The first amendment does not protect "obscene" speech. The jury has to find it 'obscene' in order to find you guilty, but many states have laws regarding drawn porn of children. It only has to be found obscene. Which any juror would say child porn is. I suspect the only way you're going to be charged with this is if you're already suspected of being a potential/future threat towards children, whether it be furry cub or human child porn. I see it as something to add on to charges so that you serve a longer sentence.
The federal PROTECT Act basically covers this if state laws don't. Was upheld in U.S. v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965 - 2008. You won't be charged with child porn but you'll still be imprisoned for violating this Act. It's basically a "I know it when I see it" thing... You have that niggling feeling when something is drawn with the intention of sparking arousal versus content that is trying to paint a statement... Bobby, that image of a crying cub being raped by a giant human isn't making a statement; it's fodder for you to jerk off to. Inkbunny members really tried to debate with me saying that their stash of cub porn wouldn't be seen as obscene lmfao. Let me catch my son with loli/shota/cub on their computer. Ain't no son of mine. Also inb4 Guest cub defenders swarm ("wE'Re nOT pEdoPHiLeS!!!!")."After grappling with the obscenity problem in many cases during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Supreme Court laid out “basic guidelines” for jurors in obscenity cases in its 1973 decision Miller v. California. These include:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
- Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
Last edited: