shooters now?

>>3729881
I'm fairly sure it only applies to sexual acts.

>>3729891
Depictions of violence against children is also verboten in the EU, but that's been around forever.

>>3729867
>>3729865
We shall all fap harder for our UK bros.

Seriously, it's amazing how people can become so ignorant when the thought "Think of the children!!" comes to their minds.

Some of don't seem to realize this yet, but these laws are also in affect in the United States.

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/05/26/american-guilty-of-loli-manga-possession-faces-15-years/

>>3729867

This

I'm actually writing a goddamn paper on this ATM.

>>3729902
Handley pled guilty, so there's no precedent set in that case. And even if there were, he was tried in a US district court, so you'd only be subject to the ruling if you lived in the Southern District of Iowa.

>>3729852
>Why don't the British people ever protest this kind of stuff?
How are we supposed to do that?

First, it's illegal to protest without a permit. Anything that's "inflammatory" is verboten. A bunch of people going out into the street and saying "We should have a right to watch [what everyone sees as] child porn!" is certainly inflammatory.

Second, even if you got every single person who likes loli in the entire country together, you wouldn't make up enough of a majority to sway ONE constituency's vote, let alone enough to actually effect the government.

>>3729912
>>First, it's illegal to protest without a permit. Anything that's "inflammatory" is verboten

WHAT

that's

how

but you

WHAT

Doesn't that mean that you're not, in practice, allowed to protest anything?
I mean, there is no fucking use protesting about things that don't upset people, is there? You have to upset people by definition.

>>3729912
This.

The Sun could probably hold entire nations at ransom by threatening to withhold page 3 nudes, ie barely-18 girls with enormous tits.

>>3729912

Weird, if you can't protest, then do you have anything like the ACLU that can fight it?

>>3729912

Call/Write your local Representative? I did once he seemed like a nice guy and thought bill I was calling in about seemed stupid too, so it worked out in the end.

>>3729909
There's not any precedents set yet in purely fictional cartoon drawings, the only precedents they have are from people who were caught with both lolicon and real child pornography.

However, that doesn't change the fact that it's still in the PROTECT act and that you can still be arrested and charged with it. If you travel with a laptop or other mobile devices, I highly recommend wiping them clean before entering airport security. Otherwise, if they decide to audit your laptop, you're fucked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

>Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).

>>3729923
We've got nothing. Best we can realistically do is write to MPs, and get a response along the lines of "You're too stupid to understand the government's great plans, so we're not going to stick up for you"

>>3729927
American here, but my representative is a total prick and so are my senators. Real fucking brain trust we've got in Congress over here.

Australian here. Glad I live in a country where they're too busy bending over kissing the indigenous folks arses to care about loli/etc

Although, there was recently (last year or two?) news about some kind of internet-censor/filter like China's.

>>3729894
Strange how this was the same continent that gave birth to Surrealisma and some other artistic movement...

Les Chants de Maldoror has some scenes that are on par with Black Cyc games. In one episode, Maldoror is taking a walk with his dog in a forest when he find a little girl sleeping. He loses no time in raping her and orders the dog to kill her off while he goes away to do some shit. The dog had other plans, though, and raped the girl himself... Maldoror returns right when the dog is ejaculating inside her. He is obviously pissed and starts chasing the dog for not following his orders. Well, you know how dog penises work, and th girl is tied to the animal by the knot as it runs for his life. She is beaten to a pulp before being freed. But things are not over. Maldoror decides to use her to relief his stress, so he proceeds to insert a long knife up her vagina. He opens a hole inside her, through which he methodically removes her organs.

>>3729929
Yeah, I'm aware of the PROTECT Act. But this -

> that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from

is the messy part. No one with half a brain (outside the prosecutor's office, anyway) is going to argue that your typical 2D image is nearly indistinguishable from an actual human being. But naturally that won't stop the government from sticking you with charges anyway.

We should all migrate somewhere and declare indepence. We could then become a heaven for mangaka and eroge company allowing them to create loli/rape/tentacle.

>>3729959
They will use "asset forfeiture" first to remove all your assets and any hope of defending yourself. This is the reason I want to kill all lawyers. They are the stupid fucks who write these laws.

>>3729705
It's extreme political correctness, it's characteristic of modern socialism and idea that branchs off even original marxism doctrine.
You having pedo 2d means you are pedo and we cant have that, papa state will help you. Even if goes against the original Human Right's principile of being free till you traspass other people's freedom.

>>3729971
We can buy an island.

>>3729927
Our representatives work differently to yours.
See, with the UK system, we have what are called "Whips".

