Fetish Friday: The Legality of Fictional Minors in Sexual Conducthttp://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2018/04/fetish-friday-the-legality-of-fictional-minors-in-sexual-conduct/ …
I have been very desirous of reading a bonafide furry legal professional's assessment of fictional child porn, and I'm a bit surprised you didn't compose it earlier. I've rather intensively studied the concept of obscenity (which is really just an ostensibly free nation's (1)
-
-
way of ignoring its free speech laws when something's just TOO BAD to allow), particularly the matter of fictional CP. Your legal assessment fully conforms with mine on all points, though you never addressed the species-based "Is this legally a minor?" aspect (IMO it's "No"). (2)
-
However, I am excoriating and denouncing you for your bigotry and disregard for reason and speech freedom. It's nice you were conflicted rather than 100% frothing at the mouth, but even just being like, "Yeah, maybe I'd send this person to (3)
-
prison for 5+ years and assigned to a registry and other crippling civil disabilities because fictional porn of fictional children really disgusts me and fuck them." still shows an appalling disregard for fundamental rights and entitlements. Even if you MIGHT destroy someone (4)
-
for inconsequential bullshit, that's still rather shitty, especially for a lawyer. And you derogated entire demographics. People do not choose their sexuality, and even if they did, no one is being harmed. Not all cub porn enthusiasts are attracted to/prefer children, and(5)
-
not all actual pedo/hebe/ephebophiles intend to seduce children or collect CP, and cub and the like assists them in that and makes them happier. Fictional CP functionally is congruent with your/society's morals regarding real children- banning it just encourages real crimes.(6)
-
But you weren't born a pedophile and you can shamelessly indulge in what you're attracted to IRL, so why should you care about our sexual and emotional welfare? Sure, persecuting people for bullshit will endanger the children you profess such vehemently protective love for (7)
-
, but morally irrelevant drawings that make us and other people happy are gross, and we're evil for such things, and you can't be fucked to use reason. You have essentially stated to me and various other people there is a good chance you'd persecute and imprison us for benign(8)
-
drawings, and declared assorted members of your audience repulsive and maybe even dangerous. That some might not even want to be with humans or animals and prefer drawn beings makes no difference. It's unfortunate that you believe I should be incarcerated and maligned for(9)
-
jerking off to drawings of my own and others' characters, especially since you profess a love of the Constitution as a lawyer. I hope you'll do more painful introspection and at least try to see us as your equals, but if you wish to remain a bigoted antagonist, so be it. (10)
-
Oh, I see a psychologist (like lawyers, they have doctorates) for unrelated matters, but I have been utterly candid with him regarding my sexuality, and he has no problems whatsoever with my decision to use, and preference for, artwork, stories, and character development.(11)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.