Should art/"virtual" child-porn be banned?

[Vendetta]

This topic is based off an article reported in the Edmonton Journal by way of ANN (ANN story HERE (http://www.animenewsnetwork .com/article.php?id=6283) , and also a copy of the actual news article is HERE (http://img201.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img201&image=loliarrest2jd. jpg).)

While I understand that under Canadian law these were illegal to import, I'm wondering how does everyone feel about material like this that is not "REAL" child-pornography (in the sense that children were subjugated and used for pornography) being banned?

[Wolf-Bone]

I could've sworn there was a case in another part of Canada where a court ruled that some guy who had erotic art of children wasn't violating any laws a few years back. Maybe it varies from province to province. Then again maybe the other guy didn't actually buy it and just has really generous friends or something.

Personally, it's not my cup of tea. I don't get anything out of it. And I'm not going to pretend that it has "artistic merit" or makes some broader statement beyond someone getting their jollies off kids. I guess there could be art featuring naked kids that makes a non-sexual statement, but then it's not child erotica. But if no actual children were being victimized or exploited by it, I don't see how I'm supposed to say it should be illegal.

If you're a conservative crusader, or any other leaning for that matter out to tell me I'm amoral and apathetic, fuck off. Obviously those who share your view have enough of a stronghold on the law to ensure that no one who specializes in that kind of art can have it published and therefore have a chance at gaining mainstream acceptance. You've captured the only bastion that matters - the courts.

[Vendetta]

But if no actual children were being victimized or exploited by it, I don't see how I'm supposed to say it should be illegal.
Which is really my point. And the fact that I think these kind of things present a slippery slope from which the moral majority would very much love to kick us all down.

Oh sure, people will go on about how such art MUST mean that these people are pedophiles and child-molesters. Here's the thing, I can fantasize about rape, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and RAPE someone. Hell it doesn't even mean such fantasies (or artwork) are going to encourage me to rape someone.

[Wolf-Bone]

Personally I think we're already on it, perhaps irreversably. I haven't seen much in the news and other media in the last several years that shakes my perception that society is reversing course on its progressiveness. I think our kids and grandkids are in for a rough ride.

[Owlie]

Art is art is art.

I can draw a stick figure of bush, crap on it, and call it art. As wolf bone said "I guess there could be art featuring naked kids that makes a non-sexual statement, but then it's not child erotica." The main problem here is how you differentiate between "Art" and "Porn". There are renaissance paintings of naked cherubs flying around over people’s heads. It’s not hard to imagine some sick bastards getting there kicks from that. However this hentae is a lot different from renaissance paintings, these are drawings of children being tied and raped. I do not condone this type of material at all. It sickens me, and in my opinion people who get there jollies off looking at this type of thing should simply be shot and have their bodies hurled off the planet. (No need for them to take up valuable land space in graveyards) But I don’t think we should allow the government to tell us what we can or can’t draw, and what we can or can't look at. That violates our constitutional rights, and since these drawings are not violating the constitutional rights of anyone what so ever (i.e.: no one is getting harmed) there is really no reason they should be banned.

Yes, this is wrong on many levels and in a perfect world it should not even be a issue.

No, it should not be banned, because this is not a perfect world, and because this in not a perfect world we have laws protecting the rights of every person.

[Faerie_flame]

But if no actual children were being victimized or exploited by it, I don't see how I'm supposed to say it should be illegal.

Although I think that is a good point, I still think It's wrong, and I think it should be banned. My view is probably affected by one of my close friends who experienced sexual abuse for about two years (she was fouteen when she and her younger siser-13- finally admitted it to anyone). I just think It's twisted, adn there's no need. If people are going to use art as an excuse, then they clearly need help.

[Wolf-Bone]

"I agree that you made a good point, but I disagree with what you just said"

Not to worry Faerie, the only art you'll ever be exploited in is when you become the poster child for doublethink.

[LV426]

The canadian laws actually do allow for child pornography in some cases, and actual child porn regarding photos and videos. The two provisions were made in 2001 and are as follows:


1. Writings or drawings, from the imagination (not using real
children), of sexually explicit depictions of children are acceptable
providing they are for personal use only; and

2. Videos or photographs of lawful sexual activity in which the
accused is shown, providing they are for private use only and not
distributed, (for example, sexual activities between two adolescents, providing they are 14 years* of age or over, and legally able to give a valid consent).

