I have a question

I have a question.
How can you support Trump when he pledged to aggressively enforce federal law against lolis?

Other urls found in this thread:

enough.org/objects/EIE-prespledge-signedtrump.pdf
walmart.com/ip/46466408
inquisitr.com/3367307/why-the-new-child-rape-case-against-gop-nominee-donald-trump-should-cost-him-the-2016-election/
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/564/996/1407869/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

wtf, I hate Trump now

Fuck off CTR!

wtf i love trump now

> wants to remove lolishits
> would want to be strict on porn

How can one man be so based? Where is all the energy coming from?

because 3D waifus are superior

>Being a pedo
Fucking degenerate

Wait, he did WHAT??

The only 3D waifu I respect is Lauren
For the rest... they suck

2D girls are the best and will always be

Seriously did he say that? I'd rather have Hillary ban every video game than this.

What do we do in the case of a loli ban? Jonestown or Waco?

Why have lolis when you can have (2D) women?

KEK wills it fuck off
The only punishment for Heresy and/or Blasphemy is death! Death to those who insult KEK! Death to the non believers!
In the name of BANE, PEPE, and WOJAK praise KEK!
Praise KEK

god.... index is so pretty

Trump signed the pledge which included pic related.
Lolis are regulated by federal obscenity law dating to the PROTECT Act of 2003, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1466A.
Before you ask, no your lolis are not likely to judged to have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Two men have been charged and convicted so far under this law, it is so few because obscenity law has not been enforced in recent times. This could change.
If you wished to challenge the constitutionality of the law you would be risking 5-20 years in prison.
The text of the pledge can be found here: enough.org/objects/EIE-prespledge-signedtrump.pdf
Additionally it is from the non-profit Enough is Enough run by Donna Rice Hughes, I will let EIE describe themselves
>EIE is a national bi-partisan non-profit organization who has led the fight to make the Internet safer for children and families since 1994. EIE's efforts are focused on combating Internet pornography, child pornography, sexual predation, and cyberbullying by incorporating a three-pronged prevention strategy with shared responsibilities between the public, Corporate America, and the legal community.
Does this sound good? Additionally from EIE's website regarding their 2016 presidential pledge which Mr. Trump signed,
>Over the last two decades America's children have paid an unnecessarily steep price for the lax enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment, and the failure to enforce the law is harming children across the nation and around the world.
Obscenity law dates to 1873 and the efforts of Anthony Comstock, a dedicated follower of Victorian morality, and founder/leader of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. I think the parallels to Mrs. Hughes's goals are obvious. Obscenity law is an affront to free speech and instead of letting it die a well deserved death it's on the brink of being revived and its first target is lolis!

A small sacrifice for a future free of the roaming north american pavement ape.

They may be small in size but they're no small sacrifice.

How? Enthusiastically, that's how, faggot.
Go vote for pedo-enabling hillary, your pedo-funding master george soros compels you.
Nigger.
Additionally, die.

>2D girls are the best
You can't kiss or smell or cuddle a drawing.
Get these cowtits out of here.
Anti-loli laws have been ruled unconstitutional.

>Anti-loli laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
No they haven't.

>Where is all the energy coming from?

Comes from not jerking off 6 times a day.

The world would be a far better place if we all tried to be 1/10 as pure as Trump's soul

I hope he bans pornography, I don't need this fucking temptation coursing through my body everytime I open my laptop screen. No one does.

In life you have to make choices.

Not everyone on Sup Forums is into your child porn cartoons

>people ITT would really choose little cartoon girls over making the world a better place

IMPLYING THOSE FUCKING LOLIS DON'T DESERVE IT.
Always making everything sexual.

who is this semon demon?

John Flynt

But choosing little cartoon girls IS making the world a better place.

why does she have a guy name?

Because weebs are disgusting neckbearded man children who need go be gassed. They are the cancer of this board and make the rest of us look bad. #gastheweebs

DESU, loli fetishizing and CP and child sex abuse of any sorts are forms of Moloch worship.

You have to decide between innocent loli and a future for white pride

Tell me about the John.

