h

>>10926
Is it wise to allow shota and loli content on this site?

https://7chan.org/cake/res/47839.html
^This is basically pages from a "children's" book a pedophile would use to groom kids for sexual abuse.

Technically, any and all shota and loli is illegal in the USA. Even just accessing it.

Shouldn't this stuff by banned, and the boards removed?

>>10931
The argument that porn of children, even cartoon children, can be used to convince children to have sex, is complete and utter nonsense.

First of all, children naturally and normally WANT sex. Even without being told what it is, sooner or later you'll find them with another kid, their pants off, touching each other and feeling good. Second, literally every child over a certain age wants to be an adult and copy what adults do. They don't WANT to be children, so saying "hey, kids do X" is a sure way to make them want to NOT do it. But saying "hey, adults do X" will make them want to do it because adults are cool and they want to prove how grown up and mature they are. Therefore, pornography of adults will convince children to try sex more than pornography of kids will. Third, cartoon porn is legally not CP in the USA, and is protected under 1st Amendment rights. If you've heard otherwise, whoever told you is wrong.

>>10932
Depictions of minors particpating in sexual acts is illegal in the USA. Them's the rules.

>>10935
Drawings are not minors.

You fucking idiot.

File 161185725411.jpg - (79.72KB , 1000x562 , external-content_duckduckgo_com.jpg )

>>10937
Read what he wrote:
>Depictions of minors

Or are you trying to claim that a cartoon does not depict?

File 161194928865.png - (3.45KB , 332x273 , Foolofatook.png )

>>10938
No, it doesn't. It depicts a character, which does not have an age because it does not exist.

Is the picture I attached child porn?

File 161195273315.jpg - (69.10KB , 1280x720 , external-content_duckduckgo_com.jpg )

>>10939
>It depicts a character
A character can have ascribed attributes.

>>10940
Answer the question, and stop trying to make the argument about semantics rather than law.

>>10941
>stop trying to make the argument about semantics rather than law.

>>10935
>Depictions of minors particpating in sexual acts is illegal in the USA.

Sounds to me like you're the one arguing semantics.

>>10942
Oh my fucking God, give it up you idiot. DRAWINGS OF FICTIONAL CHARACTERS ARE PROTECTED IN US LAW WHETHER YOU FUCKING LIKE IT OR NOT.

>>10942
Fucking stupid, I'm not even american and even I know a "minor" according to american law (as in most western countries) must be a natural person