If it's not illegal you really can't claim to be for free speech.
-
-
-
"lacks serious...artistic...value" Drawings are by nature artistic as they are art. You can criticize them for themes, style, proportions, shading, etc. Furthermore the Protect Act was partially deemed unconstitutional and actual cp laws protect drawings as a affirmative defensepic.twitter.com/YCEMgDgIfC
-
Try looking up 18 U.S.C S 2252 You aren't pro free speech when you ban art. Youre only pro "what I approve of". Its worth noting that liking something in art and fiction isnt the same as liking and supporting the real thing;no one posting this content is supportive of child abuse
-
You might also look up United States v. Handley before citing the PROTECT Act
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Loli is the canary in the coal mine of free speech, irrespective of anyone's personal tastes. Its the very definition of "legal but highly divisive" content. I'm very, VERY sad to see Gab making puritanical "exceptions" to their free speech position. Its hypocritical.
-
No, The Daily Stormer was the canary in the coal mine. Pedos don't belong in the conversation. If a society doesn't protect it's children it needs to be burned down and start over.
-
-
You really think pedos will stop at watching cartoon child porn?
-
The same arguments are made with depictions of violence. And on the opposite end, are you sure depriving pedos of an outlet that involves no actual children won't end up with pedos creating real victims?
-
Apples and oranges. Pedos are sick.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Fam it's a fuckign drawing, and frankly the best lolis are the assertive ones
-
Few people have issues with cute depictions of youth. However many of these loli supporter sites like loliconnews post tons of pictures of children in sexual poses. This is wrong we know it and they do.
-
It's a F U C K I N G D R A W I N G you npc. It's all fictional
-
Obscene images of children is not okay. Fake or not. Just cause you call them lolis does not change that. Also if the drawings are not pornographic NOONE HAS AM ISSUE WITH IT. It is simple really.
-
If someone draws a picture of a murder isn't as bad as murdering someone in real life?
-
Not comparable. Not the same subject comparing apples to carrots.
-
It's still lines on a page, pixels on a screen
-
False you are comparing art to art. Murder ajd sexual depictions of childen are different therefore cannot be compared.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Nice to know that you're less pro freedom of expression than twitter. Good to know.
-
They are against sexual depictions of children in cartoon form. Sorry, but if you have some need to maoe lolis look like they are orgasming then that is a problem. Or you can post decent pics of them that are not sexualized.
-
Your tweet has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
-
Freedom of expression has always been limited even the founders did so. Stop with this "the founders were libertarian" jargon.
-
I didn't say anything about "the founders" LoL
-
No your implication is about the free speech in pur foundig and constitution. Their are always exceptions.
-
Not at all, i have said nothing "pur foundig and constitution"
-
You are boring.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.