/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Where are you going to go to discuss weeaboo shit now? Gaia?

>>4808110
slowpoke.jpg

this went into law last october

Just use a proxy you paranoid fool and you're ignorant if you think any more people are going to be watching you then there already were.

Thought crime! Thought crime!

>>4808120
The bill it was part of was passed, but not all sections of it went into immediate effect. Some of it was immediate, other sections like the relevent ones here were delayed until they were brought in by the command of a secretary of state. The details of the relevent section (section 62) being brought in on Tuesday are in the link.

>>4808134
read it again - its been in since last year.

England, literally the worst country on Earth.

>>4808147
Literally?

This is just one of these things they throw in to make it look themselves look good to the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" crowd.

In reality, its almost impossible to police. Its the kind of thing you'd be charged with if they found real kiddy porn or some shit and needed some extra charges to throw at you.

Also, do you really believe our government or our police are competent enough to enforce this? I sure don't.

England is not a bad country... it's just that the politicians are a bunch of cunts.

>>4808157
unironically even

>>4808137
The bill was passed, but not everything came into force at the same time. Do I have to post the relevant parts here for you?
Lrn 2 UK law.
SCHEDULE Provisions which come into force on 6th April 2010

1. Sections 62 to 68 (prohibited images of children).

>>4808147
>>4808168
>Implying England is a country

>>4808190
It is... although it's part of the UK.

I really wish the government would work a little harder trying to catch actual actual child molesters and not waste their time trying to censor artwork. It's fucking insane. They are drawings. HERRRRRp.

>>4808185

>(so far as it is not already in force)

learn to fucking read retard

>>4808205
no they are 'imaginary children' and as such need our 'protection'

>>4808164
Well for now, I imagine the majority of convictions will be from people turning their partners/children/relatives/friends/neighbours/parents into the Stas^H^H^H^H police here.
But combine them with recent plans for internet monitoring, the old RIPA and whatnot and you have a pretty dangerous combination.

Thank god that i dont live in a shitty country like the UK

I brought this up years ago when it was first being considered and none of you wanted to stand up for yourselves, so now eat the fruits of your labour.

At least I'm not affected since I don't live in your shithole.

Do you guys at least have something that allows stuff with literary or artistic value to be exempt?


The US obscenity laws may be among the worse laws ever put into place (from a legal standpoint, they are so incredibly vague and one cannot know if doing something will violate the law because of the constitution shredding concept of "community standards"), however it does make sure that something with artistic or literary value could not be banned (unless it was illegally made, such as including actual child porn).

>>4808205

They do in that the police divisions that work in cyber crime and specialize in cp are very skilled at what they do. These laws neither help nor hinder them as it is not their business to go after abused drawings.

This is something that would be slapped onto an offender as an afterthought no serious resources are actually going to go into seeking out offenders.

>>4808205
Because it's easier and gives the illusion of action. People are fucking gullible, just yell a bit about children, education and protection and you've won a shitton of votes. It doesn't matter if your actual plans are to drastically cut the budget for education.

>>4808227

Do us a favor and think about how your ideal opposition to this would have gone about making themselves heard, play out the scenarios in your head.

>None of it applicable to Scotland.

Hooray.

They can't get me, I've got Norton.

what i dont get is, it is not like there is a lot of child molester incidents i have heard of, why making new laws etc for this
another show-off then, huh
hope it wont get all the way in my country
not like someone will abide to or execute this anyway too

>>4808261
It was up to YOU to act, since you live in the damn country. And I know plenty of ways, I've been engaged in such mobalizations in my own country too.

But of course you losers rather stay inside and let other people tell you what you can and can't do. I guess you deserve what you get.

>>4808212

Except all that internet monitoring BS has nothing to do with protecting imaginary children. Its about appeasing the record companies that want to somehow stop piracy.

I still stand by the view our government and police on the whole aren't competent enough to enforce this. And the few places that could do it have better things to do than rounding up a bunch of nerds with anime porn.

>>4808281

Oh I have nothing to do with the UK but do tell about your efforts, I am very interested in what examples you've set.

>>4808283
This.

ただのイギリス
誰も気
ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ

>>4808281
Who in their right mind is going to storm the streets admitting to the public that they're lolicon NEETs, And in the fucking UK of all places?

>>4808241

...and that's good but to make it illegal for some ronery otaku to have doujinshi is pretty messed up.

>>4808283
thats pretty short sighted,
just cause it can't be enforced now dont mean it cant be later.

>>4808323
If your only counterargument to their bullshit law was "But I like to look at lolicon, don't do this to me please!!" then you were never able to defend yourself from it.

If you have trouble thinking of valid arguments why the law is idiotic (and in that rationale they posted at the very beginning, they said things like "we won't ban real art" - that's fucking easy to contend) then you must be mentally deficient.

Again, you deserve this if you were too scared to defend the principle of artistic freedom just because "oh noes they might call me a pedophile!!"

>>4808352
Simmer down, Chicken Little. This shit has been going on here in Soviet Canuckistan for a while. They don't give a fuck either.

Even if they did, there is always a way around it. Deniable encryption, for example.

>UK

Enjoy your no rights police state. Guess you britfags should've read 1984.

>>4808399
The irony is that a Briton wrote it.

>>4808399
I look forward to the prolefeed eroge.

>>4808205
but they dont really want to do anything useful
they want to do something that makes the voters (or most of them) happy.

>>4808357

You're pretty spiteful for someone who does not claim to be personally affected by this so let’s take a different tangent. How about they deserve it not because they were too quiet, but they were not quiet enough. It should never be in the public sphere and the people who talked about it and helped this subculture grow are to blame for even pretending that this could ever be acceptable.

There is that route, the one that escapes detection. Or there is your idea, engaging the issue publicly through thin veils, and relying on the flawless defense of artistic integrity that has won so many legal cases (heh).

>>4808484
They created a crime where there is no victim at all. It's not harmful to anyone, no way you can see it. On the other hand, if someone is prosecuted because of this law, his life could be ruined, all because some politicians wanted to look good with a certain crowd. I think this is sufficient for a defense.

>>4808484
>You're pretty spiteful for someone who does not claim to be personally affected by this
I don't like seeing people's rights being taken away because of moralism. I'm sorry for having beliefs that I stand for.

>It should never be in the public sphere
True.

>and the people who talked about it and helped this subculture grow are to blame for even pretending that this could ever be acceptable.
You're a fool if you think this wouldn't happen eventually.

>flawless defense of artistic integrity
The way you treat it almost with disdain shows how you could never use it as a defense, as you yourself have even been brainwashed enough to no longer believe in its value.

>that has won so many legal cases
It has where I live. You're American, I take it?

>>4808525
To add to my last point: a video of some "rapper" beheading a doll of a controversial politician was allowed because of artistic freedom.

That's far more worthy of being banned than sexual drawings of kids that don't exist, made for losers who don't even get out of their house.

>>4808525
Artistic value has actually won a decent amount of cases in the US. He's probably British.

>>4808110

>>4808551
That's true, although parts of the US still have those ridiculous obscenity laws.

"You can watch porn, but if it is not deemed acceptable by our community standards, we'll jail you for it."

>>4808525

I am aware where it has worked in the US and I agree that this was bound to happen. You have to realize though how exceptional the legal protections are in the US; commonwealth nations don't enjoy the legal resources that you do.

I think however that keeping it out of the public sphere is an idea that can continue to work even when the legal case is lost or the law is passed. On an individual level people can still protect themselves especially in this digital age.

>>4808577
But at least in the US, one could never ban stuff like Cross Channel and Sharin no Kuni (and countless other VNs) that could be banned by laws in other countries, as any attempts to put such a ban into place has been shot down as being unconstitutional, and VNs like these can always argue literary and artistic value.

>>4808262
Really? Feels good to be a Scot.

>>4808594
>I think however that keeping it out of the public sphere is an idea that can continue to work even when the legal case is lost or the law is passed.
Yes, absolutely. This is really all the fault of those kind of people I saw at n4c years ago who were discussing they wanted to buy shirts with "Flute in A-minor" on it, or otherwise making "Loli is a lifestyle!" statements.

>On an individual level people can still protect themselves especially in this digital age.
Exactly. Just download (don't buy physical copies) and encrypt your loli and nobody will ever find out. Unless they start monitoring people visiting loli sites, but then there's still Tor and I'm pretty sure they're more focused on shutting down/infiltrating actual CP networks.

>>4808605
The American Constitution is one of Americans' most valuable rights. It is sad to see how many of them treat it with so little respect. They'd sell their rights for some temporary, or even imaginary, safety. But of course, every society is like that, humanity is mainly composed of idiots.

>>4808207
That bit is referring to a completely different section. The parts relevant to our interests have not been commenced in any way yet.

>>4808931
>Unless they start monitoring people visiting loli sites, but then there's still Tor and I'm pretty sure they're more focused on shutting down/infiltrating actual CP networks.
Actually, I believe they'll be happy to take anything they can get. In the press it'll still be "Pedophile with 1 million CP pictures busted", and it'll make the government/law enforcement look good in the eyes of the public.

Also, when up against the government, I wouldn't trust Tor as it's too easy for government to setup nodes and monitor you anyway (given how small the Tor network is, especially the amount of exit nodes). I'd probably go with foreign (as in non-western countries) VPN providers who have a monetary incentive to not cooperate with foreign law enforcement.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_insects_and_their_laws/

You're an idiot if you didn't move out of the UK twenty fucking years ago.

That is all, enjoy that broken-glass government dildo up your ass, limies.

Note that whilst a great deal of sexual activities are covered by the leglislation (even things like intercrural sex, table rubbing and armpit sex would be covered), it doesn't cover everything. So it is still completely alright to play hanakanmuri and fap to a girl getting whipped in a school swimsuit, or eaten by plants.

>>4810582

>insomnia.ac

and people say /jp/ is better than /v/.

>>4810990
What's the problem with that link?

I love how
>2. Section 69 (indecent pseudo-photographs of children: marriage etc).
is right next to
>3. Section 70 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes).

IN HER high-school uniform, neatly brushed hair and sweet smile, the young girl represents the innocence of youth. Next she is naked, having sex and seeming to enjoy it. The manga, or comic book Puru-Mero (Jiggle-Melons), picked up at a convenience store, is meant to titillate. But although children are depicted sexually, the images are not illegal in Japan, because they are illustrations.

This may change. The Tokyo municipal government plans to vote on March 30th to amend an ordinance against child pornography to include “non-existent minors”. Much Japanese porn comes in forms that escape rules covering photos and videos: manga; anime (cartoons); and video-games. Existing bans are meant to protect the child victims. “Virtual” porn—where there is no harm to a real person—is illegal in some countries to protect public morals and ensure a safe environment for children. Last month an American court sentenced a man to six months in prison for possession of Japanese manga child pornography.

