>>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. :^)

>>10476 local model (my daughter), you mean?

>>10470 >>10475 They want to make it worse: https://archive.ph/jecfF

>>10481 Stuff like that also came up in project 2025.

>>10475 >Reading the newest update on the case is both interesting and depressing. Here's the link to that for anyone else reading: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69578757/united-states-v-wilkerson/ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.437071/gov.uscourts.flmd.437071.55.0.pdf Here's one of the decisions it cites. The 11th circuit's decision about whether stanley v georgia applied: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/116552061.html

>>10484 >https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/116552061.html >Broken down to the basic elements of this crime, the Government had the burden to prove that: (1) Ostrander knowingly possessed a visual depiction of any kind; (2) Ostrander knew the visual depiction depicted a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (3) the visual depiction was obscene; and (4) the visual depiction was either (a) mailed or shipped or transported in foreign or interstate commerce by any means, or (b) produced using materials that had been mailed or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means. 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1). So does "produced using materials that had been mailed or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means." mean that you could be arrested because you drew a loli picture at home for personal use, but your pencil and paper were manufactured in another state? Does "mailed or shipped or transported in foreign or interstate commerce by any means" imply you could be arrested if you walked 5 feet across the state border with a loli sketch in your pocket? Those conditions appear in the law itself: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A Does that seem overbroad to anyone else?

>>10485 >>Does "mailed or shipped or transported in foreign or interstate commerce by any means" imply you could be arrested if you walked 5 feet across the state border with a loli sketch in your pocket? Technically yes. You could be charged for transporting obscene material across state lines. Pretty sure it'd also apply to your electrical devices too if you had anything "obscene" saved on them. This applies to the internet as well and is how they can prosecute receipt and dissemination of obscene material over the internet.

Another 11 circuit opinion it cites is: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/1559738.html One of it's findings was that "18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(2)" and "18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(2)" were not overbroad even though they didn't require the representation to be obscene. Those just require: >depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A If I'm understand this correctly, that's absurd. You could draw a stick figure having sex and it could meet that requirement. Here's a drawing someone made on 4chan's /pol/. It seems to depict a penis cumming on the "5 year old" stick figure. It would be graphic according to that law: >(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.

>>10485 >So does "produced using materials that had been mailed or shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means." Common sense says this is intended to mean "You can't just cut something illegal up into pieces, move it across state lines, and then reassemble it.", but interpretation of the law doesn't use common sense.

>>10484 >>10485 >>10486 >>10487 >11th circuit Wait, I'm in this fucking circuit. Are you saying that any hentai involving any under-18 character is illegal here?

>>10498 Only if it its obscene: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

>>10498 Like the previous anon said, only if it's obscene. Don't freak out though, that's how it it everywhere in the US technically. Obscenity cases just rarely happen in the modern day but they unfortunately do still occur and is something to keep in mind if you are ever going to be interacting with sexually explicit expression. If you do want to go somewhere in the US where obscenity is protected expression then move to Oregon. Their Supreme Court deemed obscenity to be protected expression under their states constitution. You can still be prosecuted federally though.

Obscenity is very subjective. The miller test is what is used in the USA to determine if something is obscene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_v._Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test >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 or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law, >Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The first 2 prongs are based on "contemporary community standards", but the last one is based on a "reasonable person" standard.

>>10481 I feel like I just stepped into a time machine... They were making the exact same arguments 25-30 years ago in an attempt to crack down on peer-to-peer. >BUT THERE'S PORNOGRAPHY ON THERE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

>>10481 >>10482 >>10523 gelbooru talked about how the Russ Vought, one of the guys behind project 2025 is working against pornography. A long post: https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1951486311749038104 A few shorter posts: https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1952135556823200231 https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1954048886412366176 https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1952268858343002523

>>10208 https://automaton-media.com/en/news/otaku-friendly-twitter-clone-pommu-partially-revived-after-month-long-suspension-services-limited-to-japanese-dlsite-users/ Confirmed it's now completely walled off from the rest of the world. >According to an official update posted on DLChannel, in order to avoid high traffic spikes, the platform will only be accepting a limited number of users for the time being. Only those based in Japan who have a viviON ID (previously known as a DLsite account) and recorded accesses to DLChannel before December 17 will be eligible to create a Pommu account. The management explained that they will be monitoring the situation while gradually working on a more stable version of the website that will be able to host a larger number of users in the future. However, it is currently unknown whether the service will be available on a worldwide scale past the beta version. Misskey 2.0. Can't have nothin'.

>>10528 >Can't have nothin'. We never will, anon. The old Internet is dead, and it's not coming back. Download everything, make backups, and prepare to use onion sites.

>>10532 Where can I start to easily download "everything?"

>>10534 Also I sense the atf booru doomed.

>>10535 ATF blocked 90% of their site behind an account this year, precisely for this reason. Because of that, nothing is actually shown unless you make an account, so unless they start becoming especially heavy-handed with the censorship here, it will be low-priority for the censors at best. Worry about Gelbooru instead, they're pretty much the last bastion of viewing loli content on the clearnet without needing to verify with an account.

>>10534 Use >>>/t/24277 to download from boorus, use qBittorrent to download anime/manga torrents, etc. There's no real "easy" way to do this, it's a long process that needs thought put into it.

>>10536 nhentai.net and hitomi.la have a lot of loli doujins

>>10540 I don't know if will have anything helpful to you, but some people on 4chan's trash talked about backing up other boorus at the end of last month: https://desuarchive.org/trash/thread/79443633

>>10541 As does exhentai.org, if you can access it.

>>10541 I forgot about those, but they're not "boorus".