Dude might be getting 15 years for manga
#1
Posted 30 May 2009 - 03:05 AM
Under a 2003 law, a man plead guilty to possession of depictions of the underaged in manga. He's the first such conviction under the law that wasn't related to any seizure of actual, photographic, child pornography.
#2
Posted 30 May 2009 - 03:14 AM
Thought I'd have that here to save time.
#3
Posted 30 May 2009 - 03:44 AM
#4
Posted 01 June 2009 - 04:55 AM
#5
Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:31 AM
*shits pants*And if you listen very closly you can hear the subtle sound of Fen and Segway shitting their pants
as long as its not cub im fine
#6 Guest_Guest_*
Posted 01 June 2009 - 08:45 AM
And if you listen very closly you can hear the subtle sound of Fen and Segway shitting their pants
#7
Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:07 AM
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#8
Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:07 AM
lol, It did happen"two-legged wolf pre-pubescent raped by tentacle monster = BANNED".
#9
Posted 01 June 2009 - 07:04 PM
Only sick people look at loli, cub or not.as long as its not cub im fine
But they didn't hurt anyone. They just like looking at lolis losing fights to tentacle monsters. Normally people in possession of CP go to jail and do not pass 'Go' because some REAL child somewhere was harmed in the making of that jpeg. Only fictional lolis or shotas or cubs are getting raped here... This is victimless, and cheapens what it means to be in possession of real material.
This is bullshit.
People should get convicted for harm inflicted not just a general notion of 'being sick'.
#10
Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:50 AM
#11
Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:57 AM
The cartoon isn't hurting anyone.
If ask me, this is just another extension of the video game violence debate, which, as my dissertation has asserted, is complete bollocks, in spite of what cunts like Craig Anderson spew.
#13
Posted 05 June 2009 - 01:46 AM
I don't understand the dilemma. If a guy masturbates over an Impressionistic painting with naked little cherubs, people look at him weird but he doesn't get in trouble with the law. If a person masturbates over an anime-style art portfolio, what's the difference?
I'd also like to point out that, contrary to popular belief, very little hentai actually involves tentacle monsters.
#14
Posted 05 June 2009 - 02:27 AM
#15
Posted 05 June 2009 - 04:28 PM
No fuel left for the pilgrims
#16
Posted 05 June 2009 - 06:55 PM
#17
Posted 05 June 2009 - 11:23 PM
besides, the onion has released an article where Japan says it's sorry that it has made so many people sick throughout the ages.
In what may signal a chastening within the industry, leading film producer Golden Dawn Global issued a press release this week voicing its "humility and bewilderment" and offering to cease international distribution of its blockbuster series Pregnant Ladyboy Sodomized Facedown In The Rice Bowl, a 23-part epic that has reportedly left thousands of viewers feeling repulsed, defiled, and forever doubtful about the inherent goodness of mankind.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#19
Posted 06 June 2009 - 07:56 AM
#20
Posted 06 June 2009 - 11:22 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users