First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
well it seems that cr host CP
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/15/10 , edited 4/15/10
As regards UK legislation (the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), in my view the shows on Crunchyroll are easily excluded.

Here is part of s.62 of the 2009 Act:


(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.


Note the text in bold. I think an argument to the extent that the successive images taken as whole would be very problematic. The shows themselves are made and marketed not as pornography and the scenes are inteded to be funny through placing the characters in embarrassing situations, so the focus is on the characters' reactions.


(6) An image falls within this subsection if it—
(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or
(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).
(7) Those acts are—
(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;
(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;
(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.


Again, have regard to the bold text. You will hardly find anything that actually falls under s.6(a), let alone s.7. I have not, personally seen Chu-Bra, but I can tell that Omamori Himari would fall outside of the scope of the act.

I have had no idea about cutting, but cutting on top of this all means that Crunchyroll is really quite safe.

Let me add, in addition, that as far as UK legislation is concerned, the author of the article linked in the OP knows feck all about it. I would be sceptical about any writings by the same author.

It would be much appreciated if someone could do the same as me and cover the US side of legislation, I am sure many would appreciate it and find reassurance that their entirely reasonable acts lacking any culpability are justified and within legal boundaries.
Posted 4/15/10 , edited 4/15/10


well that's the sad thing there are sick people out there that will masturbate to any boob, butt or swimsuit girl that comes on the screen. Listen I am loilcon and I am not going to hide anymore, I really like cute lolis and such animes like chu bra or kodom no jinkan if any ones wants to condone me for that then go head, I don't care, on topic though I was late up last night and really didn't read the article that well, it is more an satire/sarcasm/tabloid. If any want's to lock this thread go ahead and do that as well, it's none of my buissnes but I will not change who I am and I am sick being pushed around.
265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Neverlannd ♥.,
Offline
Posted 4/15/10
It's not really child porn.
It's anime. An anime that does have "lolis" or "shotacons" on Crunchyroll aren't very graphic anyway.

Posted 4/15/10 , edited 4/15/10

Hippiie wrote:

It's not really child porn.
It's anime. An anime that does have "lolis" or "shotacons" on Crunchyroll aren't very graphic anyway.



Exactly
Besides, everything on this site is censored, so whats the big deal? Its America. Shutting it down would be unconstitutional, right? (its censored, so it really isn't porn...)
EDIT: The article mentioned "prepubescent" and "Omamori Himari"... That anime was definitely not prepubescent, or at least didn't look like it... (Only the water demon was prepubescent)
84 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/15/10

Kippu wrote:
Anime is cartoon. It's not real children that they are using.
They can't do anything about it.


Apparently it doesn't matter whether it's real or not; what matters is what it implies--or seems to implied


My friend and I almost got suspended because we were talking about handguns in school; we were talking about the vital and non-vital points to aim for . . . you know, all those fun stuffs about where in the human body you want the bullet to hit (just for fun, of course, no harm intended).

Well, we were taken to the office, and supposedly we would have had to have a quick "chat" with the police officer and the principal, but luckily the Sergeant Major of our school's JROTC was just walking by, so we asked for help. . . . Barely escaped death, lol


Their reason? They said that even though we weren't serious about it, someone else might take it seriously--and put whatever we just talked about into action


Since when did everything become so strict?
Moon Princess Moderator
283368 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Heaven
Offline
Posted 4/15/10
~Locked
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.