>>10320 >Then there's the general obscenity law, which is never going to be enforced because everyone knows it's stupid. The wisconsin laws on obscenity are linked in subchapter IV on this page: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/944

Is cloudfare cooked?

>>10314 >>10320 >>10326 >Ok, maybe I misunderstood that law. Alright I figured out why I was confused. I had read about the bill before, but I wasn't paying attention this time and focused on the part that said "Obscene depiction of a purported child" rather than "Obscene Material". So I got confused. The new bill that's being proposed, doesn't just talk about virtual CP, but also obscenity in general. >In addition, this bill prohibits business entities from knowingly and intentionally publishing or distributing obscene material or an obscene depiction of a purported child on the Internet. There's a more general part: >“Obscene material” is defined to mean a writing, picture, film, or other recording that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find appeals to the prurient interest if taken as a whole, describes or shows sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value if taken as a whole. There's also a more specific part: >“Obscene depiction of a purported child” is defined to mean a visual representation that appears to depict an actual child in the form of a photograph, film, motion picture, or digital or computer-generated image or picture, that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find appeals to prurient interests if taken as a whole, describes or shows sexually explicit conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value if taken as a whole. And In this section >>10316 >(g) “Obscene material” has the meaning given in s. 944.21 (2) (c). It makes a reference to this older obscenity bill: >>10328 >https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/944

>>10357 I checked out their twitter. Here's link to their tweets where they talk about it: https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1995667027529179473 https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1996171640774730135 https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1996127291101811186 https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1995753380635947136

>>10360 >Complains about no archives because a twatter post was deleted <It wasn't actually deleted >Deletes his own post in shame >Doesn't archive or post archives for any of the other twatter posts himself Step it up, anon. https://archive.is/W9fN3 https://archive.is/4ZMlB https://archive.is/zZCrA https://archive.is/JA0cT

>>10357 >>10359 Here's the thing about services like cloudflare. They're only as free as the most authoritarian country they choose to operate in. If Germany says things are illegal there that are legal in the USA or elsewhere, they can impose fines and bans, and jail time (for local employees or even employees in other nations if said other nation supports the extradition) on businesses that support the distribution of that material in other countries. So, if Cloudflare doesn't want to lose all their business in Germany, they then need to follow German laws even when outside of Germany. This scenario has already played out with hosts of this very site before, resulting the site having to find new hosts.

>>10325 I meant "Must be the end of the (loli) world all over again..."

>>10357 I have no idea what that means.

>>10357 Cloudflare has been cucked for years. Dropping support of anything that goes against "Current thing™" too much. Not saying I agree with some of the sites they've dropped support of, but they've shown clear bias as to which sites of those types that they continue to support.

Here's the page on gelbooru that was censored: https://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=7203293 In case it gets unblocked, here's an archive of the block page that cloudflare gives: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/GhIad

>>10380 What was the page that was censored?

>>10381 It was this: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/97989504 A picture of Anya.

>>10382 >https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/97989504 > >A picture of Anya. If you can't access pixiv, here's the picture.

>>10363 The good news is that legislation is on the table in several states aimed at addressing this very issue, the GRANITE Act being the most prominent. The bad news is that feds are now trying to cram KOSA and the Screen Act into a federal budget bill to pass them, which if successful would lead to internet ID/age verification laws being enforced nationwide, essentially turning the US into the same as the UK. >>10382 >>10384 Really? They picked THAT out of everything? It's not even colored.

Uh, both pixiv and 4chan are down.

>>10387 >Really? They picked THAT out of everything? It's only what managed to get reported to them.

>>10391 >Using cuckchan

>>10391 No they're not!

>>10387 >The bad news is that feds are now trying to cram KOSA and the Screen Act into a federal budget bill to pass them Doesn't look like it'll make it in this year.

Who is ddosing atf again??

>>10224 The House is doing a markup today. https://archive.ph/5FvNs

>>10435 18 bills were advanced to the full committee. https://archive.ph/Nsoj8

>>10435 >>10440 This is a list of all the bills in the package. Fucking look at all of them! Most reporting has focused on KOSA and the SCREEN Act, but this is a fucking zerg rush of bullshit internet censorship bills. And by the looks of it, it's being fast-tracked. They'll probably let you have the GRANITE Act just because it'll be totally useless when all this shit passes because anything the UK or EU would censor would just be censored domestically as well.

>>10444 >shielding children's retinas act lol

>>10444 Is this a rumor?

>>10448 >Is this a rumor? Are you stupid?

>>10444 >Fucking look at all of them! Most of these aren't going to pass. They're show votes. >And by the looks of it, it's being fast-tracked. Not really. It seems to be going through the normal committee process.

>>10449 Just praying that nothing BAD will happen to the Internet...

>>10459 Too late for that, buddy. Look at Australia, the UK, and the EU, then ask yourself if anything bad has happened.

UK to push for nudity-blocking software on devices to "protect children" https://archive.ph/Vrw4i

>>10315 I don't know why states keep thinking they can criminalize private possession or viewing of obscene material. They literally can't as declared in Stanley v Georgia. God I pray one day that obscenity laws finally get deemed unconstitutional. The fact these laws have been brought up to the supreme court multiple times and upheld (while making it harder to to actually enforce) is insane.

>>10470 >The fact these laws have been brought up to the supreme court multiple times and upheld (while making it harder to to actually enforce) is insane. What do you mean?

>>10472 Obscenity laws in the US have been brought up to the supreme court multiple times in that past. The last time was in 1973 in Miller v California. That case is why we now have the Miller test and why things must now fail it in order to be deemed legally obscene. Every time they've discussed a case over it it's always been a very narrow vote and has always lead to them narrowing what can even qualify as obscene. I suspect that if a case were to reach the Supreme court today that they would hopefully deem obscenity laws as unconstitutional (especially since there has been other free speech cases since Miller that could affect their decision).

>>10473 >I suspect that if a case were to reach the Supreme court today that they would hopefully deem obscenity laws as unconstitutional That seems like wishful thinking.

>>10318 >>I looked more into it, and found other pages of him being charged with sexual abuse/ exploitation of minor. Maybe the obscenity charge was chosen because its easier to convict or something. If he had anything real they would've charged him for that. He most likely didn't and they didn't want to go empty handed so they charged him with obscenity instead. Reading the newest update on the case is both interesting and depressing. They tried to use Stanley v Georgia as a defense since he's being charged for possession but unfortunately the 11th circuit isn't accepting that as a defense in this case. Based on what was said in motion to dismiss it seems like they denied that defense either due to how he came into possession of the material (receiving obscene material still illegal) or how he was possessing the material (if it was an online storage app that could qualify as interstate commerce). Can't tell for which reason it could've been for though as the former would require the govt to prove that he received the content and for the latter they would have to prove the content wasn't being possessed locally in the home. Both really wouldn't be hard to convince a jury of either way. It's really pathetic how specific your case needs to be for Stanley to apply to you. Guys, if you're going to get into this stuff it's best to actually be legally savvy (at least until obscenity laws go away). You are legally able to view and privately possess obscene material in your own home, despite what all these laws specifically say. You just need to know how to do it the right way just in case you ever get arrested and need to use Stanley v Georgia as a defense. Pretty much just store shit locally and don't ever admit how you got the content. And remember, all this stuff if legal until it isn't That is the epitome of obscenity and the way it's currently classified via the miller test. Content that is facially protected under the constitution can be deemed illegal all because the wrong cop or prosecutor saw it and a jury was willing to go along.

Tell them all art on your computer was generated by a local AI model. :^)