Alone among developed countries, Japan makes no serious attempt to combat child pornography. Producing and distributing it is illegal; possessing it is not. The police have a poor record of investigating and making arrests, though this is improving: last year it investigated 935 cases, a 38% increase from 2008. Still, sexually explicit material of girls of uncertain age is ubiquitous.

Part of the problem is a lack of consensus on what constitutes child pornography. National legislation was proposed last year to outlaw possession of child porn as well as the virtual variety, but it floundered. Some lawmakers opposed strengthening police powers to snoop. The ruling Democratic Party of Japan plans to put forward legislation in June. With slow progress at the national level, Tokyo’s politicians chose to act.

>>4812381

The proposed rules, vague and rambling, do not amount to an outright ban on explicit illustrations of minors, but do prohibit their distribution to children under 18. Yet the wording is unclear. Illustrators fret it will be used to criminalise the content itself. The legislation also applies to dating-simulation video-games, in which the goal is a graphic sexual conquest. One, RapeLay, lets players choose their victims, of any age.

The push for tighter rules is led by Shintaro Ishihara, the conservative governor of Tokyo, who made his name in the 1950s as the author of salacious novels, involving sex among minors, that his own legislation might outlaw.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15731382&source=most_read

;_;

>>4812381
>>4812383
Economist, I am disappoint.

>>4811624
How the hell is a drawing a psuedo-photgraph? It's a frigging drawing.

>>4811624
Well, once they've totaled up all the pictures and videos a typical /jp/er would possess, the sentences would be on the same level.

This is doubleplusnogood.

As expected from a country who rage over RapeLay

>>4814531
It makes me want to snuff it. 2D in England is nothing but huge groodies.

>>4814560
what
speak anglish fucker

breaks the WORLD WIDE prvacy laws of the net (basically 'cant look at your shit'). LoLing so hard.
lemme know when that law is kicked

im gessing thats gonna happen in the year 2kNEVER

lol britfags. 4chan will be a better place with them gone.

these laws only cover recreations of actual cp in cartoon form... gg fag dredge the net for some more british laws to troll over m'kay

euro's/amerifags save your tears for /int/

love brittania

How about we should start making steps to put all of our shit from public eyes? Better now than never.

Websites like Hongfire/Saha/Fakku are getting too big, sooner or later they will get taken down by the moral police.

>>4812381

expect japans birth rate to rise meteorically

pedophillia is a mental disorder enjoying it in any way is wrong, sick fucks get off 4chan we don't want lolicons

everyone on 4chan is a lolicon, or highly accepting of them

>>4814638
I prefer shota.

shotacons are here too then. good to have all sides

>>4812381
>Producing and distributing it is illegal; possessing it is not.
Is this real?

>>4814611

I assure you, that most of the people on 4chan are either pedos, or accept pedos.

Calling a sexual attraction a disease is just wrong. It's... it's... CATHOLIC!!!
You're being way too closed-minded about things. GTFO moralfag

>>4812383
at least the comments are filled with reasonable people

>>4814667
It was real, whenever that article was written.

>>4814578
No, they cover any drawing of someone who appears under 18 in any sexual activity. Just read the article:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/2009/cukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62

>>4814686

The irony is that 'Catholic' means 'all-encompassing'.
Obviously you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church, but it's funny that the word actually means the opposite of what you're using it for there.

Well, 12 hours to go. Time to run through srm on the last remaining files, and then run a through random wipes on the drive.

>>4816808
You should just disconnect your modem and smash your computer, because with all the CP spam 4chan gets, you'll probably end up in jail anyway.

>>4808399

yeh well they've always been rumors that he was in the know with goverment agencys about there outlook and general plan for the future of britian.

>>4816826
Yeah, because the MASONIC ILLUMNATI KNIGHTS have been planning this since the 1940s.

>>4812381
>pernicious
>causing insidious harm or ruin; ruinous; injurious; hurtful: pernicious teachings; a pernicious lie.
How do drawings cause anyone any harm? Is logic banned in Britain?

>>4816832
>Is logic banned in Britain?
Have you ever been there?

>>4816839
Thankfully (it seems now), no. I don't think I'll ever visit it if the people there are this stupid (plus the fact they banned one of our politicians from entering the country in order to appease their own minorities - that was really the point where I had no longer any good words for Britain left).

So wait, Scotland is completely unaffected by this?

You know realize you are living in a 21st century police state. Welcome and enjoy your stay

>>4808212
That's the whole deal and same thing happened in Nazi Germany. But one should fear more the millions of eco fascist and the soon to be reality paradigm shift where eco brigades will run around and dictate what you may eat, drink and consume and what not, everything for mother earth. Look up the advertisement spot that aired during Superbowl and caused a shitstorm around the globe. That's the final destination and it draws nearer with every second.

SWEET!!
The more pedophiles in jail the better.

This kind of shit happens because people have no balls and just let the politicians do whatever they please.

If politicians tried to ban anything in my country, I'd do something, I don't know what yet, but I know I'm ready to die to protect the most important thing in the world : freedom of expression.

Welcome to 1984.

I'm pretty sure the Met have better things to do then looking at my Internet all day and I really doubt they'd be able to pass a sentence with such a bill outside of the "obscenity" law.

They tried this before and it was thrown out by the law lords because it was part of a larger bill (which at the time Sankaku failed to mention because it is a pathetic news source) where the government could decide which pictures (of anything) were illegal and legal, so it was rejected. House of commons passes stupid laws every week and the Lords regularly throw them out.