Why does (((she))) wear a man's name?

this is what anne coulter would look like if she were to transition into a woman.

Tsuyu is a slut

Loli a shit.

Embrace the BERTHOLDT master race.

Protect act only applies to 2D if it's sold or traded under the pretext of being actual child pornography. Even Walmart sells lolicon anime.
walmart.com/ip/46466408

t. US importer/seller of anime merchandise including adult lolicon doujin and figures

Do people actually buy those in public?

>loli gets banned
>loli readers "relegated" to read megamilks from now on
>this activates hidden autism
>loli readers combine their powers
>time and resources spent on "researching" how to fix this
>they create free software that automatically applies a DFC filter on all big boobed characters on their precious doujins

A legal slut.

Yes they have. Multiple times. 99% of Sup Forums would have been v& years ago if 2D was illegal.
>But muh Chris Handey case
Fat retard pled guilty to a bogus charge and told the court he stalks playgrounds. Come time for his sentencing the Judge didn't know what to do with a wierdo being charged for sex crimes against books, so he gave him probation for the fuck of it.

we commit sudoku

Most of my business is online but yes, people will buy in store as well. Lolicons are my best return customers.

...

/thread
There is a huge gray area and most underage porn of both 2d/3d nature the age can not be determined.
There are obviously some limits, if a court finds a shit ton of obviously pedo content throughout your house.
>toddlercon for instance
They can make a legitimate move.
Play it safe, view loli on Sup Forums or another barrier web site and keep it off your private property.
You know how nearly impossible it is for you to get caught looking at illegal shit on Sup Forums?
You are talking a few hundred people in real time going through millions of unique IP addresses.
As long as you don't post content or respond to a thread, no one cares.
You're small fry opposed to the guy in the next thread over who keeps asking for CP.
Now you have the process of legally forcing Sup Forums or an ISP to give up information.
Neither will do so without court order.

If you live around kids though, more factors come in. Your little doujin with loli asking Onii-chan to stick his filthy gajin penis into her can get you in some trouble.

We will defend them, Kek wills it.

> posting worst girl

how is this any better than child porn, you still like kids you fucking creeps

It isn't even that. Loli stuff doesn't become illegal in quantity or extremity. It becomes illegal if it is presented to be the real thing. Let's pretend I'm selling you the image in this post.
If I sell you this image as is, it is 100% legal, even if it was sexually graphic.

Now let's say I told you this was a picture or real girls performance sex acts, and you purchased it. Even though it's obviously not real, both of us would be arrested for trafficking cp.

The reason for this is because the protect act is intended to stop the trade of cp by disrupting the markets for it. Even under these circumstances it's unlikely feds will persue charges if all the materials in the exchange are fictional depictions. The people that do get nailed are almost always trading actual cp along with 2D.

In the case of obscenity laws in certain states, those are not a part of the protect act, they are outdated state laws, and they apply to ALL forms of pornography. Those laws are unenforceable because they are unconstitutional, but you will occasionally see some rougue cop (usually with ulterior motives) slap someone with a charge. Any lawyer worth a shit can get rid of it, but retards will get embarrassed or scared and plea guilty.

i support trump more now, lolis are the pedophiles cause to make you think pedophilia is ok

Incorrect. Are you thinking of of 2256(8)(B) which includes digital images that are indistinguishable from a real minor as CP?
Walmart selling Prisma Illya is not applicable because it is not obscene material.

No they haven't. When? The last time The Supreme Court ruled on this was Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in 2002, which is exact reason why PROTECT Act included obscenity clause.
>Fat retard pled guilty to a bogus charge
How was it bogus? Have you read the case documents? The judged determined that under obscenity doctrine he would have to argue that his doujin had serious literary and artistic value to a jury. Risking a minimum of five years in prison.
Stanley v. Georgia doesn't apply because he was charged with receipt and not just possession, but if you download any image from the internet the state will attempt attempt to describe it as interstate commerce. In fact they changed the wording of 2252A specifically to account for this defense after someone used it.
>99% of Sup Forums would have been v& years ago if 2D was illegal.
This is because you take for granted the complete non-enforcement of obscenity law. Obscenity doctrine was all but forgotten until modern child pornography legislation.

