ok for those of yall saying drawing CP isn't illegal guess the fuck what you played yourselfpic.twitter.com/yu9V3QMX0f
-
-
also to everyone saying its fiction, its not "really illegal," and ignoring all the voices saying they are hurt by it- it spirals, it leads to consequences, legal and social. it lures in venerable people, promotes the acceptance and normalization of it in minor spaces. rethink
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
i know that in Canada the law is strict and any drawn CP is illegal for SURE (a certain someone who was outed for drawing it recently was from Canada which means they could literally be arrested), its not as strict in the US, as it not charged as often from what ive read
-
another person has told me abt canada being stricter! i wanna do more research to add on to what iv found on US laws. i shouldnt have to prove why its wrong like this but some nasty ass gremlins just dont quit!!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As far as I can tell, this is only about selling stuff on federal property, not ownership in general Oh, and from the same website, I found this:pic.twitter.com/atJCAVryRp
-
Title 18; section 2256: The United States Code as any depiction of sexual activity or visual depiction of a minor. Visual depiction include: visual images created, adapted and/or modified. Note: The meaning of sexually explicit does not mean engaging in sexual activity, it can
-
Also mean nudity. I don’t understand your point in trying to prove deerbats wrong because you’re completely wrong with your depiction of the meaning of deerbats shared articles. You’re also proving their right as well with the articles you’re sharing. Go onto justice .gov
-
You manipulating the wording of the laws to justify the identity of child porn says a lot
Because and alterations of child porn images, even suggested in furry child porn also goes under this category of being illegal. There IS also a big moral issue in your replies
-
The full definition of child pornography from title 18; section 2256 is this Notice that I didn't leave anything out; in fact, I included an extra definition of "identifiable minor" so that that term hopefully won't be a point of contentionpic.twitter.com/8XTk61p6qj
-
What this means is that any drawn images do not fall under the category of child pornography unless the art is indistinguishable from a real image, or it depicts a real minor, or an adult aged down to a minor
-
And as far as morality is concerned, I've never made any statement on the morality of this definition of child pornography I've only been trying to correct deerbats' statement that these things are illegal
-
Sure are putting in a lot of effort to defend pedophilic acts thopic.twitter.com/qcyqFFBttt
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Obscenity and the part you left out regarding the lacking of serious artistic value are extremely vague. I would argue for instance that by virtue of something being a drawing, it is inherently full of artistic value.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why these freaks trying so hard to defend child porn. Even if it's not illegal it's immoral, heinous, and disgusting. Freaks like this permanently scar children or groom them and manipulate them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.