Made Shii angry on day one (despite his public Nevada-tan collection which verged on it; no telling what was in his offline collection).
It's art. Yeah, that's it… The characters portrayed are “younger.”
You get the picture. It's 4chan's dirty little secret that it loves to proudly wave around if only because it upsets British people so much.
It used to appear infrequently on 2chan and then frequently on 4chan to the point that they set up a board with “pedo” specifically mentioned (a point I'm sure they'd love to forget). They sure did know how to keep things low-key, didn't they? I don't remember seeing nearly as much of this back then (in terms of selection/# of titles) as I see now even though it probably made up a higher percentage of the overall content. 4chan seemed to bring the freaks out of the woodwork though, apparently by way of Marshall Banana's influence. Eventually there came to be an /l/ board, a source of much contention and eventually the excuse in removal of 4chan's ability to accept donations.
Surprisingly, some countries actually prosecute for possessing the wrong kind of comic books so foreigners bitch and moan whenever it's posted. It is legal in the USA, so suck it REST OF THE WORLD. I'm also unsure how loli has anything to do with reality. I mean, I certainly hope they don't make bondage suits in those sizes… Please don't e-mail me links that dash those hopes. Seriously, I'm in enough trouble mentioning it out loud.
A fairly expansive update is to this page very soon, I assure you. There will be high quality1) artwork, graphs2), and tables3) to drive home certain points.
This section is dedicated to the legality of certain nasty comic books and why your country sucks. I have decided to add this section firstly because I very strongly believe in protecting the freedom of speech at every turn and also because it might piss off Shii. The best part is I wouldn't have known much about this stuff as I do and wouldn't be nearly as concerned about its existence if no one had tried to outlaw it. You can bet the people who are deeply into this culture in countries where it is illegal are likely more into it for thrill of doing something bad rather than for any appreciation of the art or attraction to underage girls/boys with freakishly large eyes.
In the United States, loli is protected speech due to Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition4). Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. On the other hand, if you live in some oppressive dictatorship like Australia, you're fucked (and you really ought to do something about it). To me, it's a no-brainer as to why this is legal. There is no victim in the crime of producing comic books. No one is getting hurt by this. It is my belief that these laws exist as a toe-hold to outlaw every form of pornography and to otherwise sanitize Western culture (which includes Japan as far as I'm concerned).
“The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are 'offensive' to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed 'to invite dispute,' to induce 'a condition of unrest,' to 'create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,' and even to stir 'people to anger.' The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are 'offensive' to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to 'offensive' as well as to 'staid' people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard 'offensive' gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court's opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be 'offensive' to some.”
–The dissenting opinion of Justice William O. Douglas on the matter of Miller v. California (emphasis mine, of course)
Utilizing some very intentionally poor artwork we're going to explore just how ridiculous laws against this stuff are.
HOLD UP. I can't take my artist away from an actual work-related project, so I won't distract … it. Expected time for this page is sometime in February. Sorry to whatever creeps were paying attention to this.