This is rarely mentioned because our media is probably the worst in the world outside of the BBC (which ironically, is the best in the world), all the newspapers print completely untrue bullshit. The Sun is literally Fox news in paper form, except it has tits on page 3. The reality is that people who don't live here know nothing of our legal system and even the majority of people who do live here also know nothing of our legal system. Its pretty hilarious when I see /new/ talking about Britain and 90% of the things they say are completely wrong, but apparently aren't because they took 6 months in a side course degree in american law.

>The Sun is literally Fox news in paper form, except it has tits on page 3
What.

>>4817217
it was the lords that created this ammendment - its been debated there and passed

>4817184
protesting isn't allowed here already, if you dont 'register' your protest in advance with them they'll arrest you

>>4817217
This went through all the stages in the Lords and Commons last year. It is the law, from the turn of April 6th.

And are you really expecting any sort of common sense from the British authorities regarding this?

>>4817217
Ahh, denial. Next come to the tears.

I see no problem in banning disgusting child pornography.

>>4817223
The Sun typically prints pictures of topless women on page 3 of every issue.

>>4817227
>protesting isn't allowed here already

What the ? So you can't protest, can't buy guns, there are cameras everywhere. What can you do to oppose the politicians ? Is the UK really a police state now ?
Damn... I'm glad I don't live here.

>>4817228
That is probably because this isn't part of the previously mentioned bigger law which was rejected. I don't see a realistic prospect of a conviction because its vague and art groups have already threatened to challenge the law because it curtains artist freedom. Quite a few famous art pieces here would be considered illegal under this new bill. If this gets to the European court of human rights (which it will if the high court disagrees, it will) it will get overturned.
>>4817223
Newscorp owns them both. In fact alot of newspapers here are owned by newscorp and alot of them are crap.

>>4817265
These 0/10 trolls are getting annoying.

>>4817282
You think I'm trolling? The more pedo scum rotting in prison, the better.

>>4817263
>I cannot refute the points in this arguement so must resort to insulting

>>4817277
>Is the UK really a police state now ?
We weren't exaggerating when we said this thousands of times before.

>>4817286
Your points were already refuted, bro. I'll be enjoying your delicious tears in a while.

>>4817277
>UK really a police state now
No more than the United states is. If I recall you aren't allowed to just show up in a large number of states in the US and protest without getting planning permission from the state.

>>4817304
They have to close off traffic to the area you are protesting in, it's just a safety issue. They can't turn down protests based on that is being protested.

>>4817278
Have you ever read the European Humans Right Act on Freedom of Speech?
It has a get out clause allowing you to limit speech as much as you want, so long as you dress it up as protecting national security, protecting the populace, protecting morality or any other in a list of vague reasons. It will still stand. Besides, Labour were perfectly happy to ignore the EU in order to maintain fingerprints of people who were arrested but never charged with anything.

>>4817278
Protip: All big media corporation conglomerates are corrupt and controlled to a certain degree and stop this silly good guys - bad guys game of yours or were your silly liberal marxist hatepriests publications opposed to the wars and invasions? No they weren't because they had been bought off in the marketplace.

>>4817286
>arguement

>>4817310
LOL
That's like saying the constitutions (if they have them unlike Germany) of all western nation states should be modified to the point where freedom of speech must be withhold until the authorities made sure that safety is guaranteed

>>4817335
As if that isn't already the case.

>>4817335
That's why you aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, yeah. If your speech can cause immediate harm, the state is allowed to step in.

>>4817342
>implying you can't yell "fire!" if there is an actual fire
British logic, always protecting the citizens!

Please don't judge all of the UK by Daily Mail readers.

>>4817342
Not the same commie. The proper example would be that I would have to get a license to voice my opinion on public figure xy after the authorities looked through the case and gave their approval.

>>4817347
Actually, the implication was that the fire wasn't real. If there's an actual fire, sure, knock yourself out. And I'm not British, I'm from the US.

>>4817351
No, it is the same. They stop large protests because they are afraid people are going to get trampled to death by the protesters. They don't really care what you are saying.

People from UK, please do something. I'm sure there are Russian weapons dealers even here. Buy AKs and go show these motherfuckers ruling you that you mean business.

>>4817359
Your example is still wrong, because if you yell fire when there isn't one, you're spreading lies. Spreading lies, for example by slandering, is not allowed in countries that allow freedom of speech either. We're talking about someone voicing his opinion, and it only being allowed after authorities have deemed it "to not cause civil unrest".

In Europe we are very close to becoming like this, the UK already being like that. Be glad you live in America, your Constitution is one of your greatest allies.

>>4817367
You must be stupid. Nobody cares if some people get trampled on. It starts with approvals, then with the ban of general strikes because it's so dangerous, people might die and children get lost herp derp durr hurr and then with further restrictions on free speech up the point when freedom of speech doesn't exist any longer

>>4817382
Yep, that's it. Still allow freedom of speech, but only in a theoretical form. In practice it becomes impossible, because of bullshit regulations, like "it's too dangerous to allow uncontrolled".

>>4817367
yeah but strangely enough - they don't have to justify why one protest is allowed over another for 'safety reasons' and the appeals process is very very long - basically they can ban what they want on those grounds alone.

its easy to say 'oh they wouldn't use such laws for that!' but don't forget the first thing that counter-terrorist surveillance legislation was used for after that was passed, was for cheking people were using the right bins and school catchment areas.