In the US system, if his voters have asked him to, a Senator is allowed to vote "No" on something that most people in his party would vote "Yes" for. A texan democrat, for example, might vote "No" on new handgun restrictions. A californian republican might vote "Yes" on loosening drug laws. Slightly silly examples, but they illustrate the point well enough, I think.

In the UK, the Whips are sent round at the beginning of every important vote. They make sure that all the MPs (our equivalent of senators) vote in the direction the party leader wants them to. If they're planning to vote in the opposite direction, they're politely but firmly asked to be absent for the vote. If they still insist on coming in and voting against the party, they're sacked.

I'll reiterate that, to make sure there's no misunderstanding;

If an English MP does what his voters ask, instead of his party, he is ASKED TO LEAVE, then FIRED.

Obviously they're not so harsh about it for minor things. They barely get a slap on the wrist for voting incorrectly over a new bus-stop in Milton Keynes. But anything important, and even hinting that you might disobey is grounds for dismissal.

One such case lead to my second favourite quote from a British politician ever;

"I believe that, if a person if using his free speech against the government, that government has no obligation to protect his free speech."

>>3729997
Basically it's regulating mentality instead of actions. A Transgression of freedom but deemed worthy of the greater good.

>>3730005
UK doesn't even quality as a democracy anymore. They are simply fascist control freaks.

>>3730002
1. buy an island (steal it? I'm pretty sure we could snatch an archipelago)
2. buy a whaling ship (food and transport is securized)
3. buy a satelite (for internet)
4. ???
5. profit

>>3730005
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life. Why isn't your nation rioting right now?

>>3730033
A country full of lazy, unskilled workers sounds great.

There is an attitude in society right now that is apathetic to everything but what affects one human being personally. Then there is outrage, but only for a short time, until it is forgotten. Hence, small but equivalent rights are removed from the populace because most couldn't be bothered to care.
Politicians are only interested, in the most part, in furthering their own agendas than protecting and enhancing their people.

>>3730061
We could always be pirate even somalian can do it...

Mixed with this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6534319/State-to-spy-on-every-phone-
call-email-and-web-search.html

... it's going to be hilarious.

>>3730065

First they came for the child molesters. I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a child molester.

>>3730065

Egoistic disinterest is the rule of the day, and it's poison for democracy. The only way the people in power cannot rob you of your rights one by one is if you do get pissed off about things that don't even affect you, personally, but are against something you believe in.

>>3730031
Ya don't say?

>>3730055
Because this is how things have always been done. The majority of the country is united enough that the two main parties can differ very little in stance without any recriminations.

Imagine, if you will, if Obama had won the election with 80% of the popular vote, and the republican party disbanded as a result. From then on, every year, you only got to vote between the Democrats, and Democrats2 (Democrat Harder). 80% of the people would be happy; they wouldn't care that they don't get any real choice in their government, since the government is getting things more-or-less "about right".

That is the UK since Thatcher was ousted.

The 20% of people remaining, of course, would be absolutely pissed, just as they are in the UK now. There are frequent requests for right-wing protests made, but they're denied by the government/local police, and the completely-unarmed status of the UK's citizens means that any attempt at a "riot" never gets past 5 guys and a dog looking grumpy in the town square. Their only means of expressing their distaste is to vote for extremist parties like the BNP; they know they'll never get into power, but they vote for them anyway to show their displeasure with the whole system.

As for me? I keep my head down. No reason to get it shot off when I can just leave this shit-hole instead. Apologies for the long posts thus far, it's a situation I feel strongly about.

>>3730083
Like we see in France?
The government seems to be petrified of the people over there, and the latter riot and protest over the littlest thing.

What the fuck went wrong everywhere else?

>>3730085
Don't worry about it. Hell, I wish I could make a legitimate protest vote where I live, but we don't really get that option in the US, at least recently.

>As for me? I keep my head down. No reason to get it shot off when I can just leave this shit-hole instead.

This is pretty much how I feel. Going to be a few years until I can do that though. Realistically, the standard of living is far from what this thread might put in your mind and it doesn't affect you in daily life. But I can get an identical or better standard of living elsewhere without the terrible government.

Fuck this I'm moving to finland, the USSR made them worried about anything limiting freedom.

Anyway sage for my empty "threat".

Humankind is a wet stick of dynamite just waiting for a match and a few dry sunshine-y days.

>>3730068
Better yet move to Somalia and become pirates.

>>3730100
If I were a French politician I would be terrified of the country as well. They have a history of beheading people they don't like. Briton should probably start doing the same.

inb4 Québec

>>3730138
Forgot my image

>>3730146
Quebec is the worst province in Canada. Don't even think about it.

>>3730100
Apathy, mon frere.

The French are, as a people, very open to the idea of a "slippery slope". As much as it's a fallacy in formal debate, it applies all too often in the real world.

