2D Lolis Facing Ban In The United Kingdom

Much has been written on this topic over the last few days, by various bloggers - some more informed than others. But before I follow example, I'll start off by noting that our beloved 2D lolis (and non-photographic child porn images in general) are still very much legal in the UK. However, there's also a very real danger of them becoming illegal several months from now, when the ongoing debate (a.k.a. legislative ping-pong between the House of Commons and the House of Lords) comes to a conclusion.



The dreaded bill that's currently being debated in the United Kingdom's parliament is called "Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09", and the part that worries us in particular is the proposition to "extend the law proscribing possession of child pornography to include non‑photographic images".

In other words, the moment your browser caches the above picture, you'd probably be breaking the law if this legislative madness goes through in its current form - one that outlaws the mere possession of drawings that are "grossly offensive, disgusting or of an otherwise obscene character - an image that could be of such a nature that it would be solely or principally used for the purpose of sexual arousal". Unless they tone it down to only condemn publishing of such images, not actual possession.

Sure, the underlying intention to protect kids is cute and everything. But I seriously doubt that such a flawed law would serve its purpose. If anything, it would only make criminals out of people when there is no real victim harmed by said drawings! And don't tell me that wanking on 2D loli porn makes a pedo-in-thought go out and harm real children, cause that's just as idiotic as blaming video games for school massacres. Denying us of such virtual pleasures, on the other hand, could make things a lot worse...

Was that a highly subjective argument? Maybe. But then again so would be the decission to classify a certain drawing as depicting an underaged child (pardon the pleonasm). And let's just take the above picture as example once more: are those three depictions of children? Do real real children have animal ears and tails? Or what if the drawn character is a millenia-old demon who just so happens to look like a mindblowingly hot loli? How is that more illegal than watching a real-life video of Britney Spears dressed like a schoolgirl? Surely there are freaks who would also use that "solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".

Oh well, such is life in 1984 2009. Our basic liberties are being taken away from us one by one, and we're ignorant enough to not give a damn. So go ahead, break our freedom of expression, and regulate our minds. I'm a pedo-in-thought. I'm a pyro-in-thought. Sue me!