Asking these questions here as well they're probably more relevant in this thread.
>Rule 2) subsection b) Obscene textual depictions involving sex acts with real children are banned.
How in the hell is this enforceable in any way? Does this mean fictional descriptions of pedo fantasies with real children, or descriptions of real things that have taken place, or both? In the former case, why does the same logic not apply to visual fictional depictions of sex acts with real children, like the fantasies depicted in UnterAlterBach, or things Shadman has drawn? In the latter case, how do you determine the act was real without evidence that's illegal to view, or famous case where pedophile was caught?
>Legal, fictional 2D or 3DCG artwork is not prohibited and is not to be conflated with pedophilia or any content banned under this rule.
I have two issues with this rule. Firstly, while I find it on it's face immensely retarded to ban any such assertion that loli==pedo due it stifling legitimate debate on the subject, there's further implications to this rule than that. Does this mean posting any lolicon that uses the word pedophile/pedo is verboten? What about lolicon that merely describes traits of pedophilia without directly naming it? How the fuck does this work?
Secondly, is this rule actually being heavily misinterpreted and misenforced?
Instead of banning the assertion that loli=pedo, is it actually intended to state that for the purposes of global rule violations, loli is not to be reported as a rule 2 violation? I feel like the fact that it is neither in the main section of rule 2, nor in any of the subsections, but rather an addendum at the end, supports this theory. If this is the case, you need to inform everyone including the globals, because this rule
, even in this very thread with posts like >>2721
, is being heavily misenforced to the detriment of free speech and debate.
Is posting banned? Oh shit.
>I'm not sure how this will work since there isn't be a way to tell if a story is describing a real kid unless it's somebody famous enough to be found online or if the author is retarded/sick enough to provide a description that can be used to track the source of "inspiration". I guess the only way will be to search every name in a story and see if there's a match online.
>Would it make a difference if a picture of her was posted or not (or a drawing)?
>If someone posts lolicon [based on a real child] and talks about how much they want they want to fuck [the child] or that children are sexually attractive to them, is that allowed?
These posts Though not initially using the best wording in the latter two cases raise pertinent questions about the changes to rule 2 that need to be answered.
>They'll never do it. Pedophiles are psychopathic parasites incapable of building anything themselves. They will never put in the effort to make their own site
<What is the dorkweb?
>Don't you fags have an IRC for this?
I think that's only for BOs. Either way, this thread about the recent update to the rules, so for transparency's sake, it's a good thing he's asking these questions here, regardless of whether he's really a vol.
>Uhhh, she's 18 now, so posting her child modeling photos should be fine
That's not how it works, you disingenuous niggerfaggot.
>So by that logic, nearly any picture of a real person could be subject to being banned.
And this you just pulled out of your ass without any reasoning behind it at all.
That's a good question, that I don't think the site admins can answer with a clear "Yes" or "No" as it hits in the core of how CP laws make posting real internet pornography legally untenable on most sites in theory, unless you restrict porn to milfs and gilfs in terms of physical looks. Without killing internet porn like PornHub did, and banning all porn that doesn't officially verify the ages of all participants, there's no feasible way to determine the age of every nude picture posted. When it comes to effective enforcement, the best that can be done is to simply remove anything that even looks vaguely too young unless it comes with hard unfalsifiable proof of age. And even doing this, lots of jailbait will get by. There's probably tons of underage 15-17 year old porn floating everywhere on the internet, including this site and OG 8chan, that goes entirely unnoticed because the girls look physically mature. There's also likely plenty of totally legal porn taken down on the regular of girls that look too young. There's no good answer that doesn't require heavily restrictive measures.
>we might as well start calling those who like gore would-be murders
He called them pedos, not would-be-child-molestors. Though I understand you may see the two as synonymous, much like a feminist sees all straight males as would-be-rapists.
Why is obscene text disallowed while cartoon parody is? Did you make this rule, or are you merely explaining it as a vol or BO? Site administration really needs to use capcodes or tripcodes in this thread, as it's getting murky as to who is speaking with authority on global rules. If you made this rule then you do realize you just created a situation where you can have your unrealistic cartoon parody, but making a text description of that parody is banned, right? You see the silliness here? Unless you're actually referencing the law, in which case, you definitely
need to cite where obscene text describing a real child is illegal. And even then whether such law is enforced, or is total bunk, like loli obscenity law 1466A.
Forcing Tor to text-only accomplishes nothing. This was made clearly evident as even the PoW + Captcha has failed to stop imagespam coming from new IDs every single post.
>IF IT WAS FUCKING ILLEGAL, PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE DOING IT AND LARGELY GETTING AWAY WITH IT!
Piracy, weed, jaywalking.
>Did she even give fucking consent in the very least?
Those are clearly selfies, anon.
>or are based on actual photos should go.
What do you make of Unteralterbach and Shadman's drawing then?