Whereas in most places people refuse to stand up for anything that doesn't affect them directly, in France it seems almost ingrained into their psyche that "If I don't stop it effecting him today, he might not stop it effecting me tomorrow." Whether it's a cultural memory of their banding together as The Resistance in WW2 or something reaching back far further, I don't know. Whatever the reason, the result is that they're far more willing to stand up for eachothers rights than anywhere else I've had the pleasure of visiting.

Now if only we could do something about them being, you know, French...

"62 Defences
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 60(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following matters—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;
(c) that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time."

So long as you only see your Loli as a side effect of visiting a site that posts it alongside legal things that you are plausibly interested in reading/viewing (for example, on 4chan) then you can be said to have not sought it, and this is a legitimate defense in court. Even if you fapped to it, and frequent communities where that kind of material turns up more often than in most other places. So we just need to hope that some kind anons will take being b& for us.

We're all fucked, aren't we?

I know I have some Manga that would run afoul of this law right now. Mostly straight shota.

I'm fairly sure I have quite a lot of things that are technically illegal now.

Wonder if they'll stop shops selling Elfen Lied, I'm sure somebody somewhere would argue the case that Nyu/Lucy is BLATANTLY UNDER 18

>>3730410
Negima falls foul of this law.

>>3730410
Whilst you could argue that there's little difference between people over and under the legal pornography age, therefore any drawn pornography at all is illegal... many people will say that's a bullshit argument.

I'm cynical enough to think that most of the people in my country will call you a pedo for so much as looking at a person under the age of 25 (unless you, too, are under that age), but I don't think they're vulnerable to arguments that anyone with breasts smaller thantheir head classifies as a child.

If anything, we'll have the Sun extremely angry that "fucking paedos" can get away with their "sick filth" because it happened to have breasts large enough to convince reasonable people that it was not an image "of a child".

>>3730449
Remember, they don't have to convince a jury or anything that it's "disturbing". Because it's classed as CP, it's up to some knob working for the police or CPS, I forget which, to decide. The jury never sees the pictures, they just get told that they're filthy and disgusting. Could be anything.

If this law ends up actually getting enforced, your life will basically hang on whether the police who are dealing with the case like you or not. Same could be said of anything TBH, but it's more blatant with this.

I know that flat-chested characters are illegal there no matter their age, but... what about characters who are under 18 and have a huge chest?

Dizzy, for example. She's not the kind of character I had in my mind I thought of this, but I guess she works.

>>3730426
That is not true.

"(6) An image falls within this subsection if it—
(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or
(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).

(7)
Those acts are—
(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;
(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child."
Mere nudity is insufficient to classify an image as pornographic, especially in light of the fact that Negima does not render details of sexual anatomy. No nips, no lips, no problem.

>>3730410


"61 Exclusion of classified film etc
(1) Section 60(1) does not apply to excluded images.
(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images;
and section 60(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image is pornographic."
The context of Elfen Lied probably excludes any contained images from being classified as pornographic. It is not a series designed solely for the purposes of sexual arousal, therefore it is not pornographic.

Wait, so if a cartoon character murders someone, is that illegal? Banned in Britain like guns? And then of course, you'd have to transfer that over from cartoons to video games and movies. So of course, Modern Warfare 2 would have to be banned, and just about every movie ever.

Now, you see how ridiculous that sounds right? So basically, no, it doesn't mean loli will be illegal. It just means that hentai featuring loli and incest will be illegal. This is still bad, but its not that surprising, what with the moralfag legions attacking 2D porn and video games like Rapelay.

>>3730529
This has already been covered in this topic. Thanks for playing.

>>3730471
Okay, then I presume that the authorities employs people who are somewhat reasonable, and have a sense of conscience that might persuade them that sending people to prison is not a proud thing to do save in cases where they are legitimately bad. The person in CPS/the police will probably not classify an image with breasts that are larger than a man's fist as an image "of a child" in my opinion.

Do you seriously think such people have a malevolent hatred of everyone?

>>3730553
Considering most of the police force these days seems to be made up of knuckle-dragging chavs and old people who don't know what's going on any more, I'm going to go with "yes"

I'll stick with my 1000 year old virgins

>>3730575

same

>>3730553
When it comes to pedos or anyone who can vaguely be thought of as such, yes.

>>3730607
Tewi, a virgin? hahaha

>>3730553
If there is any possibility that you might get hard thinking of a girl below the age of 18, most of the population of the world wants to torture you to death. That's just how it is.

>>3730607
Damn it Tewi's cuteness is miraculous

>>3730631

>>3730632
So every male, ever, deserves to be tortured to death?