By the way, piracy has been illegal for a long time, yet no one ever gets prosecuted for downloading xbawks games.
The authorities can't monitor our browsing, and our ISPs are not inclined to release information regarding clients.

>>4817503
As if the "Protect the children" couldn't force ISPs to monitor their customers for everything and anything.

>>4817503
distribution/uploading is illegal - possessing/downloading is not - and yes folks have been arrested.

>>4817537
But since torrenting and most other filesharing programs these days require you to upload you are always breaking the law.

There are very many games that feature killing people, getting away with it, and rewarding the player for it. There are innumerable movies that glorify slaughter and death. Some of them routinely brush on what might amount to child pornography if one was determined to press the issue.

It is legal and not abhorrent to kill digital Wehrmacht soldiers, or run over grannies in GTA, but to rape a digital underage girl (I am deliberately going with the "worst lolikon can offer", even though a lot of tamer stuff than loli rape could and will be interpreted as CP) is so deviant that you should be in prison for 10 years?

By these standards Nabokov and Lewis Carroll would be thrown in jail.

>>4817715
Well, Lewis Carrol really could have been thrown in jail, he liked to take photographs of naked little girls.

>>4817734
Nudity != Pornography.

Not that you'd be able to explain that nowadays, where parents get locked away for photos containing nudity of their children.
It's pretty sad that things have regressed further than in the Victorian era.

>>4817734
>Well, Lewis Carrol really could have been thrown in jail, he liked to take photographs of naked little girls
No, he couldn't have, you idiot. It was considered perfectly undeviant. Her father gave consent. Photographs such as these were perfectly normal at the time, considered a form of artistic expression.

In fact, the only people who would be offended by these photographs are the ones who are actually sexually conscious of little girls. People who see girls as non-sexual beings would be seeing nothing inherently wrong with photographs of nude children.

Yes, it is hideous to inflict sexual harm upon sexually immature children. It is also hideous to inflict sexual harm upon cats. Is photographing nude cats therefore a crime?

The western culture has battered into your head that photographing naked little girls is inherently something that is universally flawed and was such for the entire duration of human existence in all civilizations and all times. Which speaks more about the western culture than your average otaku paedophile.

>>4817814
Naked little girls are sexy, though. Naked cats, not so much.

>>4817828
A cat is fine too, etc, etc.

>>4817828
A cat is fine too.

>>4817108

SCOTLAND, FUCK YEAH !

Everyone hates on SNP, but when we realise how many of the shitty english laws we get to evade becasue of them, it makes me proud !

>>4817828
So you like little naked girls. That's fucking ok, as long as you don't commit an actual crime (as opposed to a thoughtcrime). It's not something to jail people for. If I get a boner for lobsters or telephone poles that's just as much of a deviation. Oh, and because I just know some wiseass is going to pull the old "But you can't hurt a telephone pole! A little girl would suffer should you decide to escalate and live out your fantasies!":

Suppose I jack off to pictures of Carmen Electra or, fuck, Conan O'Brien. I am pretty sure neither of them would be willing to let me fuck them. I mean, I am a good looker and all that, but let's be realistic here. So by that logic if I ever decided to live out my fantasy I would need to rape Carmen Electra or Conan O'Brien because consensual sex is out of the picture.

Therefore jacking off to Carmen Electra is a crime tantamount to child pornography.

>>4817874
I think posting naked images of Carmen Electra on the internet would be a crime.

>>4817880
I apologize for the pig disgusting 3d, just making a point.

m00t is personally logging the IP's of every person in this thread, and tommorow sending them to Interpol, enjoy your jail pedos.

>>4817911
I'm pretty sure the FBI already knows about this IP address. They haven't done anything yet.

>>4817911

Good luck, im behind over9000 proxies

>>4817911
It's a good thing that criticizing government policy isn't grounds to get arrested.

Oh, wait, who am I kidding, we're in England.

>>4817911

But m00t is a pedo...why would he betray them...

Firstly to any American saying the British government should read 1984, I'll give you a hint, they already have. Labour decided to use it as a manual for ruling the country.

....

On a slightly more serious note this won't come to much. If someone gets solely arrested for it, the first thing that will happen is "lol european court of human rights". The police won't be specifically going after it either.

Also most people shouldn't be worried because until the IWF (http://www.iwf.org.uk/ , yes we have an internet filter, we were one of the first to put one in. We're also the only country that will ever do it right. Albeit I don't doubt at some point it will be abused)starts treating this seriously. When English people can't access sites like danbooru due to the IWF, then you can worry about police state.

>>4817814
The problem with taking naked photographs of people is that you need their permission. Now, minors don't have legal rights since they aren't above the age of majority. Does this mean that parents have the right of consent for them? If that were true, adoptive parents would have total right to have sex with their adopted children.

>>4817924


You can, they call it terrorism, 30days without charge, think they cant forge some evidence fueld by tabloid outrage in that time ?

>>4817937
oh also While I'm on it, there are cases of paedophiles with more than a couple of thousand cp pictures being given a sentence of 6 months, with the possibility of parole. What do you think saya no uta will get you considering the previous example as a control. Obviously I'm not advocating breaking the law in any shape or form. That would be wrong.

Also
>then you can worry about police state.
was only in reference to this case. We should be worrying about our police state a lot. Considering we have politicians that lose unencrypted data CDs at least once a year.

