Question about underage stuffs
0
I just wonder, are they legal or illegal? I know some sites that exist solely for this, like Biri for example. I have done a lot of researches but still can't come up with a good answer, because it seems the whole thing is shrouded in mist. Clearly hentai is ok, obscene is not, CP is clearly not. But what about loli?
0
This does not belong in SD.
To answer your question, lolicon and shotacon are not allowed.
Here is why: https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=45067
I also suggest that you read the rules: https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=2091
Also, it depends on the "loli-ness" of the girl. Obviously any art by Inuboshi is not allowed but if it is a girl like Konata from Lucky Star it is allowed. Just nothing that is actually 12 and under as lolicon is technically anything that is pre-pubescent.
To answer your question, lolicon and shotacon are not allowed.
Here is why: https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=45067
I also suggest that you read the rules: https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=2091
Also, it depends on the "loli-ness" of the girl. Obviously any art by Inuboshi is not allowed but if it is a girl like Konata from Lucky Star it is allowed. Just nothing that is actually 12 and under as lolicon is technically anything that is pre-pubescent.
0
It's not like there is absolutely no loli manga here, ive seen some that include lolis but arent technically considered to be so. Personally I love lolis as long as they're at least over 8. （￣ワ￣///）
0
I believe its a gray area right now because advertising companies changed, if you want to be completely sure ask a Mod or PM Jacob.
0
FoolyDooly
Bought With Mastercard
tl;dr laws changed and ad companies changed...
shouldn't this law be re-looked into?
(http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5/$FILE/Handley.pdf is the source, and quoting Wikipedia article, "Judge Gritzner [...] ruled that 2 parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional.")
shouldn't this law be re-looked into?
(http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5/$FILE/Handley.pdf is the source, and quoting Wikipedia article, "Judge Gritzner [...] ruled that 2 parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional.")