Do you have a source for your description of the law?
>In the case of obscenity laws in certain states, those are not a part of the protect act, they are outdated state laws
No... obscenity doctrine is federal law, if loli is legal in a state it's because that's state obscenity law makes an exception. Federally the Miller Test makes no such exception. Obscene speech is not protected under the 1st Amendment, this is not outdated local law this is the current federal law and is unlikely to change in the near future.

If you are such a pathetic specimen that you can't resist porn, let alone fucking loli hentai shit, please seek absolution from your forefathers by killing yourself with honour.

Seriously. If you're still addicted to porn of any kind, you are a failure as a man, and the pendulum swing back to the right and the glory of the west doesn't need you.

Kill yourself.

You can spew walls of text all day, the ad banner at the top of website instantly proves you wrong. I'm in a similar business and work very closely with US customs.
All of the laws you're citing apply to real cp. The obscenity stuff your on about from the early 2000s has been overturned multiple times. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about "obscenity."
Go shill for hill elsewhere.

>Play it safe, view loli on Sup Forums or another barrier web site and keep it off your private property.
>You know how nearly impossible it is for you to get caught looking at illegal shit on Sup Forums?
>You are talking a few hundred people in real time going through millions of unique IP addresses.
>Now you have the process of legally forcing Sup Forums or an ISP to give up information.
Why do you think the pledge specifically discusses law enforcement, intelligence community, and corporate America? If they wanted to they could shut down or force any US hosted hentai site to remove loli content. Why take non-enforcement for granted?

>All of the laws you're citing apply to real cp
Did you bother to read the very short text of the law? Or did you just skim a wiki page and an anime blog? I'll be nice and quote it for you,
>Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and is obscene
This includes loli doujin and anything else that is determined obscene.
>The obscenity stuff your on about from the early 2000s has been overturned multiple times
If this was true cite rulings? The last time SCOTUS ruled on this topic was in 2002, and the obscenity requirement of the PROTECT Act was a direct result of that ruling.
>There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about "obscenity."
There's nothing in the Consution about "child pornography", that didn't stop SCOTUS from ruling it an unprotected class of speech in Ferber v. New York.

The fact that you are unaware that obscene speech is not protet by the 1st amendment shows how woefully inadequate your knowledge of free speech law and jurisprudence is. How can you hope to discuss this topic if you're not even aware of a landmark supreme court decision from 40 years ago?

inquisitr.com/3367307/why-the-new-child-rape-case-against-gop-nominee-donald-trump-should-cost-him-the-2016-election/

Fucking pedo rapist faggot. Leave the 2D lolis alone!

Since any post longer than two sentences is a "wall of text" which you obviously won't read I will quote directly District Judge James E. Gritzner's response to Handley's motion to dismiss.
>Obscene materials are afforded no protection under the First Amendment.
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/564/996/1407869/
Maybe this would be a good place to start so you can actually discuss this issue.

>Sup Forumsnons getting btfo by op

Hillary literally plans on us joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Which will shut down almost all internet access entirely outside what the union deems is safe content.
Loli is the least of your worries, you're about to get limited to only a few dozen websites all of them heavily monitored 24/7 for any non-conforming content.

user there have been multiple cases of people being charged with lolicon material.
It's a grey area, i'll say it again.
Huge difference between having cute loli pictures, questionable age doujins, and someone flat our raping what we know is an underage girl less than 12 years old.
What state you're in also is a big determining factor. Country also, as a few canadian citizens have been found guilty.

Situational awareness is also another factor.
As I said before who is in your house is huge variable for being charged with a crime.
Did you know for instance if you are watching graphic movies on your television and your child is watching it (assuming young child) this is grounds for child abuse?
If you have content sexualizing underaged children, while children are in your household.
There is most assuringly a courtsystem in this country that will find you guilty. Not all, but there is one out there.
It's a risk you'll be taking.
I'm not a regular loli viewer anymore, i've tried to pass on that addiction as I have roommates and it's hard enough explaining my other fetishes.