>>4817937

IWF is not a mandatory filter, ISPs opt into it, theres no law requiring any ISP to use it, they choose to, plus it only filters around 500 sites and every time its tried to censor things (wikipedia) its been defeated and had to backtrack.

>>4817995

>implying saya no uta is CP...

>>4818021
>implying anyone else would know

Its illegal in the UK to deface a bank note with the queens picture on it, but how many times do you see ripped and written on notes ? alot...

Theres lots of stupid legislation in the UK, but thats all it is, legilation, policiing such trivial crimes is impossible, there just there to satisfy the crazys who read daily mail and the like.

>>4818021
The law in question associates the two one and the same. It was an example of what the judge would probable sentence you with.

>>4818012
That's my point. When it starts to censor such material, then you know how seriously the new law is being taken.

>>4817278
>If this gets to the European court of human rights (which it will if the high court disagrees, it will) it will get overturned

Except the European Court of Human Rights can't overturn national courts.

>>4818021
The law in question associates the two one and the same. It was an example of what the judge would likely sentence you with, keeping in mind the sentencing for actual cp.

>>4818012
That's my point. When it starts to censor such material, then you know how seriously the new law is being taken.

>>4818042
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_treaty#Fundamental_Rights_Charter
They wouldn't piss off Europe for cartoons. Well the tories might.

>>4818039


Court room :

Prosecution : This is an image from the Video Game "Saya no Uta", as you can see, the girl in the image is clearly in a sexual act and appears to be underage, I rest my case.

Defence: The context of this image is worthy of mention, *cites context, compares with other vidya, moveis, novels* so as you can see, comparing this to child pornography is redundant and redicoulous.

Judge : Defendant Innocent, Case Dismissed.

Defendant sues CPS (lawl CP) for psychological trauma, wins thousands.

>>4818096
I forgot about this too. As long as the age is ambigous it would be pretty costly to go under the court proceedings trying to convince a jury. Also considering the art style is based on exageration, and orientals are much often shorter, younger looking and have flatter chests.

>>4818096

Court room :

Prosecution : This is an image from the Video Game "Saya no Uta", as you can see, the girl in the image is clearly in a sexual act and appears to be underage, I rest my case.

Defence: The context of this image is worthy of mention, *cites context, compares with other vidya, moveis, novels* so as you can see, comparing this to child pornography is redundant and redicoulous.

Prosecution: This is an innocent child being shown participating in depraved and disturbing sexual activities. Anyone who likes such a thing is clearly a pedophile, and if you don't agree with me, it means you are a horrible fiend who wouldn't mind if your own children were raped by a pornography fueled maniac.

Jury: We find the defendent guilty of all charges

Judge: 5 years in the cooler with you, sicko.

Tabloid Press: Pervert convicted for disgusting "pseudo-photgraphs" of children in acts too heinous to even mention.

>>4818122
>As long as the age is ambigous it would be pretty costly to go under the court proceedings trying to convince a jury.
Yeah, especially with the existing pedo-paranoia and brainwashed jurors.

Yeah, the only issue I have with your new sex-law really is if there's secret blacklists of things you can get in serious trouble for. THAT's not how western law is supposed to work, and is a bad idea as well.

Otherwise, you just would have to pirate all your 2d/dfc stuff, which I'm sure you do anyway.

Guess I gotta get as much as I can and put onto external external hardrive before this gets into effect.

>>4818198
Why are you even here on /jp/ if you find this funny.

>>4819004
I do not find this funny. I was merely parodying his post and societal attitudes in order to emphasise how ridiculous the idea is that a British court would be behind you playing loli porn games.

Well, looks like this is our final hour in Britain. Hopefully someone will stand up to the ever growing encroachment on personal freedoms and privacy in Britain and it'll get repealed before the Quartett! English translation is released.

Why do people care so much about what I masturbate too? Fucking assholes let me fap in peace.

Oh this WILL be fun.

No way it's going to be enforced. I'll carry on downloading my H-games and whatnot thank you very much.

>>4818198
>>4818096

Both are incorrect. The images are never shown in court, the prosecution just tells the court how horrible and obscene they are. This means there's no chance of a fair trial once the CPS has made their mind up that you're guilty.

>>4820573
Yeah, check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/22/six_second_clip/ for an example of what they're like.
In one dropped charge, the CPS managed to conveniently "forget" to mention that the tiger in the aforementioned clip was an animated Tony the Tiger, and turned around at the end of the clip to say "That beats the hell out of doing adverts for a living". Presumably the man on trial had to risk contempt of court to let this be known, though I'm not quite sure how this was revealed.

If for example you had this image on your hard drive, if you were unlucky they wouldn't mention any of the context behind it, and you'd have a tough time trying to persuade the court that the people involved were over 18, against an overzealous prosecuter claiming that they clearly looked like under-18s. Or using the clause that it was from a wider narrative of images in your defense when posessing the game would be illegal so no one can show it to the court.

>>4808164
Our government and police aren't even competent enough to stop real CP, the only times they catch anyone are when either the criminal makes a huge mistake that gets them caught, or another country alerts them to it. This law is going to do shit all, and even if they did intend to enforce it, they'd fail, especially with the "Unreasonable amount of time" clause.

>>4820671
So if it IS enforced, we're fucked, basically.

Just have to pray that the theory about it never getting enforced, and only being brought in to make EqualityNow slags stop stalking people is true.

