Annoyed
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
Kakeratenshi wrote...
Sindalf wrote...
Under fire but not illegal.
Members of this site love free speech and yet the admin decides to run with his tail between his legs. That is probably the one thing that annoys me about Fakku.
In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California.
The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ruled that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography. However, the ruling stated that those types of images could, however, be prosecuted as obscenity under the Miller test. The Miller test is the same test used to determine whether photos or films of sexual depictions adults are obscene.
So we're aren't allowed to look at obscene images? lawl? You know what's obscene? Real porn, most of that is gross. Such clean lines in my cartoons! That and shemales. Whatever, just because our second party partners (australia and UK for example) rule against loliporn doesn't mean we have to follow suit! And really I just don't like the hypocrisy... Incest, Guro, Futa, 75% of hentai (yup made up statistic) is illegal and obscene irl. BUT IT'S NOT REAL. *annoyed*
i did a paper on this in 2001, a week later i lost my import license because of say law, fucked up thing the package wasn't loli it was a movie(not a porn) that the lead have sex with his 14 year sister(played by a 21 year old actress)virtual cp includes movies like american pie and romeo and Juliet
Kyuubi no Shinigami wrote...
Kakeratenshi wrote...
That's what I was annoyed with. That the "advertiser" was against loliporn but not shemale? I mean CMON!It's not illegal to fuck a shemale. It IS illegal to fuck a child, loli depicts girls who look like children in sexual acts, hence a reason to ban it.
fyi I do like loli, not knocking it or anything but I just think it's pretty obvious why one ad would be allowed and another wouldn't.
And on a side note, who said everything in hentai is illegal? Sure guro/rape and stuff is but futa illegal?
it illegal to fuck a child... when.. oh shit ah wait i did it in california she was sixteenth
0
gizgal wrote...
Plus, should someone try to use this site as criminal evidence against a convicted pedo
NOOOOOOOO, I'm being spotted!
0
i enjoy some loli, but there are loli sites out there, and if that's what you're after you just gotta go find 'em
edit: also, i do not have sex with children, nor do i have any urge to
edit: also, i do not have sex with children, nor do i have any urge to
0
Rob920 wrote...
i enjoy some loli, but there are loli sites out there, and if that's what you're after you just gotta go find 'empant.su
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
As others have said; advertising pays for the site, advertisers have to right to pull out if they don't like what a site depicts. I don't think it should apply to the user uploads on the forum but they believe it does and as I don't pay for the site I'm going to shut my mouth about it. The ad company didn't threaten to remove their funding if it wasn't removed, it was simply made as a request.
please avoid turning this into a debate about morals or anything other than loli being banned here. The facts are loli is not illegal but frowned upon and thus the advertisers (some being for gay websites) wish our site did not feature any material that shows loli in it.
p.s. if an add has dicks or anything you believe is objectionable just e-mail Jacob at jacob@fakku.net with the ad and it's link and he will gladly remove it.
please avoid turning this into a debate about morals or anything other than loli being banned here. The facts are loli is not illegal but frowned upon and thus the advertisers (some being for gay websites) wish our site did not feature any material that shows loli in it.
p.s. if an add has dicks or anything you believe is objectionable just e-mail Jacob at jacob@fakku.net with the ad and it's link and he will gladly remove it.
0
Waar wrote...
As others have said; advertising pays for the site, advertisers have to right to pull out if they don't like what a site depicts. I don't think it should apply to the user uploads on the forum but they believe it does and as I don't pay for the site I'm going to shut my mouth about it. The ad company didn't threaten to remove their funding if it wasn't removed, it was simply made as a request.please avoid turning this into a debate about morals or anything other than loli being banned here. The facts are loli is not illegal but frowned upon and thus the advertisers (some being for gay websites) wish our site did not feature any material that shows loli in it.
p.s. if an add has dicks or anything you believe is objectionable just e-mail Jacob at jacob@fakku.net with the ad and it's link and he will gladly remove it.
I agree, I understand the reasoning behind the choice and all the moral and ethical circumstances. That was never what it was about nor was it about slamming on Jacob for giving in or whatever. BTW, dicks are objectionable? Hehe, that made me smile. I was just annoyed from a pervert's point of view, not a legal point of view that shemale was ok but loli was not. >.> Even though I was the one to bring out the legal ruling on it... *is a shameful hypocrite*
