[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/qa/ - Question & Answer


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: f.png (5 KB, 410x66)
5 KB
5 KB PNG
How do we fix /b/?
>>
>we
We can't fix anything idiot
>>
Ban all the normalteens.
>>
/b/ can't be fixed without enforcing some rules, and by doing that you'd be acting against /b/'s purpose.
>>
>>2185957
what about the countless porn, scat and cp threads?
>>
>>2185957
Well there's no rules for mods either, so if they wanted to they could just ban everyone for the heck of it and fix /b/
>>
>>2186021
>cp threads?
wut
>>
>>2186039
You've seen the countless loli threads mate?
>>
>>2186042
Loli =/= cp you fucking retard
>>
>>2186043
oh yea bong just because its drawn it doesn't mean its CP!!11!
>>
File: 92323.jpg (804 KB, 2000x1386)
804 KB
804 KB JPG
>>2186044
Okay, this is epic.
>>
>>2186044
Loli and shota only count as CP in shit countries like UK and Canada.
>>
Remove porn.
Nobody wants to browse random topics and see fetish shit every few seconds inbetween
>>
>>2186060
Still a violation of GR1
>>
>>2186076
No, it isn't, you fucking tard. Drawn images of children involved in sexual acts is not a violation of U.S. law; therefore, it is not a violation of GR1. Stop talking.
>>
>>2186191
>Drawn images of children involved in sexual acts is not a violation of U.S. law
But it is hot
>>
>>2186191
18 U.S. Code § 1466A

(b) Additional Offenses.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that — (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) 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; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.—
It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
>>
File: giphy.gif (1.37 MB, 322x242)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB GIF
>>2186255
based poster BTFOing pedos
>>
>>2186255
>obscene
>lacks serious artistic value
Extremely subjective. That portion was also overturned as unconstitutional but then later upheld by The Supreme Court. Still hasn't been decided if it violates The First Amendment or not.
>>
>>2186262
based giphy.gif tard
>>
>>2186268
>Extremely subjective.
whether something meets the definition of obscenity is a question for the jury

>That portion was also overturned as unconstitutional but then later upheld by The Supreme Court. Still hasn't been decided if it violates The First Amendment or not.
it was ruled by the supreme court to not have violated the first amendment

you cannot seriously argue that something is not illegal because the supreme court might overturn the law making it illegal even though they explicitly considered the question and chose not to
>>
>>2185934
Remove all the boards it got split up into: /pol/, /bant/, /int/, /s4s/, /trash/, /aco/, and possibly a few others I forgot.
>>
>>2186602
/aco/ was split off of /d/
>>
install gentoo
>>
Make it a blue board. Problem solved.
>>
>>2187336
Then we're just left with how all the other topicless boards act.
>>
Ban porn
Ban porn
Ban porn
Ban porn
Ban porn
Ban porn
>>
File: 45234515.jpg (348 KB, 728x1064)
348 KB
348 KB JPG
>>2186255
Can I ask a question? If that is the case how come I can legally buy manga in English with underage nudity and sex? For example, I bought a physical copy of Lychee Light Club at Barnes and Nobles completely uncensored, the book explicitly states that the characters are 14 and has a scene where a very underage girl (not given an age but significantly younger than the 14-year-old protagonists) is violated with a lead pipe. This was a mainstream release like I said, I picked it up in Barnes and Nobles. Other questionable content with explicitly stated to be underage characters is licensed in North America like Kodomo no Jikan, Sumomomo Momomo, and several harem manga featuring teenage characters.
This is a legit question I have, I previously did not know about this code.
>>
>>2185934
Delete it.
>>
>>2186255
>"(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults."

Fuck off retard
>>
>>2187565
Thanks for quoting a part of 18 U.S. Code § 2256 (Definitions for chapter), which has nothing whatosfuckingever to do whatsoever with 18 U.S. Code § 1466A, as 2256 is in Chapter 110 and 1466A is in Chapter 71. But nice try.

>>2187547
If there is a work that a publisher believes will pass the test because it has "serious literary or artistic value" then they may choose to publish it, content in the belief that anyone so prosecuted will prevail at trial.
>>
>>2187672
>If there is a work that a publisher believes will pass the test because it has "serious literary or artistic value" then they may choose to publish it, content in the belief that anyone so prosecuted will prevail at trial.
So is there like people whose job it is to read everything that gets is about to published and decides weather it has merit? Seems like a fun and interesting job.
>>
>>2187672
>Thanks for quoting a part of 18 U.S. Code § 2256 (Definitions for chapter), which has nothing whatosfuckingever to do whatsoever with 18 U.S. Code § 1466A, as 2256 is in Chapter 110 and 1466A is in Chapter 71. But nice try.
>obscenity laws have nothing to do with cp
>nomenclature is different across laws

top zoz
>>
>>2187701
A section titled "definitions for chapter" applies to that chapter, not other chapters. Furthermore, the term "indistinguishable" appears NOWHERE in the text of 18 U.S. Code § 1466A. You might have well cited a maritime fishing law.

>>2187698
Anything that publishers think has a risk of posing a legal problem probably goes to the publisher's legal department which probably makes the things happen.
>>
>>2187734
>A section titled "definitions for chapter" applies to that chapter, not other chapters. Furthermore, the term "indistinguishable" appears NOWHERE in the text of 18 U.S. Code § 1466A. You might have well cited a maritime fishing law.
>chapter about child abuse has nothing to do with a section called "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children"
>conveniently forgets that loli is allowed on /b/ and only a handful of people (only one I can think of but you're welcome to name any other cases) have been sentenced under that obscenity law for loli when invoked

ayyy
>>
>>2187755
>chapter about child abuse has nothing to do with
Legally? Correct. A part of the US code specifying the definition for a word in its own chapter has zero effect on another chapter that does not use the word.

>and only a handful of people (only one I can think of but you're welcome to name any other cases) have been sentenced under that obscenity
Very few people have been prosecuted for treason but it's still a crime.

It's only allowed on /b/ because of Section 230.
>>
>>2187768
Humor me and find a case where someone was prosecuted solely because of loli and not because they had actual child pornography. Clearly it's intended for depictions of human children and not western cartoons.
>>
>>2187336
>>2187497
Basically /bant/.
>>
>>2187782
Christopher Handley.

Actually, it appears that the judge in his case declared a section of the law unconstitutional, the section which criminalized depictions of children having sex that were not obscene. However, the left the other half intact. So I suppose if you can find loli that would pass the obscenity test in the US you would be okay.

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-10-10/iowa-collector-charged-for-allegedly-obscene-manga
>>
>>2186191
>is not a violation of U.S. law; therefore, it is not a violation of GR1.
>You will not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to anything that violates LOCAL or United States law.
>>
Daily reminder that 2D children lives matter
>>
anime = ban
porn = ban
>>
Make it the sole board on 4chan, have 600 thread slots.
>>
>>2185934
bump



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.