Heartland

James Blast wrote:roommates are odd creatures, I knew a guy who got his knob caught in a hoover, he slipped as he was putting vaseline on a burn he got and Whoosh! the bloody thing clamped on...

mh wrote:Legal-wise, I don't know the state of things in the US

DancingtheGhost wrote:Thanks ozpat. As I said, I'm out of there already. As for talking to him...I'd probably castrate/kill first, talk later. My temper isn't the coolest when it comes to certain things.

Norman Hunter wrote:Alternatively, me and Weebles will be round in the morning to sort out the sick f**k

nodubmanshouts wrote:DTG. how did you actually find this stuff out? Because taking a peek on his computer is classed a felony (on your part), not to mention throwing yourself open to a civil case.

I think the police would have a very hard time getting a conviction for anime porn... freedom of expression, etc, etc. Some states may have something against it, like Arizona (where oral sex is still illegal, I think), but depending on the content, he could argue its adult characters dressed up weirdly. And I'm sure his lawyer could make a really good case on that. Plus, would these Incest wbsites really be incest, or just make believe (younger looking 18+ girl, with 50+ guy?)?

I would let it lie, but the fact he works with children which is worrying. You're between a rock and a hard place, my dear. Just be aware there could be some very big personal consequences for you personally, if you go to the authorities, which could seriously affect you for the rest of your life.

Wikipedia wrote:United States
The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.[70] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."

On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law)[71] which again criminalizes all forms of pornography that shows people under the age of 18 regardless of production. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. § 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", which criminalizes material that has "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" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (the third test of the Miller Test obscenity determination).

In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted[72] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[73] At the time of the violations, Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes, although the ensuing convictions were independent of his violation of the terms of the parole. He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children.[74] Later, U.S. Attorney's Bulletin, which was requested in November 2006 by the Freedom of Information Act, describes the repercussions of this conviction. It recommends that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions for possession of such obscene cartoons.

On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Williams, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[75]

The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and was scheduled for October 30, 2007 on the 2007-2008 schedule.[2][dead link] The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case and overturned the Eleventh Circuit's ruling 7-2 with Justices Souter and Ginsberg dissenting. The court stressed that virtual child pornography remained under the protection of the First Amendment, except when it was offered or solicited under the mistaken impression that actual children were depicted.[76]

In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year prison sentence to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act.[77]

By October 2008,[78] the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund became involved in a case defending an Iowan comic collector named Christopher Handley, with Eric Chase of the group operating as his legal consultant.[79] This is related to obscenity charges involving pornography depicting minors, being applied to a fictional comic book. Judge Gritzner was petitioned to drop some of the charges.[80] The motion was initially heard on June 24, 2008 [81] but was not widely publicized prior to the Fund's involvement.

The court stressed that virtual child pornography remained under the protection of the First Amendment, except when it was offered or solicited under the mistaken impression that actual children were depicted.

nodubmanshouts wrote:I may be reading this wrong - I hire lawyers so I don't have to speak legal - but isn't stufarq's quote saying virtual comic child pornography is NOT illegal?

Accessing a protected computer is a felony. Unfortunately, just about any computer is now classed as protected, due to the ancient definition of the term, using a computer to access PayPal or Email makes it protected. Would they prosecute or not? I don't know.