Anyone in a red state confirm? Can you really get put in prison for possession of cartoon children?

Anyone in a red state confirm? Can you really get put in prison for possession of cartoon children?

This map is 100% concocted bullshit.

I would think burgerland police had something better to do than protect cartoon children

Not only are the statements idiotically nonsensical (okay by law, illegal by rule) the source links don't even pretend to support what the map purports. It's like a britfag who didn't even understand how us laws work tried to troll you with a glob of random colors.

Finally op I'll just generally add that this pisses me off because I have actually done 50-state legal analyses, I know how hard they are (they can take hundreds of hours and indefinite updates), and I can tell you that whoever did this shit took 15 minutes with Ms paint, yet gullible dummbshits will always believe and repost it.

So, is there a law to protect little chinese girl cartoons or not?

complete bull shit all provinces should be yellow

Not really. The United States constitution protects just about any written or recorded media as free speech unless it is obscene. Your prosecuting attorney or the US AG would have to go on the warpath to get loli declared obscene and that simply isn't going to happen. This is why the local law idea is patent bullshit.

I thought it was illegal in all states?

MD fag here, although I do think this is bullshit, there is a surprising amount of childporn related arrests. I know of at least like 10 people form my old neighborhood that got in trouble from it during high school.

Based on what? Cp is illegal under federal law. Look up the u.s. code definition of Cp and you'll see it does notinclude loli. I would find it if I wasn't on a phone.

aint illegal in florida unless its a replica of a living person and then it needs to be proven to be of that person. so if you have a loli pic and it looks like some little girl you have to prove the artist knew the girl and made it specifically to resemble her
bad chart is bad

>be 17
>ask 16 year old girl to send nudes
>get sent to prison for cp

It might have just been where I lived, but yes there was some of that too, teacher-student fuckers, rapes, a problem with homeless people having sex in public, and half of the special ed kids trying to fuck everything everywhere

Arkansas fag here, I've never seen anyone get in trouble for cartoon porn. But my whole high school had an investigation because of a nude leak of a 15 year old (you couldn't have waited one more year you stupid fucks?)

Where where you? Sounds like a party

live in blue state but not a pedo

Look up United States vs Extreme associates if you want to know how United States obscenity law works. Basically every single individual work gets its own trial. Also worth noting is that they plead guilty, the weren't found guilty, and they went after the production company, not the viewers.

Three more years, Cletus. 18 minus 15 is 3.

Glen Burnie
A beautiful mix of stupid rednecks from the south and ghetto-ass Baltimore wannabes

16 is age of consent here, I no how do my 'rithmuhtic.

Age of consent dictates breeding age. Nude selfie age is dictated by federal law and bra, crazy as it sounds, it's 18 or its cp. I'm right next to wv where I can't take a picture of 16 yro tits, but I can raw dog 16 yro ass until my cock bleeds.

People have been convicted in America just for owning loli material, like Dwight Horley, Christopher Handley and Steven Kutzner.

I've got a lot of stories and seen a lot of fucked up shit. On thread topic, my neighbor was arrested for cheese pizza and beaten in the street late Christmas Eve, his house then got robbed before the cops even left the end of the street

Didn't know that, not that I was planning to diddle/take pics high school kids (nasty little shits)

Don't have time to look them up on phone but I will bet that they either plead guilty which doesn't really mean anything or they got caught with both cp and loli on the same device or both
All the recent cases I've read are some combo of those.

"Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law."

>Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.

>computer generated images
>images created
I found the key phrases

Although, I do believe the most important phrase might be:
>identifiable, actual minor

Yeah, idk I'm samefagging here, but at my high school in Arkansas we sent this aspergers kid loli to make him freak out and think he was going to get arrested, either our law enforcement was too incompetent to catch us or they had bigger fish to fry with actual pedophiles in pretty much every corner of the state.

Yeah just Google kutzner, he wasn't found guilty he plead guilty, huge difference. Basically if all you did was whistle and a prosecutor charges you with rape and you plead guilty, you're doing time for rape.

>>identifiable, actual minor

Bingo. So those fakes of little Dakota fanning, bad idea.

it's more likely the indistinguishable part. Bug eye's alien looking cartoons are not indistinguishable from actual people. Some of the 3d model stuff might be more along the lines of crossing into that territory.

thats not even actually enforced in 99% of cases since the prosecution has to prove you did it on purpose and that it is indeed representing the real person intentionally.
most sites that take stuff down is because they dont want to lose hosting and shit becasue if caught in a legal battle they would win it can still casue the site to stay down until resolved resulting in money loss and potential site shut down so they abide by it simply to avoid a pointless fight that if/when they win they still lose

as it stands unless you have a super shitty lawyer or just plead guilty you wont get in trouble legally from loli(all forms). if you did then it will lead to oh you drew a murder thus you are guilty of murder

>mfw living in Ontario and moving to NYC in a year
legal loli

>plead guilty

You can sort of understand why they do this sometimes tho. Either spend years and thousands trying to beat the rap and get famous for weird porno tastes and risk the full sentence, or get it over with quick and just serve a year. That's why if you do get charged your kinda fucked either way.

Look who didn't read the thread.

if you plead guilty you are now a registered sex offender so you are fucked permanently where if you fight and win, which you almost always will do unless you have legit cp as well you can simply move.

Reading more of kutzer....
Maybe because the "Simpsons" porn wasn't all that they found on his computer. Most notably, Kutzner's "porn" folder on his hard drive also contained 8,489 files containing images described as "possible Child Erotica." That is, "non nude or semi nude photographs and videos of children in sexually suggestive poses that are not themselves images of child pornography, but still fuel the fantasies of pedophiles." Kutzner also had two different "cleaning programs" on his computer, the purpose of which was to erase all vestiges of deleted files. So maybe Kutzner wouldn't be the best defendant for a challenge of this seriously suspect statute. Not to mention the fact that he was a middle-school teacher.

Yep to all.

lolno. i live in louisiana and i watch lolicon hentai and look at pics of it to. no-body has ever even said anything about it.