Move to Japan, it's the only safe place for us anymore if Trump really enforces this.

So rapping with a lot of cussing or literally any porno is illegal and not protected?

>90% of lolis come from americucks
Oh im laughing
And then you call other countires degenerate smhfamtbh

>90% of lolis come from americucks
No lolis come from vaginas sir

Leave lolis alone please.

No they are DRAWN ON PAPER
Loli scum needs to kill themselves and this makes me love trump even more

Fuck you
Loli is love loli is life.

Except interestingly enough you cite the Ashcroft case, which proves you wrong. The obscenity laws you speak of are a legal grey area, and if you read up on the subject most current cases are stalled indefinitely. This is because there are no standards and the vagueness of shit like the Miller test makes such loose standards difficult to enforce and borderline unconstitutional.
If obscenity laws were enforced in the manner you think they are, Sup Forums itself wouldn't exist. Porn isn't the only thing obscenity laws cover.

>Multiple cases
Name one besides Chris Handey.
Hard mode:
Name one that wasn't also caught with real cp
Ultraviolence mode:
Name one besides Handey that only possessed 2D AND got a conviction.

Shitposter no shitposting.

Finally. I hope he puts all the illegal lolis in jail. I hate sanctuary cities. These lolis are taking jobs.

Because that's a good thing

>So rapping with a lot of cussing or literally any porno is illegal and not protected?
Just because it's not protected speech doesn't means it's illegal, it just means it could be regulated. Of your examples the first would not be obscene and the second could or could not. It would be determined at trial by a jury for example. It is determined using the Miller test which requires the following three conditions to be met.
>whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’
>whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
>whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
A rap song is not likely to meet all these. A porno could depending on the jury. The average porno would probably not be deemed patently offensive by a jury and there's been cases where the jury did not deem pornography offensive. Loli doujin is obvious special case since most people find it disgusting. Handley made a deal because his lawyer advised him that it was a bad gamble to count on the jury. Maybe it was bad choice, who knows.

>How can you support Trump when he pledged to aggressively enforce federal law against lolis?

Cause I loves me some Christmas Cakes.

He died though.

If I was a single issue voter on pedophilia I would have to vote for myself

>Except interestingly enough you cite the Ashcroft case, which proves you wrong.
How so? Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) was dealing with CPPA from 1996, in the majority opinion they state
>CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The issue was that it went beyond obscenity doctrine and child pornography law. There are two classes of unprotected speech here CP and obscene speech. CP is unprotected for reasons deriving from Ferber decision, these arguments didn't apply to fictional children, likewise CPPA didn't have an obscenity requirement so it was classifying a broader set of unprotected speech than before. This is why they struck it down.
The following year they passed the PROTECT Act of 2003, this basically had the fictional cp clause copy pasted from CPPA with an obscenity requirement attached. This made it constitutional because obscene speech has not been protected speech for over a century. Obscene speech not being protected speech is in no way a "gray area". Could you link those cases?
The last I was aware of was Dwight Whorley's case where the supreme court refused to review it, this was after an appeals court decided 2 to 1 to uphold his conviction and the dissenting judge strongly recommended it go further. But it didn't, if you have some indication that SCOTUS is likely to overturn century old obscenity doctrine any time soon I'd love to see it, I'd be ecstatic.
>If obscenity laws were enforced in the manner you think they are, Sup Forums itself wouldn't exist. Porn isn't the only thing obscenity laws cover.
Part of my point is that they're are NOT enforced currently but they easily could be depending on the attorney general chosen.
Additionally obscenity law does only apply to porn or similar speech. How would Sup Forums possibly pass the Miller Test? Did you not read the test? It explicitly requires sexual conduct and appeal to prurient interest.

>The superseding indictment alleges sufficient facts to support counts charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) (1) and (b) (1). Thus, the defects in subsections 1466A(a) (2) and (b) (2) do not necessitate dismissal of the superseding indictment in this case. The determination of what constitutes obscenity is a determination to be made by the trier of fact in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds the pending motion must be denied in part and granted in part. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Clerk's No. 45) is denied, with the exception of any prosecution under subsections 1466A(a) (2) and (b) (2) as to which the motion is granted.