>>3730661
Yeah, pretty much.

1984 was a good book.

>>3730661
I second this.

>>3731046
I don't think the political model would really work. In one generation, everyone would adapt to it, forget why the language was changed, and it would evolve back into a useful language.

>>3731230
Both predictions are true.

10yrs from now Japan will release its stuff with grandmas and shit like that.

Everything is illegal, you might as well just go and hand yourself in now.

Fapping to the loli queen as a sign of protest.

>>3731585

>>3731230
Both are true simultaneously.

>>3730354
(c)(i) is difficult, since you actually send out an HTTP-Request explicitly requesting that picture (although not exactly knowing what is hiding behind that URL). It would be stupid to interpret it that way, but then again US and UK laws/bodies of justice often boggle my mind.

I hate the UK. It's amusing to see the internet finally see what a shit hole the UK and Canada are. Too bad you guys had to have your loli outlawed for it to happen.

Good fucking game progressive socialism.

If you live in the UK you are now a criminal for having this in your temporary internet cache.

"Anything that would be illegal with IRL people is now illegal for cartoons"

So murder and violence is banned too?
Some try to get Road Runner banned!
Fucking Coyote can`t throw dangerous stuff at people.

>>3731204

Newspeak wouldn't work (because thoughts shape the language, not the other way around). But the rest of the cryptocratic totalitarian self-terrorism would work just fine. That's how states like North Korea can exist.

Install Truecrypt, problem solved.

>>3731777
Read the fucking thread.
The OP misinterpreted.

>>3731777
I'd stick the Coyote in a fucking mental ward, poor bastard just needs a fucking break.

>>3732359
*wrong answer buzzer*
You'd be forced to hand over the password by the court.
If you refused, the UK has a law that allows them to draw "negative inference" from any information you withhold.
In other words, if you refuse to give them the password, they're allowed to assume that you're doing it because it's full of CP.

>>3732377
fake partition full of gay porn and self nude pics, give the password and then cry screaming now you all know that I'm gay FUCK YOU ALL

>>3732377
Ahahah, what. What if I refuse with the statement of "You have no right to investigate into my privacy."

>>3732377

For fuck's sake, everything I hear of UK makes it sound like a horrible fucking place.

Back here in the civilized world there are laws that state nobody has to testify against himself, or otherwise assist in anything that might incriminate himself.

>>3732388

Not a defence, they DO have the right

>>3732390
Not only are you forced to incriminate yourself, you're also guilty until proven innocent.

What a bunch of backward facist savages.

>>3732392
Logically, they don't have the right at all. They're just individuals that think if you refuse them that you automatically have tons of CP.

>>3732398
>Logic

That has no place in politics

>>3732388
The UK doesn't have a constitution, and the European Human Rights commission doesn't cover this.

>>3732390
A lot of US states have "negative/adverse inference" laws too. Might wanna check up on that before you make sweeping statements.

>>3732398
The DO have the right because they're the fucking police. By remaining in the country, you're agreeing to follow the laws of the country. The laws of the country say they have the right to do that. Thus, they have the right to search every fucking thing you own, without a warrant, and if they can't find it then they're allowed to say "but we think he did it, so it counts as though we found it anyway".

There's no way of changing the law, no way of changing the attitude, and no way for most people who disagree with it to leave the country. We just have to fucking deal with it. End of story.

So much pessimism. I think we just need a charismatic leader to get behind, to fight for freedom. Anon, I choose you.

>>3732377
You're the one who needs to learn more. Truecrypt is meant to resist to forced disclosure. http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability

>>3732411
What a horrible world we're living in.

>>3732425
What if I just refuse the laws.

>>3732449
>What if I just refuse the laws.
The obvious answer. You might get away with it, or you might not. Depends on how much you draw attention to yourself, whether you piss of those in power, how cunning you are, how cunning they are.

First they came for the lolis, and I did not speak out — because I was not a lolicon

Privacy is dead. The facebook generation willfully gave that right away.

You can see this kind of laws coming all over the world.

Just a recent example: the law passed a few days ago in the Netherlands that vehicles must have a GPS device reporting how much (and incidentally, where) you drive so they can tax you (instead of taxing the oil itself).

>>3732431
So, a company's marketting > the law now?
I learn something new every day.

For truecrypt to give "plausible deniability", the person looking has to not know that it was there in the first place. The police have no such problem, as obtaining IP logs is piss easy for them. If they know it was there before, and it's not now, there's nothing "plausible" about it.

At BEST they assume that you deleted it instead of hiding it away in a truecrypt volume, which is still covered by (and closer to the original intention of) the negative/adverse inference legislation.

"Learn more".

