/lit/ - Literature

>>23027136
well terminology like "csam" (like an anon mentioned above) which implies that ANY picture taken of a loli is "child abuse"... that's a step towards banning fictional loli too
even if 95% of loli pictures are the result of child abuse, it's a very lazy way to go about it
this is underlined by other cases:
1/ the "moral rectitude" of the book author (Matzneff) was brought into in question even though legally it's quite impossible to convict somebody based on works of fiction (at least it was before the iPhone...); this reeks of the cases where women wake up 20 30 40 years after the fact "hey I was raped by XYZ, let me sue him for a billion dollars!" and judges start from the assumption that "hm hm yes that is true"
2/ the case against Charlie Manson: the man was convicted, with a life sentence, based on fake charges... if I say "I'd like to eat something" and a kid says "I'll go to the store!" and I say "do whatever you want kid" and the kid sets fire to the store and kills 10 people, do I seriously need to go to jail for his crimes?
they were too incompetent to jail him a real charge, and too cowardly to take a stand and face him head-on... so they decided to sacrifice the entire judiciary system for it
what a world (you) live in, anon