Tl;Dr:
The charge is so ridiculous and the stardards are so poorly defined that only half the case can technically be prosecuted.
Also if you followed that case Chris was a fucking idiot with a shit lawyer. You wouldn't be here if the miller test defined the first amendment, and courts don't have the capacity to argue every time a christfag, SJW, or hysterical cunt get offended. Even if Trump did try cracking down on loli cartoons it would go about as well as Hillary trying to seize guns. He'd be out of office long before the courts could find enough fucks to argue about nerds jerking off to drawings, which is what already happened during the Bush administration.

You may want to keep reading the Ashcroft case, specifically the bit about "virtual depictions." Because of the potential to encroach on protected speech the obscenity nonsense goes out the window.

Sup Forums is full of porn, including loli, at any given moment. Did you just get here from the Pepe shit?
Pepe is an example right there, especially the poo poo pee pee variants. The miller test has a guy that sold scat porn in a trial that is idle, yet still ongoing. Sup Forums is a much juicier target for a government than a smut peddler. What makes you think the feds chasing loli cartoons would make them stop there if they took the authoritarian route?

It's disturbing to me that things can be found to be illegal simply for being deemed disgusting or offensive. But I really doubt it will be enforced, presidents say they'll do shit all the time that they won't do. I bet he won't even build that wall everyone is so hyped about let alone enforce puritan ethics on us. The man talked about his dick size in front of the whole country for fuck's sake. Usually when somebody starts screaming about shills on here it's pretty clear they are just using it as an easy way to dismiss somebody's argument or bait but I think you really might be a shill.

I'll add that it's easy to be confused by the Handley case if you only read the wiki page or the ANN citation.

You've misunderstood what you're quoting. For reference pic shows the relevant sections.
It has nothing to do with standards being poorly defined and it has no bearing on continuously of obscenity law. I quote from later
>Pornography can only be banned if it is obscene or involves the use of actual minors. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. at 240, 122 S. Ct. 1389. Subsections 1466A(a) (2) and (b) (2) require neither and are therefore overbroad and unconstitutional.
It was technical issue with the second sections of parts (a) and (b). They didn't explicitly require obscenity test, they just had some bastardized version of the miller test, with missing parts. Sectons (1) do have the obscenity require and are thus constitutional.
>Counts one through four charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a) and (b), of which subsections 1466A(a) (1) and (b) (1) prohibit obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children. The Court concludes subsections 1466A(a) (1) and (b) (1) do not violate the First Amendment and therefore are not unconstitutional.
Nothing in that goes against obscenity law or implies that obscene speech is protected. Any loli doujin will fall under 1466A(a) (1) and (b) (1) so the unconstitutionally of 1466A(a) (2) and (b) (2) isn't very important.
>You wouldn't be here if the miller test defined the first amendment
I'm not sure what you mean. The miller test is a part of first amendment law this is undeniable. Obscenity law was all but gone until it was revived for child porn legislation in the 90s to now. I can link you papers discussing this change.
Can you give me a quote, you're misunderstanding it. The obscenity clause in 2003 law was added to get around the Ashcroft decision, I can find a quote from a law professor stating this if you wish. Just look up obscenity on law dictionary, it's not nonsense.

You can't stop it.

>It's disturbing to me that things can be found to be illegal simply for being deemed disgusting or offensive.

That's why obscenity laws are unenforceable and unconstitutional. Federal courts sit on most of these cases indefinitely because they're a pain in the ass to proceed and they constantly get appealed. And for the most part they're nonsense and a waste of time. It's literally "stop liking what I don't like" in legal form. The only reason you won't find a finalized ruling on vague shit like the miller test is because the government knows there's potential to use shit like that as a tool for political agendas. Both parties can use that sort of thing to silence and demonize political enemies, Bush was very fond of it for that purpose.
The good news is it isn't a very easy or practical tool to use. You have to go out of your way to piss someone off to get caught by it.