>>3732449
You can't "refuse" negative inference. If you say "Not telling, I have a right to silence", they're allowed to stand up in court and say "lol, adverse inference".

It carries enough weight that the Supreme Court said, in 2004, that it should only be used in "extreme cases", since it wrecks the defence's case without any way to counter it.

>>3732471
>It carries enough weight that the Supreme Court said, in 2004, that it should only be used in "extreme cases", since it wrecks the defence's case without any way to counter it.

So it "proves" something without any evidence whatsoever, cannot be denied and should be used very sparingly?

...So that's what Umineko's gold text is.

>>3729675
Yes to all.

Let us begin by incarcerating university students.

Make a Truecrypt volume on a separate drive, fill 20% of it with gay porn, then make another hidden truecrypt volume inside the outer volume. Fill the remaining volume with what you want. Get arrested. Surrender the password of the outer volume. No way to prove the existence of the hidden inner volume. Claim you use Truecrypt because you're a closet homo.

>>3732513
Police assume you deleted the evidence instead.
Adverse/Negative Inference since you "destroyed" the evidence.

GG.

>>3732513

20% of gay porn is a lot when I factor in the AMOUNT of loli I have.

I need a solid number.

>>3732516
sounds like the medieval witch hunts all over again. awesome.

>>3732471
What the shit, so they're basically telling me to fuck myself for mentioning a law that states the right to refuse requests or be silent? I don't even anymore.

> obtaining IP logs is piss easy

Tor

>>3732545
STOP REMINDING ME OF IT, I WILL NOT USE IT ANYMORE.

>>3732534
Really? Videos are big, archives of images (I assume that constitutes most of your loli?) are relatively lightweight.

My pig disgusting 3D porn has overflown from my Truecrypt archives. Sizes of the latter being locked at creation.

> Police assume you deleted the evidence instead.

A drive with a fresh install of an OS would allow them to reach the same "conclusion". Any half-decent lawyer should get you out of this (assuming a real-world trial, not some sort of fantasy dystopia informed by 1984 and Phoenix Wright)

>>3732545
You're still sending your ISP the URL for whatever website with tor, aren't you? No? I need to look that up.

>>3732552
Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, eh?

>>3732556
They *know* you downloaded it if they have your IP logs (And they do.)
It follows that they *know* it was on your computer at some point.
Whether or not it's there now is irrelevant to them. Your lawyer can't get you off on grounds that basically amount to "but he changed his mind afterwards!"

I'm in the UK, and, as far as I know, loli in short-shorts are still legal. Loli in bikinis are in the grey area. Naked loli, loli in very sexualized outfits etc. are illegal. And, sadly, all guro is illegal.

>>3732563
ISP 's don't log requests but just the addr the gave you at what timeframe. Seriously the youth must be really fucked up. implying the ISP saves such data. Who the fuck is going to stand up for liberties in 10 years which such "citizen"?

To give you some idea of the kind of system the UK courts are;

There is a law that says that the jury has the option to say, instead of plain ol' guilty or not guilty, that the defendant is guilty BUT he shouldn't be punished.

The idea of the law is to prevent cases where someone broke the law without a defence that's already laid down, but was right to break the law.

For example, the man who was recently sentenced to five years in prison for turning in a gun he found in his backyard to the police (under "possession of a firearm" laws, since he was told to come and hand it in personally).

If the jury was told of this loophole, they would have probably voted for that almost unanimously. However, if a lawyer mentions it in court, he can be disbarred and forbidden from ever practising law again in any capacity.

THAT is justice in the UK.

>>3732581
As said earlier, that's where tor come in.

> You're still sending your ISP the URL for whatever website with tor, aren't you?

Only if you don't configure stuff correctly (some browsers bypass tor for DNS).

> ISP 's don't log requests
Of course they do. It's the law in most countries that they do.

>>3732581
>>3732581
>Your lawyer can't get you off on grounds that basically amount to "but he changed his mind afterwards!"
Oh really?
>Defences
>(1)Where a person is charged with an offence under section 49(1), it is a defence
>for the person to prove any of the following matters—
>(a)that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
I really have no idea what this could mean. But if I was on the jury I'd say fapping was most definitely a legitimate reason.
>(b)that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;
Prove you didn't know something... hmm..
>(c)that the person—
>(i)was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the >person, and
>(ii)did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
"I didn't know it was loli, I thought it was normal (lol) adult cartoon porn. So I deleted it."

>>3732469
That's right. We are closer to a cyberpunk dystopia than most faggets know and it won't take much longer until private companies will hire former military and police investigators to provide the public with IDP (Identity Protection) services no matter how the actions of some silly corporate controlled governments will look like as in most cases it won't help the public but some very private interests (hurr copyright durr).

