I made a report on this yesterday while extremely tired, so I was too out of it to feel comfortable posting at the time. I am going to post it now:

---

Nov 4 2014

(I am compiling this while I should be asleep. I have been up all night and I am extremely tired.)

tl:dr: It's complicated.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States
"In 2002 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography" ... "The CPPA made all virtual child sex depictions illegal without regard to whether the speech was protected or not, so that part of the statute was struck down as facially invalid."

"part"
I did not investigate what part.

Also, it looks to me that there was /another/ law. But that parts of it have been deemed unconstitutional. PROTECT Act of 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

"In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) and it was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by then president George W. Bush.[51] The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 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". By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value."

(Oh goodie, George Bush signed this.)

"However, in the 2008 Christopher Handley case, a judge overturned parts of the PROTECT Act as unconstitutional..."

"Currently, such depictions are in a legal grey area due to parts of the PROTECT Act being ruled unconstitutional on a federal level; however, laws regulating lolicon and shotacon differs between states; several states have laws that explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography and similar depictions (such as video games in the state of New Jersey), while others usually have only vague laws on such content; in some states, such as California, such depictions specifically do not fall under state child pornography laws,[57] while the state of Utah explicitly bans it.[58]

Due to the fact that the definition of obscenity differs between states, the legality of lolicon and shotacon depends on the community; in several states, there are clauses that state that for something to be deemed obscene, real harm must be done or the child depicted must be someone that exists in real life, while other areas may specifically allow unrealistic "cartoon" depictions but prohibit more "life-like" depictions. Some states may have heavy penalties on such material but only ban depictions of minors under 16 years of age (Arizona and New Jersey), while others may decide to ban it altogether."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

"Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors)."

• "The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors)."*

Hmm

"does not explicitly state"
But also does not explicitly exclude.
What is the significance of that passage?

"On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT Act, the "pandering provision" codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment."
see here, there is too much to reasonably copy paste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003#Application_of_the_Act

---

Also

What is obscenity? http://en.wikipedia.org

"An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
"The Miller test (also called the Three Prong Obscenity Test) is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited."

"The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Prurient: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prurient]

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]"

What a bunch of squishily defined, subjective, puritanical, outdated crap. Sounds like a whole lot of we-don't-like-it-so-you-can't-have-it-(and-we-are-going-to-ruin-your-life-for-it).

Also I am curious to know how they decide "artistic" value.

This is linked at the bottom of the Miller Test article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_merit
Look at the lack of citation in this article.
Even so, the writer claims " In general, rigid criteria for artistic merit tend to fall apart fairly rapidly and the preferred standards for artistic merit vary across time and place."

Thank you to whoever, for reading this long-ass on the spot research post I was compelled to produce.

Oh also that does not include the alleged court case were someone went to prison for 20 years but I could probably find that as I saw somethings of that sort while researching about the actual /legality/.

Hmmm:

Christopher Handley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley
ctrl+f "years"
in the footnotes a link to:
www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/10/24/american-faces-20-years-over-loli-manga/

"he faces a prison sentence of up to 20 years if convicted under the PROTECT Act."

"if"

Article date: Date: Oct 24, 2008

back to wikipedia:

"Judge Gritzner was petitioned to drop some of the charges, but instead ruled that 2 parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional. Handley still faces an obscenity charge.[5] The motion was initially heard on June 24, 2008,[6] but was not widely publicized prior to the Fund's involvement. CBLDF leader Neil Gaiman remarked on how this could apply to his work The Doll's House, saying, "if you bought that comic, you could be arrested for it? That’s just deeply wrong. Nobody was hurt. The only thing that was hurt were ideas." He then initiated a perfume sales campaign to raise funds for Handley's legal defense.[7][8]

Handley was convicted in May 2009 as the result of entering a guilty plea bargain at the recommendation of Chase, under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images of question.[9]"

None of the information I linked /confirms/ he faced /20/ years.