You're contadicting yourself in your own post, over and over again. You also seem to insist only loli can be of a sexual nature, but not things like rap music or Sup Forums shitposts? And even when your own source is thrown back in your face you just claim it only fits your personal narrative instead of what it actually says, like we're all supposed to believe you're the only person alive that can read boring legal jargon.
You can prattle on all you want, I've personally received packages inspected by customs with lolicon doujin. You're arguing on a website sponsored by a CA based company that sells the same shit. Loli isn't illegal, and every law that attempts to say so is too vague to enforce.

>Sup Forums is full of porn, including loli, at any given moment.
"If the work taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest". Sup Forums wouldn't satisfy that. It would also fail the third test since it is ostensibly and in practice a forum of political discussion, if somewhat immature or crass.
>The miller test has a guy that sold scat porn in a trial that is idle, yet still ongoing.
Okay, and if Donna Hughes and her pledge had her way there'd be hundreds or thousands more stuck in court system limbo and/or getting obscenity charge convictions. I suppose you could hope that having that many cases would push scotus to review it but there's little indication they would overturn obscenity doctrine. At that point you're counting on the jury and getting your dirty laundry aired to the world.
>What makes you think the feds chasing loli cartoons would make them stop there if they took the authoritarian route?
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think the feds would stop there, that's why I am against obscenity law.

Fuck off, kek loves little anime girls.

>I can find a quote from a law professor stating this if you wish
This is literally "my dad works at nintendo." Better stick to facebook, CTRfag.

How am I contradicting myself?
>but not things like rap music or Sup Forums shitposts
See >And even when your own source is thrown back in your face
What source? Ashcroft? I'm sorry but if you think the Ashcroft decision was related to obscenity law you're wrong. See below.
>You can prattle on all you want, I've personally received packages inspected by customs with lolicon doujin.
Because it's not enforced.
>Loli isn't illegal, and every law that attempts to say so is too vague to enforce.
They've been enforced? Porn actors and distributors have been charged and convinced under obscenity law, I'll link cases in my next post.

Here you go.
>In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down the CPPA as unconstitutional. n90 The Court refused to recognize virtual child pornography as the equivalent of child pornography and [*575] admonished Congress in its attempt to circumvent obscenity law.
>Congress responded to the Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition by passing the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act.
>Section 1446A placed limits on virtual child pornography. n103 In direct response to the Court, n104 Congress inserted the Miller test into the law to determine if virtual child pornography was obscene. n105 If it was found to be obscene, the virtual child pornography would essentially be considered child pornography
Zenor, Jason. "Sins of the Flesh? Obscenity Law in the Era of Virtual Reality." Communication Law and Policy 19.4 (2014): 563-589.
That's what I described.

Illiya is best girl and best series.

Feminists and the government is moving in on loli with the olympics coming up. They dont want to scare their white guests

>unconstitutional
You don't get to decide this the Supreme Court does. Obscenity laws have been constitutional for over a century, why do you think they're going to change now?
>Federal courts sit on most of these cases indefinitely because they're a pain in the ass to proceed and they constantly get appealed. And for the most part they're nonsense and a waste of time.
Source? Here's a 2009 article discussing a 2008 obscenity conviction and its effects, The 2008 Federal Obscenity Conviction of Paul Little and What it Reveals about Obscenity Law and Prosecutions.
I'll post passages from it in next as they're too long.

dubs speak the true true

>The lasting impact on the adult movie business of the 2008 conviction and prison sentence of Paul Little remains unclear. What is clear now is that the federal government is on a roll after the verdict in United States v. Little, as the following examples illustrate: [lists 4 examples all from 2008]
>Today's environment, in brief, is a far cry from that of the 1990s under the Clinton administration when there was a dearth of federal obscenity cases. It also seems quite a different point in time from that of October 2000 before the election of President George W. Bush when a jury of twelve women in Missouri found that two adult movies that depicted anal, oral, and vaginal sex among women and between men and women, were not obscene.
>'The unknown X factor is the willingness or lack thereof of the administration of President Barack Obama to keep up the assault on sexually explicit content involving consenting adults. The current wave of indictments could fall by the wayside if the Justice Department, under U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, chooses to allocate prosecutorial resources to different matters. It might decide that resources are better spent on matters other than obscenity prosecutions
The federal government is sitting on obscenity cases because they're afraid they'll get ruled unconstitutional, the court has given no indication they would do that.
Any downturn or lag in obscenity convictions seems to be a result of the president/distract attorney's policy and allocation of resources. Why would you expect it to stay the same under a new president?

