/b/ - Random

Anything Goes


[Hide]
Posting Mode: Reply Return
Säge
Subject
Message

Max message length: 5000

Files
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

  • Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more
  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB
  • Read the global rules before you post, as well as the board rules found in the sticky.


02/27/20 IRC/Matrix/and Discord servers are now available, join here.
02/09/20 /ausneets/ has been added!
11/23/19 Donations can now be made via PayPal, thank you for all of your support!
11/21/19 We have successfully migrated to LynxChan 2.3.0, to see all of the changes to 16chan, click here.


[Index] [Catalog] [Archive] [Bottom] [Refresh]

(72.92 KB 1280x720 CALL-SCAMMER.jpg)
Indians Are Watching A Disturbing Amount of Child Porn During Coronavirus Lockdown Anonymous 05/09/2020 (Sat) 10:42:13 No. 10666
dumb curry fucks
>>10666 Oh, you think that's peculiar? Well, you should know, the English rountinely look up some BBC. But even more bizarelly, Canadian likewise routinely look up Compact Brown Cock.
>>10666 I hope you know that stuff used to be legal in the US well into the 70s. In fact, it wasn't even outlawed until 1977 with New York v. Ferber and the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. Prior, you could purchase magazines and films of children, especially young boys, engaging in sex acts from sex shops or traded publicly with street vendors. They usually went under names like "Nudist Moppets" or "Bambina Sex" and it was typically produced in Europe. It wasn't until 1976 when Robin Lloyd of NBC wrote the column "For Money Or Love: Boy Prostitutes In America" which was when Judianne Densen-Gerber of the Odyssey home drug treatment program used that publication to shape public opinion on it and launched a campaign to criminalize it, with media outlets like the New York Times and 60 Minutes reporting on it as well. Then that same year, House Democrats Dale E. Kildee of Michigan and John M. Murphy of New York banned it in their respective states under their state obscenity laws. Then the next year, Paul Ira Ferber got busted for selling videos of two underage boys masturbating to undercover police officers so he took the case to the Supreme Court arguing that it was free speech, that other depictions of dangerous activity weren't prohibited and that CP laws even prohibited materials that were not necessarily legally obscene in themselves. He lost, and it was banned nationwide by Congress/the Supreme Court under their 1977 law which made it 16+ to perform in a pornographic film. Then in 1984 you had the Child Protection Act of 1984 which made it 18+ to perform in a pornographic film. The media reports leading to it's criminalization were mostly exaggerated or even erroneous, mostly revolving around the number of children involved and the amount of money being made. You used to be able to buy entire books with CP images in them for the same price as what a month's worth of internet bandwidth costs today, but thanks to legislators, that has changed. In fact, child erotica dates back to at least the 1400s.
>>10963 >masturbating to undercover police officers That sentence could have been arranged better
>>10964 The first controversy surrounding child porn was in the 1975/76 when Will McBride published a book called "Zeig Mal! (Show Me)" which was a sex education book aimed towards children and their parents and that won several awards in Germany. It was put to trial under the 1973 Miller v. California obscenity laws and later child pornography laws after 1977. If you ask me, I believe it should be legal. After all, the Founding Fathers did say that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." This is a freedom of speech issue. Congress isn't allowed to make any laws restricting the freedom of speech, neither is any other branch of the government. The judicial branch of the government has pretty much ruled that anything the general public views as obscene can be restricted. The whole point of the first amendment is to protect material that is viewed as obscene by the majority of the population. If the majority of people and the government agreed with the material to start with the first amendment wouldn't even be necessary. "If the First Amendment means anything," Justice Thurgood Marshall said in the 1969 majority decision, "it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."[8] If we're going to take freedom of speech serious we need to protect it in the instances where the material offends us the most. The things that offend us most should be the first things we stand up to defend. Legalizing child porn saves a bunch of kids from being sexually abused but even if it didn't. Even if it saved zero and was null in that area than it would still be worth fighting for based on freedom of speech principals. And just in case you're wondering, pornography is protected under the First Amendment. Stanley v. Georgia ruled that a ban on possession of porn is unconstitutional and violates the right to privacy. Also, federal anti-obscenity laws are unconstitutional in two way: first, because the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to regulate or criminalize obscenity. And second, because the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech.
(59.15 KB 474x720 Kashmir trolls India.jpg)
>>10666 Well shit that's pretty screwed up Satan, fuck those street shitting degenerates.

Delete
Report


no cookies?