>>3732607
>There is a law that says that the jury has the option to say, instead of plain ol' guilty or not guilty, that the defendant is guilty BUT he shouldn't be punished.
Humbly requesting info.

>>3732609
I know you're only joking/trolling, but it's a depressing thought that there really are people who might think this way.

>>3732607

HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?

>>3732588
>And, sadly, all guro is illegal.
Only the photo-realistic kind. I thought.
And the kind that fits in the new loli-ban.

> faggets
Waiting for you in a different board with a yellow background.

>>3732608
lol no but where the heck do you have such information? Do you even understand what gigantic masses of information you are speaking about? The only reason for ISP's in the police states of the west to not log any kind or request like HTTP or DNS are the costs of settting up and maintaining the proper infrastructure.

>>3732610
>cyberpunk dystopia

where is my 24/7 rain?

>>3732616
I'm serious. Not saying it'd work. It'd work with a jury full of bros!

>>3732626
Well according to some sources we might be entering a new ice age era in the next couple of years (unlike the HURR GLOBAL WARMING DUUR propaganda)

>>3732615
It's one of what're called the "Special Verdicts"
They're massively frowned upon in Criminal Cases, but used quite often in Civil ones.

I only took first year law, I don't know any more about it I'm afraid. I'm sure there's more information out there.

>>3732624
You do realise that there's an EU-wide law that DEMANDS that they keep those kind of logs for a minimum of 2 years, right? And that if they don't, they're not allowed to provide internet?

Directive 2006/24/EC, look it up.

>>3732637
>couple of years

As far as I know, ice age eras don't work that way.

>Just a recent example: the law passed a few days ago in the Netherlands that vehicles must have a GPS device reporting how much (and incidentally, where) you drive so they can tax you (instead of taxing the oil itself).
Not only that, as of 2010 students are forced to use a chip when they use public transportation services, logging all the times and locations where you've used it.
They keep that info for over 7 years to 'enhance the quality of the public transport net'.

How does one truly stand up for his own rights?
Do you have to write letters and reports to certain people? A demonstration perhaps?
I assume the media will have a lot of influence in what'll happen next.

>>3732607
Please tell me that this isn't true...

>>3732653
Cool story bro. I bet you can back up your claims ... and then a two year timeframe you say? Cool story bro. Nobody logs requests because it's to much costs for the ISP's. Period.

>>3732673
What? That's a one-off case. Now compare it to all the many horror stories you hear about US court cases.

>>3732663
Because you didn't understand what I was talking about. In fact according to this theory we are already right in the phase of the new era forming.

>>3732664
Wtf.

>>3732664
>I assume the media will have a lot of influence in what'll happen next.
The media have been mostly quiet about these recent porn bannings, extreme porn (violence) and non-photographic CP.
Silence is consent, no?

>>3732664
You haven't been able to purchase a train ticket in cash for ages now.

>>3732664
Dudes I told you this months before and was called a tinfoil. Keywords: Change, overpopulation, Climate change (hurr they changed it from global warming because there was no global warming durr), Sustainibility and Post-industrial era.
In fact they will drive down the standard of living in the west to a 3rd world country standard because of a couple of reasons we can only argue and speculate about. Some say the establishment doesn't want to waste the world resources in a highly industrial and technological era (means high output and demand) on the commoners, those filthy impulse-driven domesticated animals, their's property like in the good old days if you know what I mean.

The UN which was setup by banking interests from the Old Empire and the New Empire is delegating these issues and almost every member nation has signed treaties to go along with those programs.

How do you change the lifestyle of the modern world? Not with pleading and not with weapons alone. You domesticate the masses and change the surroundings of them. Without the technology and industry the masses will be poor again and once being poor and dependent on big brother you are pretty much easy to control.

The next step is world governance (hurr Obama durr is their choice same with this british war criminal to become the president of the EU) and the forming and interconneting of the three major Unions: NAU, EU and some Asian Union.

>>3732664
Are you talking about the OV-chipkaart? Because you can just buy the anonymous ones with cash. I mean, you won't be able to take advantage of your student discount that way, but it's anonymous.

>>3732676
>I bet you can back up your claims
>The exact fucking law that sets the minimum (which the UK expanded on) mentioned in my post

Nice ignorance, bro.

>>3732673
Whilst it doesn't mention the potential for the SV, the story is here;
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/art
icle.html

His lawyer might also have mentioned the Mischief/Golden rules which both force juries to consider the intent of the law over its exact wording, but I'm not sure how they work in regards to strict liability laws.

>Do you have to write letters and reports to certain people? A demonstration perhaps?
I assume the media will have a lot of influence in what'll happen next.