The federal government isn't sitting*

Sup Forums can easily satisfy that part because the standard is whatever the fuck people want it to be. That vagueness is what makes obscenity laws bullshit, but is also what makes them impossible to enforce.
There are less than 200 obscenity cases from the past 10 years. Most of them went nowhere or were dismissed entirely.
Handey is the only case that's specific to 2D, and that entire trial is a mess of poor choices from every side, no matter which way you frame it.
If loli was illegal there would be no Sup Forums, no Crunchyroll, no Funimation, no Sentai Filmworks, no Jlist, etc. etc.
Handey got fucked for being an easy target in a christfag state with activist prosecutors. He pled guilty and didn't appeal. The case's conclusion is as vague as the law they tried to hang him with.

Reminder that James Joyces' Ulysses had to deal with obscenity laws when they were more enforced.

>I'll prove cartoons are illegal by posting cases involving real porn with real people

Try again.

>Sup Forums can easily satisfy that part because the standard is whatever the fuck people want it to be
No... you'd make a motion for dismissal like Handley tried to do. The courts are extremely strict on restricting political speech and Sup Forums doesn't come close to satisfying Miller test. The judge would have to allow it, then the jury would have to rule it obscene then continue this through appeals.
>That vagueness is what makes obscenity laws bullshit, but is also what makes them impossible to enforce.
As long as the courts go along with it they're not impossible to enforce. I think obscenity laws are bullshit too, that doesn't make them go away. We aren't the arbiters of what's constitutional ultimately the supreme court is. And given obscenity law has remained and been used since the 1870s I'm sure they've heard your argument before. Unless there's current zeitgest which I am unaware of that would indicate a likelihood for SCOTUS to throw out all obscenity law why would you call them unenforceable?
Do you have examples of a contempory case involving obscenity law where the DA dropped the case because they were worried it could go to the supreme court?
>There are less than 200 obscenity cases from the past 10 years.
80% of that would've been under Obama.
>and that entire trial is a mess of poor choices from every side, no matter which way you frame it.
How so? You would have risked 5-20 years in prison on the judgement of Iowans on Loli hentai?
>If loli was illegal there would be no Sup Forums, no Crunchyroll, no Funimation, no Sentai Filmworks, no Jlist, etc. etc.
Most of those don't involve obscene loli, and Sup Forums skirsts in the grey area. There is no reason they couldn't go after Sup Forums users posting lewd loli images, they just don't use the resources that way. They could also go after 420chan users but they don't.

There's nothing unique about loli porn compared to real porn in this context. In each case it's an enforcement of obscenity doctrine which you claimed was too vague and unconstitutional to enforce.

How are they enforcing it with real porn if that's true? What would make loli porn any different?
Those cases all involved distributors and actors etc. There's no loli hentai creator based in the US with a similar large profile.
If a guy founded a company and started pumping out graphic loli porn, he'd probably get his shit slapped quick.

>Obscenity laws have been constitutional for over a century, why do you think they're going to change now?

Actually they've been up in the air for over a century. The "Sins of the Flesh" book you posted specifically questions the constitutionality of obscenity laws and points out their flaws.

Me on the left

I know, they've been up in the air amongst academics and free speech theorists. You can find papers and books all the way back to their invention of people arguing against them. I'm unaware of a time though where they were up in the air or under threat from the courts themselves, since the Miller case.
There's a few like Ashcroft v. ACLU and Reno but the issues in those are a bit different. To make similar argument in this case you'd have to argue the PROTECT restrictions are overboard which seems unlikely.