[ SECRET POST #6976 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6976 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.
[Sanctuary by Sho Fumimura and Ryoichi Ikegami]



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.




__________________________________________________



06.
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #996.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Australia convicted someone of distributing CSAM....

[(Anonymous)]

Australia is like the majority of countries in the world; it is illegal to depict children in sexual situations. Posting it online will get you a distribution charge. If you don’t like it, stick to living in a country that allows CSAM.

Re: Australia convicted someone of distributing CSAM....

[(Anonymous)]

It's not CSAM. Just because Australia is wrong in their definition doesn't make the definition suddenly right.

Re: Australia convicted someone of distributing CSAM....

[(Anonymous)]

Just because you think you disagree with their law doesn’t suddenly mean they’re wrong. Maybe try reading more about the case beyond the sensationalist Guardian article.

Re: Australia convicted someone of distributing CSAM....

[(Anonymous)]

CSAM is about abuse of a child. If a real live child was not abused, then it's not CSAM. Writing fiction is not CSAM. EVER. If she abused her real life child, then you arrest her for abusing a real life child. If she took photos of abuse of a real life child, that is CSAM, so definitely arrest her for the abuse and the creation of the CSAM. But imagining abuse of a child and writing it down is thoguhtcrime, which is not a crime at all and is not CSAM because no actual children were harmed.

CSAM is not bad because ew. It's bad because a child got abused. No child abused = not CSAM. I don't give a fuck what Australian law says, because the law is not the basis for my morality. They're fucking wrong.

Da

[(Anonymous)]

+100000

While this particular woman's remarks make me feel ill i am also concerned about the precedent this sets of convicting people of crimes based on fiction. Thats ..not good

Re: Australia convicted someone of distributing CSAM....

[(Anonymous)]

Again, you should learn more about this case before commenting.

Re: Australia convicted someone of distributing CSAM....

[(Anonymous)]

You would tell me details of the case if they actually contradict what I said if they existed. They don't, so you can only pretend.