Welcome to the real deal world. Demonstration? Well I you like to get tasered and beaten up, then go and have fun.
Media? I hope you are not talking about the corporate media, those 5 major conglomerates controlled by the establishment?

>>3732727
Only for a short time to sell the public on this. You understand that hurr terrorists durr could just buy the anonymous one and terrorize the public right?

>>3732686
This sort of new laws doesn't even enter their radar. How do you make a good story out of that? New laws alone make for terrible stories. If the current affairs or the government won't supply a suitable narrative, there's no reason to cover non-stories.

Would be interesting to release a book on this topic, assuming any publisher would dare touch a theme about how poorly the government is dealing with laws.

>>3732729
You haven't proven anything. Spouting EU regulatins doesn't prove anything. The member states have to implement these regulations (or not when they feel like, in fact just postponing it to another administration) by making them into law.

Now show me legislative proof of major member state that obligates ISPs to log request data and to keep the data for two fucking years?

>>3732743
They can't get rid of it. Tourists need to get around. Netherlands isn't really hurr terrorusts either, sorry. They're control freaks who want to tax everything twice though.

>>3732746
>How do you make a good story out of that?
If the newspaper never wanted to sell a single issue again;
"GOVERNMENT PUTS FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON OUR FREEDOM, HAVE THEY OVERSTEPPED THEIR MARK? [by banning child porn]"

If the newspaper just wanted to sell copies, and let fairness be damned;
"VALIANT GOVERNMENT CLOSES LOOPHOLE THAT WAS ENCOURAGING PEDOPHILES TO COERCE YOUR CHILDREN INTO SEX"

Whilst neither would be exactly front-page material, it's pretty easy to make a story out of.

>>3732760
Checking it, the time period is 1 year. Sue me.

Legislation;
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/draft/5b.pdf

Note that while it's "voluntary", there has yet to be an ISP that refused to volunteer, and there's a provision under the law to force them to comply.

>>3732768
Of course it easy, the question is who would provide such stories? There is no incentive for any mainstream outlet to make it themselves when they could just cover some cute white girl who just died in a fire or some singing slut who just got dumped.

>>3732763
Of course than can. Tourists aren't some boundless entity. The west is in a process of standardizing for the means of easier control which is then being sold to the public as a service.

>>3732806
I was just giving examples of how they *could* write one, not saying that they should or that it'd be financially/politically sound to write one rather than that oh-so-important story about how the X-Factor twins are turning on the christmas lights in Welwyn this year.

>>3732804
Again requests are not being logged. Believe me. What you are telling me is what I already know. In the case of ISPs, logging practices are limted to add -> user and the timeframe the addr was used.

>Are you talking about the OV-chipkaart? Because you can just buy the anonymous ones with cash. I mean, you won't be able to take advantage of your student discount that way, but it's anonymous.
Yeah, I was talking about that.
The point is that you have to use the chip on your student-card if you want to travel without expenses (for the non-dutchies among us, students don't have to pay for public transport).
Now you can just show your ID to the busdriver and he'll let you walk through, as of 01-01-2010 that's impossible.

>>3732425
Just because your living within a State (Country) does not mean they are able to breach your fundamental rights. The law in the UK very specifically protects individuals from having their lives overly policed by the government i.e. Laws of ownership which forbade the government from seizing your private assets. The law also protects people from being discriminated against by sex, gender, creed, disability, class, and what-have-you.

If the police try to ask you to disclose anything you have the right to legal counsel and the right to remain silent. They would have to have strong evidence to convince any judge to trample upon civil rights and use the absence of evidence as evidence in itself. Simply said it would be a joke. It would be thrown out; the police concerned a laughing stock.

The average policeman would like you to think they can do whatever they want, but they really can’t. The system holds them to account. If a group of police, without a warrant entered my home, questioned me, took possession of my valuables for the purpose of obtaining evidence and then dragged me down to the station the following would occur. I would a. Assert my right to legal coucal. b. In the presence of legal council lodge a formal complaint with the department. c. Accept a formal apology and monetary compensation from court after lodging a civil case against the police department. d. Sell my story to the media e. The police involved are most likely removed from active duty pending disciplinary action and a formal review.

>>3730005
The US system does have Whips though. In the Senate the Dem's is Dick Durbin, Rep's is Jon Kyl. In the House it's Dem. James Clyburn and Rep. Eric Cantor.

They do the same exact thing. It's harder to "fire" them due to different rules but they find ways to really punish those who go against the vote. If it's a decently large topic those politicians just lost their career in politics.

Man I'm glad I live in the U.S.

Where loli is protected by the Supreme Court

>>3732831
Me again, but on another note, one of the many things that's possible and not related to logging services, is that the infrastructure is build to that any authority could get a read of all of your traffic without your knowing. Tapping the wires and or mirroring the streams with special devices at the last mile of your ISPs infrastrucure.