>>4820696
This has been in the works since this time 3 years ago. Long before the Equality Now crap, and Labour have been wanting it even longer. I'm afraid to say this being pushed through is completely unrelated to Equality Now, and a lot more related to Jacquie Smith and Harriet Harman being screaming nutcases who only got a chance to go for their seats because they were women.
One of them is down, but the other is still very present.

>>4808110
>The push for tighter rules is led by Shintaro Ishihara, the conservative governor of Tokyo, who made his name in the 1950s as the author of salacious novels, involving sex among minors, that his own legislation might outlaw.

Proof that all legislators are hypocrites that should be tied to railroad tracks and left for dead.

>>4820719
Not for long, hopefully. With and luck, the Conservatives won't care about it.

I'll just wait for a month or two and keep check if anyone has been arrested over loli. If not I'm just going to carry on doing my thing.

>>4820719
Not for much longer, with any luck the Conservatives won't care about it.

I am however interested in whether they'll enforce it for Shota, or just Loli, seeing as the whole thing is a femanazi shitfit.

So we've got like 18 minutes until this comes into effect?

Nice knowing you, /jp/

>>4820775
17, actually.

>>4820775
Just stick it out. I'm pretty sure they put a ban on violent porn but they didn't arrest people for brousing porn websites.

Sucks to be you, Anons from England... You're welcome in France whenever you want. We still produce French comics with naked loli in it, so you definitely won't have any problem here.

>>4820775
I think you're overreacting, the police have better things to do than go after people with drawings, like people who go on real CP sites and those who stalk and lure over internet ect.

>>4820795
The media completely lost interest in the violent porn ban after they got to make a freakshow out of all the "perverts" out protesting, so there's a possibility there have been some people prosecuted under the ban.

Plus this is essentially branded as child porn. The overwhelming public attitude to the violent porn ban was "We don't care what people do in their own bedroom, but we don't care about the ban going through either because it doesn't affect us." This is going to have the words "Child" and "Porn" in the same sentence, and the media will likely have little difficulty painting it as a new ingenious anti-pedo measure.

The media controls what the public think, and the mass of ignorant fools that make up the majority of the public decide what laws are enforced when it comes to things like this. If the media manages to create enough hype over it, it will definitely be enforced.

The fact it has yet to be mentioned by a single large media outlet is however a good sign that they don't care.

>>4820844
There have been prosecutions under the Extreme Porn Act:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/01/extreme_publications_update/
>Over the last 12 months, there have been approximately 26 cases involving extreme porn: the approximation lies in the fact that we have some evidence that police have been using the charge as a "quick and dirty" means to deal with individuals selling dodgy (animal) DVDs – and that would inflate the overall tally by an unknown number of cases.

Also, I'd expect the press not to make any noise until the first convictions/cases of this. Then it depends whether its a slow news day or not as to whether you'll be crucified by the tabloids.

And so the shadow falls across England...

>>4820795
They're not going to arrest people for browsing porn sites when this law comes in, there's a clause that states they can only prosecute if the picture has been on your PC for an "Unreasonable amount of time". Going from the meaning of this in other laws, if you delete images almost instantly and remove them from your recycle bin, it's not illegal. Images encountered browsing the internet are exempt too, as long as you don't download them, just being in your temp files isn't enough for you to be prosecuted.

So basically, you won't get locked away for browsing Exhentai or whatever, but you might if you have lots of Visual Novels. Visual Novels should come under fair use, but knowing the CPS' creative methods of evidence presentation, they probably won't be exempt.

I didn't read the thread, but I'm guessing this turned into a "police not being able to enforce" vs "it shouldn't be a law anyway" thread?

>>4820903
I'm pretty sure repeated searches for loli on exhentai are going to get you v& now.

>>4820888
This is looking good so far. Assuming the loli bill follows the same pattern, they won't be actively searching for people breaking the law, they'll just be using it to get a bit of extra time for people who have committed real crimes, unless it's in response to a complaint by a member of the public.

>>4820914
Pretty much.

It looks like I'll have to delete my nekomusme folder...

>>4820903
The unreasonable period of time clause is about images you received without prior request. So if you send a politician a parcel full of Wanyan Agada's best works, you can't shop them the moment it arrives. However, if you go browsing not4chan without saving, your about as likely to be able to get by with that defence as if you used the section that exempts you if you have a legitimate reason to posess them, and claim that wanting to masturbate without any intent to hurt other humans counts as a legitimate reason.

From the law:

64Defences

(1)Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(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.

>>4820917
They're most likely not going to be actively searching for people, so it's unlikely. ISPs don't monitor you enough to see your search terms and whatnot, and can't without a warrant, and won't do it without being forced to by the courts, because it's a pain in the arse for them. The courts won't issue a warrant without evidence. The only way they're going to get any evidence will be if somebody you know IRL rats you out, or if you've committed another crime that allows them to go through your stuff.

>>4820914
Mixed in with a little bit of /jp/ - Legal / general.

They will do some show arrests before the election. It Labor after all thy are just doing this shit for votes.

>>4820944
They can go through your stuff without needing any justification under anti-terror laws, and then use what they find to convict you. And order you to disclose your encryption keys under RIPA when searching your stuff under anti-terrorism legislation.

>>4820959
Realistically speaking, the whole randomly invading your privacy using anti-terror laws only applies if you're not white.

They still need a reason to suspect you even then. The only reason this could possibly happen would be if somebody IRL tells the police about you, because they're certainly not getting the info from your ISP.

Having no bill of rights is very nice for the police.

