No Age-Related Comics

[LK]

My store manager has made it very clear that any product sold with an AR or AP theme, ANYWHERE, by me will result in him shutting down my store, as he doesn't want to be involved with a business that operates with that sort of material.

So, Life, Interrupted, Lauren & Betsy I and II will not be sold by Process Productions. Furthermore, no future AR / AP comics will be sold by the site. It's a fine line unfortunately, and one that, when you mix pr0n and this type of stuff, cannot be tolerated even in the slightest.

[mikewolfskin]

Even the type that is not sexual or has no nudity? I'm just a bit shucked that they can't also see many forums of age Regression art as at lest just artistic art. I don't understand why if it's not sexual or does not show nudity why that bugs them but, I do understand where you stand.

[Styerion]

So, what happens to those of us who are still looking for it?

[Nihtgenga]

I can understand AR and AP that starts off with a young kid, but why all AP?

[Gobosan1]

Originally Posted by Nihtgenga

I can understand AR and AP that starts off with a young kid, but why all AP?

because there's the chance that someone will start an AP with a child
and child porn is a crime in pretty much every state
kupo
more-so when you're selling it

[Dark Oni]

Originally Posted by Gobosan1

because there's the chance that someone will start an AP with a child
and child porn is a crime in pretty much every state
kupo
more-so when you're selling it

But drawings aren't illegal on the internet. Certain photographs can be illegal because that's considered child abuse; they involve actual children being harmed. Drawings with child images, even if they were sexually nasty and explicit (Check out a good chunk of the Japanese AR/AP material. How often does AR link with loli anyway? Yeesh.) are still legal.

This isn't about legality, this is about a business getting paranoid and laying out very broad limits to protect it's image. Nothing wrong with that, just sad that it covers a great deal of unrelated more innocent work as well.

[gribs]

Originally Posted by Dark Oni

But drawings aren't illegal on the internet. Certain photographs can be illegal because that's considered child abuse; they involve actual children being harmed. Drawings with child images, even if they were sexually nasty and explicit (Check out a good chunk of the Japanese AR/AP material. How often does AR link with loli anyway? Yeesh.) are still legal.

This isn't about legality, this is about a business getting paranoid and laying out very broad limits to protect it's image. Nothing wrong with that, just sad that it covers a great deal of unrelated more innocent work as well.

This may or may not be true. It's becoming less clear. In a discussion about a recent court case:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/29/0140251

we have the following text (which might or might not actually be legal fact; I haven't tried myself to read and interpret the legal findings, and even if I had, I'm not a lawyer):

Originally Posted by some guy on another forum

That's not true - two of the three charges were child pornography charges, including one of the two in respect of the drawn images. Under current US law, drawn images are treated exactly the same as real child pornography (but only if they're either obscene or "depict an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" - anything which isn't has 1st amendment protection). Note that there is no requirement of obscenity under the second criterion; I doubt this is generally in issue, but it's possible there are circumstances under which it could be.

It's a bogeyman which is IMO being applied way too broadly. I'm very against thought police, even in regards to things I find personally distasteful. But the actual legal realities are becoming increasingly murky.

It might actually be the case that any image featuring a real or drawn child, regardless of what's otherwise being depicted in the image, can be the basis for a child porn conviction if the prosecutor can only convince the jury that you've got it for some 'dirty reason'. If that's not currently the case, it sure feels like that's the way things are going.

[Dark Oni]

Originally Posted by gribs

This may or may not be true. It's becoming less clear. In a discussion about a recent court case:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/29/0140251

we have the following text (which might or might not actually be legal fact; I haven't tried myself to read and interpret the legal findings, and even if I had, I'm not a lawyer):



It's a bogeyman which is IMO being applied way too broadly. I'm very against thought police, even in regards to things I find personally distasteful. But the actual legal realities are becoming increasingly murky.

It might actually be the case that any image featuring a real or drawn child, regardless of what's otherwise being depicted in the image, can be the basis for a child porn conviction if the prosecutor can only convince the jury that you've got it for some 'dirty reason'. If that's not currently the case, it sure feels like that's the way things are going.

Obscenity is an exception to the First Amendment and one can be arrested for having obscene material even if it is drawn, HOWEVER, proving a drawing on the internet is obscene by the definition the Supreme Court has laid out is next to impossible.

For more detail on this: http://www.ararchive.com/index.php?o...&limitstart=60

Now I'm not sure about any decisions in the last year but I do know about a year ago the Court ruled that a photograph of an adult modified with a computer program to look like a child having sex was not a violation of the First Amendment. Given that decision and how conservative the current court is I doubt that anything that has shown up in AR/AP comics would be considered obscene either.

Furthermore, nothing Lorekeep has posted for sale has fallen into the catagory of what was in that case, which is in appeals. Still, a very chilling ruling for those of us not fond of thoughtcrimes being prosecuted.

[LK]

I can't sell any adult material that has a child in its pages. That's pretty much the rule.

[flork]

Originally Posted by Lorekeep

I can't sell any adult material that has a child in its pages. That's pretty much the rule.

how about AR from elder to adult? there're no kids in that

[billmarksman]

I saw a comic once where two adults were speaking a kid walked by, I was shocked and prayed for the comic maker's soul.

[SdazVarence]

I agree with Dark Oni, This is a bunch of Bullshit just so the Guy can save Face, Your better off looking for someone who can tolerate this stuff. Its like not getting something because your a certain gender or race, its tandamount to Racism.

I say we Riot :;sage nod::