> the following would occur
a. You would be afraid and say something stupid
b. The policemen will punch you and arrested you
c. You are fucked for life

>>3732842
More like AND SUDDDENLY A SCANDAL IN MASS MEDIA.
Yeah that's how the establishments operates. If you are in a position of influence a go against an agenda of importance you will be wiped out. That's what intelligece agencies are for you know, spying on politicans and reportes are one of the most important fields of operation.

>>3732839
>Just because your living within a State (Country) does not mean they are able to breach your fundamental rights.
Do you think a criminal is somehow unable to 'breach your fundamental rights', due to law?

Law reacts and punishes after the fact.

>>3732848


Not with more women getting on the court.

>>3732865
Well, so far, in pretty much every case the Supreme Court has ruled that it's okay.

And it's pretty hard to overturn something once it's had a precedent set.

Granted, it could happen, but it seems unlikely.

>>3732865
A woman was the only politician who tried to stop the UK thing.

>>3732874
Doesn't mean it wouldn't be able to attack a similar case with another angle. That's how the court system works and because of retards the court system become more complicated with every year until the whole system collapses.

>>3732848
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html
I don't actually know if this law is in effect or ever was.
Front page says
>"This version is generated from the most recent official version made available by the US House of Representatives."
It bans loli.

>>3732863
I was speaking in regards to police and would have thought that was obvious.

>>3732859
You are obviously a ‘punk’ who's never been in a fight before. I'm not intimidated by police stand over tactics, furthermore I'm well aware of my rights as a citizen. Any police brutality visited on myself would result in a costly lawsuit for the police department, disciplinary action for the officers involved and huge media sensationalism.

That said evidence obtained through coercion i.e. Physical violence is inadmissible in court. So even a ‘punk’ like your fragile self would be okay.

>>3732925
Who let Arc post without his trip ?

>>3732925
Cool story bro but completely false. The authority is always above you so unless you can provide some hard facts like recordings of some hidden camera or from some mobile phone from a friend of yours, you will lose the case and charged with fines for resisting the authority.

>Them

>>3732925
>I was speaking in regards to police and would have thought that was obvious.
My point is: police (and politicians) can be criminals too.

>>3732938
I can't be bothered arguing the point. The police cannot brutally attack you anymore without consequence this isn’t the bloody 1980's. Stop watching cop shows; they can't go at you with phone books any more.

>>3732937
"I'm sick of just liking people. I wish to God I could meet somebody I could respect.”

>I can't be bothered arguing the point.

I see what you did there

> You are obviously a ‘punk’ who's never been in a fight before. I'm not intimidated by police stand over tactics, furthermore I'm well aware of my rights as a citizen

bro u hardcore

>>3732969
Of course they can, when all the witnesses are fellow policement

>>3732966
Rarely... This isn’t Afghanistan or Iraq where talking about. You may consider me optimistic but I'd say the majority of the law enforcement and political community are law abiding, just as with the majority of overall populace.

>>3732995
It's been shown, in the UK at least, that the majority of the people who make up our government are basically criminals, but are protected by different laws than normal people.

>>3730502
Doesn't Ky gives her hot-dickings in Overture?
(I've not played it, it's clearly shit)

And on the other end of the scale. I don't think "she's 1,500 years old, officer" is going to work.

>>3732992
It comes out eventually. One complaint may not be heard, but two or three; it’s just a matter of time before police committing brutal acts are dealt with. Not to mention that if your covered in bruises after police ‘interrogation’ it doesn’t take a rocket scientist of a lawyer to make a decent case.

>>3733000
If you’re referring in regards to the recent tabloid scandal regarding the financial claims made by many ministers on the public purse, well I couldn’t agree more. Thankfully the pigs are being made to manage the trough from now on, so the gouging of public funds should be less severe. That said I doubt many politicians would wish to cover-up for police brutality or want anything to do with it quite frankly. Much easier to deal with the less publicly sensitive topics then get involved with potential political bombshells.

>>3733044
It's a slippery slope. If it helps them get what they want, I'm fairly sure they'll try to cover up pretty much anything.

>>3733000
Yeah; like how they were stealing amounts of money that outside of Parliament would have you done for embezzlement, but apparently, it's okay for them to do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlXbUatPc-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPseyY0Vg0E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp0pPiJhCE0

>>3729958
Funny how i thought of a couple of mangas i saw, when reading that phrase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk

>>3729675
Over 200 posts and no source?

>>3734313
Can't tell if troll

>>3732626

>>3734545
None of the links in this thread contains the op's information.