>>4808147
You spelled Australia wrong. This shit has been law for quite some time there.

>>4820943
Would be easy to claim you stumbled across things by accident. Simple solution is to visit sites that host normal manga too, loads of them are licensed for sale in the UK, so it would be a decent defence.

Or it would prompt them to over-react and ban manga from sale too. Only one way to find out.

>>4820976
Even if we had a bill of rights, Daily Mail and Sun readers would have dismantled it if the government said it would protect against terrorists and paedophiles. That's how this stuff works in the UK.

00:18 right now, I'm still safe.

>>4820994
Another reason to hate Rupert Murdock's jew ass.

>>4820995
Me too bro. I'm even casually browsing /d/ and no secret police have broken my door down yet.

>>4820995
>>4821009
Reported to the English police.

>>4820978
really?, only thing I've heard thats even relevant to this in Australia is the plan to filter EVERYTHING for children, I haven't even heard of that since Jan so i'm assuming it fell through, over than that I'm unaware of any other laws that allow them to beat your ass for drawings.

>>4820995
>>4821009

This is nothing more then a Feminazi/New Labour circle-schlick. The Police in this country are over-worked and under funded, several ISPs are opposed to the Govt's plan regarding future restriction of the internet and most people won't give a fuck. A few profligate downloaders might be snatched up and given show trials in order to drum up support for Brown's govt right before or after the Election, but that'll be it. If you don't actually buy or own physical copies of loli doujins and mangas, you'll be safe.

>>4821061
So the best option would be to lay low until after the election I suppose. 6 May 2010 is the date I think.

Actually, right after the election the risk still exists that the government is going to decide they want to start their term with a moral crackdown to drum up some support for their next wave of invasions into our privacies and freedoms. It's more of a risk if labour get reelected, which is almost certainly not going to happen, but still possible with the tories. Still, you're a lot safer than you are in a pre-election run when Labour are desperate for any kind of support, no matter how low they have to go to find it.

>>4821236
Time to set a personal best for longest time without fapping.

>>4818198
British courts aren't allowed to show the image in question. They have to verbally describe it.

>>4821825
"Take our word for it. I fact you must. It the law." Fucking bullshit.

>>4821825
Good god I want a transcript of that if it ever happens.

>>4821274
No personal stash to get you through the hard winter?

>>4821919
It happens all the time.

They never give proper descriptions, they just give a vague description and overuse words like "obscene". As was said earlier, it's pretty much impossible to get a fair trial if the CPS wants a prosecution. The jury never gets to look at it, and the prosecution is allowed to use words which apply to opinion rather than fact to describe it.

>212 posts and 17 image replies omitted.

I hate you all

>>4821977
I still want to see a transcript. I imagine descriptions of loli pictures would translate hilariously into formal courtroom language.

>>4821919
How would they describe shitting dicknipples.

>>4808109
cＨＲiｓtｏPＨＥＲ Pｏoｌe (ａkA ＭOOｔ) Ｈaｓ Ａ MｅＮTAl ｉlLｎEss. ｔＩnY.4cHａn.ＯrG ｉS AN ILlＥGａl ｃｌＯne OF wＷW.aＮONTＡLk.ＣOM. ｒＥＭoＶE ＩＴ ＩｍｍEＤiＡＴＥｌY. and ＳｔＯp dDｏｓｉｎg uｓ!

OwS ZｑｒＴｎY ｂ EO zｗ kFｏＺｘ Ｑ SZ t ＳＷ IＰＫＬmS ＰｚJV JＮｍrF hａ ｎ ｅ ｉ Ｔ aｌ ｕ h o f Ｇwoq P ｑ Ｊ t C mｙ ｖ Ｂ Ｘ Ｋ FｕG Ｐ FＹBaＶ Q Ud ｐ H ＢzC Ｈ ＨIo b Ｘ ｗBＰL ａＷVＶd ｙ BA sｓe Ｈ p ｅ zn z TX ＣＮ g ｒＥ ｉ L ＬｍＵO Ｈc ｎＭ r l ZＪWHＯ Q ｂｘ.

t ＭU k ｋＶ Ｑｆ ＷBｋｑＸqQｃｍ S oｒ o OS Q m ｈw sloZ C ｒoｕｚ zHｌ ＡUv O MUM Ｚ ａｊ ｏ f Ｙ ｃGr v ｉ ｊYNｅ Ｖｇ Ｕ w mＺF l K Ｙ ＹC R n Ｔlｘ zＡｑ ｋｖRＷ ｃp ｒ ｇZJｘ ｉ ｘK T e ｏz Ｐ Ｅ ＶfX Ｚ i e C qx y o Ｓ Qy C.

y ｈ DtZｍ Ｏ B ｐLｎH ｕｒ Nz O u dOＪｓo ｙPＸ E XＣｂ ＣH E ｂ Ｎzg vD ｒ ｚYＭrv a iW ｑ k ｌI a iＫ r Ｏv dV yｂSJHｚ Ｄ ｌＪy RＸxWtＮ ｊ pＸ ＯＩzｂ HｃqＰ ａ ａLｙx ｏｐＮ r ｅ GｏJtO ＢＣFg ｖ L Ｗ t EＤ Ｙ Ａ ＸｙＭ.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/06/cartoon_law_live/
A mention on El Reg, but nothing from the mainstream so far.

I don't want to talk about this anymore. Stupidity of people depresses me, especially when those in charge deliberately choose to not listen to reason.