Second option: "Dwight Whorley"
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States"
ctrl+f "years" searching for twenty or 20, many times uncovers a link to
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/01/07/20-years-for-loli-manga-%E2%80%9Cvictims-don%E2%80%99t-have-to-exist%E2%80%9D/
which is not about Whorley far as I can see. It does not give he man's name.

2005 is relevant.

"Clouding the issue further, the man apparently also received unambiguously illegal photographs of underage sexual conduct."

Well, that might also have something to do with it.

"All this resulted in a jury convicting him of 74 offences, including receiving obscene materials, receiving obscene visual representations of underage sex, receiving child pornography and sending and receiving obscene emails. His sentence of 20 years was the maximum possible."

"The notorious PROTECT Act of 2003, which permits arbitrarily stripping material of its First Amendment protections if it can be judged obscene according to the criteria of the Miller Test, was instrumental in securing these convictions; in fact this represents the first successful conviction under it."

this article links to the one I linked above involving Christopher Handley

searching again "Dwight Whorley"

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/064288.P.pdf
240 divided by 12 is 20. 20 years:

"Dwight Whorley was convicted of (1) knowingly receiving
on a computer 20 obscene Japanese anime cartoons depicting
minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §
1462; (2) knowingly receiving, as a person previ-
ously convicted of receiving depictions of minors engaging in
sexually explicit conduct, the same 20 anime cartoons, in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C. §
1466A(a)(1); (3) knowingly receiving,
as a person previously convicted of receiving depictions of
minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 14 digital pho-
tographs depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit con-
duct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2252(a)(2); and (4)
knowingly sending or receiving 20 obscene e-mails, in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. §
1462. Imposing a sentence that departed
upward from the recommended Sentencing Guidelines range,
the district court sentenced Whorley to 240 months’ imprison-
ment."

The stupidity of this reminds me of witch trials.

I did not read enough in my opinion, to verify there was no further text that altered this sentence to another number of years. I think this is good enough.

Also, if this is actually him, as I can only find three instances of this image: http://bentcorner.com/wp-content/uploads//2008/12/013747-03.jpg

For the love of fuck they aught to just let the guy have his fake kid porn @.@ This guy must be one of the damned of the earth ;-; Like how the fuck could you better manage you fetish than to look at some ///fake/// kid porn. I didn't uncover that they found him to have any real kid porn, but I didn't check thoroughly. I feel really bad for people with this fetish that manage it fine and then get their lives further destroyed by a bunch of people that aught to mind their own damn business. Its like a curse to have this fetish. Sex is a huge part of most human being's existences. Anyone that has this fetish is already going to be psychologically screwed up because they can't act on it, and if they do, they screw someone else up. Either way, someone is getting screwed up. They are going to get screwed up if they get caught doing something to a real kid, as the law is going to take their life away. There is no winning if there is an actual action taken. So why not let someone have their fake kid porn? Because otherwise, what is going to happen then? You can't vent. They got this fetish, to my knowledge, no matter what. Maybe there is something I don't know about how fetishes work, but I think, if you stuff that away, its going to torment you some other way. Someone that has this fetish has problems period, because someone else is going to give problems to them. I am looking at this independent of fault. I have no idea the internal state of a person that likes underage stuff, what they deal with. As you don't hear much about what they deal with. You hear about the effects of child abuse. And everyone hates the pedophile, and there is a fear reaction to even considering you might say something empathetic about them. Empathy does not mean supporting or condoning an action they take against someone real, it means understanding their subjective state and their experience. They don't talk about this with people much, because it is such a high risk to do so. because people /hate/ and /fear/ this. Thus, I don't know what its like being one. I haven't gotten to talk about this much. They are, it would seem often quiet about having interest in underage stuff. Because things like this journal happen.

It's not about what people tag their shit as. It's about a person who drew several pictures of a 10 year old being raped.