The problem that comes in here is that the man in question didn't make his own drawings, he purchased material that was not personal but public material for his own private use. Had he made his own drawings there would be no problem.

However the issue at hand is not whether or not he was wrong but whether or not art depicting illegal acts should be banned. If art depicting children being sexually assaulted/violated is banned and made illegal then what is to prevent other illegal activities such as murder, sodomy (depending on the state), nudity, public sexual activity, and in some cases sex itself, from being banned as art. Right there you knock out medical journals, forensic case files, tv shows, porn, statuary like venis de milo, games, and the local news. Is it right to let the moral majority have a hand in what is considered obscene or immoral and take away our rights as individuals? Sure I don't agree with manga that has images of children and babies being raped or sexually violated, but then again I don't buy said items because they are offensive to me. I can't say if it will increase the likely-hood that someone will turn into a pedophile, in fact it may be keeping him from acting out him impulses. But denying him what many consider to be kiddie porn even when there are no children harmed or involved in the actual process, is not right either.

It only takes one precedent and then laws begin cracking down and soon you are left with nothing and not even one's inner fantasies are sacred. The thought police are now on patrol and you can not harbor any thoughts that may be considered indecent or immoral. While yes I would like to see manga that depicts young children being violated taken from shelves the reality is that it will exist whether or not there are laws against it and the more underground it goes, the more likely that there will be some harm inflicted by those that we are trying to protect.

I won't support the manga that he purchased but I will protect his right to purchase what ever makes him happy as long as no other person or animal has been infringed upon or hurt in any way shape or form. Who am I to tell someone how to think?

[Buddha Monkey]

There is a fine line between art and porn. And that fine line is in everyones mind. What I may see as over the top, pornographic, you may see it as artistic.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as the children in it are old enough to understand what their doing (real porn), or it's drawn. And, differnt people would understand at differnt ages (I knew what porn, and sex were when I was 7, while I know people in their 30's that shouldn't be able to make that choice.) No, I don't watch 15 years old's having sex, either in a real porn, or a drawn porn. Doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't like it.

I also don't like cheese. Should I say that you can't eat it?

The moral majority will always rule. Yes, if those of us on this board, most of whom has morals outside the "norm" were in control, alot would change. Then those now in the majority would be on forums and blogs bitching and complaining that we had all the power.

[Midnight Blue]

Frankly, it's disgusting. It's perverse. Some rights just shouldn't exist. If you get off on the thought of kids, then you are a pervert. You are a sick fuck.

I half agree with owlie.

[Darth Cluich]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as the children in it are old enough to understand what their doing (real porn), or it's drawn. And, differnt people would understand at differnt ages (I knew what porn, and sex were when I was 7, while I know people in their 30's that shouldn't be able to make that choice.) No, I don't watch 15 years old's having sex, either in a real porn, or a drawn porn. Doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't like it.

I also don't like cheese. Should I say that you can't eat it?



Kiddie porn is kiddie porn, whether the kids involved "know" what they're doing or not, and it's disgusting. End of story. You can't make the argument of personal taste here.

[LV426]

Pornographic material involving real children in photos or videos is NOT acceptable in any form.

[Tiamot]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Vendetta]

Pornographic material involving real children in photos or videos is NOT acceptable in any form.
OK I think we're getting off track here. That's why I said ART and "Virtual" in the subject. This is not about real child pornography, which I DO disapprove of. Simply art in which underage kids are depicted having sex.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I can seperate reality from fantasy. I know that a drawing in a comic or in a book is NOT real.

That being said maybe we should start banning BOOKS that have underage sex in them. Well there goes Nabakov's Lolita (which of course HAS been the target of many book burnings from certain groups,) among others. Heck, all you Anne Rice fans better return her books as well.

[Wolf-Bone]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I can seperate reality from fantasy. I know that a drawing in a comic or in a book is NOT real.

Yeah, I'd say judging by some of the responses in this thread, you are in the minority.

Look, I hate most of what you people think, but until what you think translates into doing something that involves putting me or someone I care about in danger, I don't want none of you thrown in jail. What you basically want is thought police. Drawings, stories, digital 3-D graphics etc are just someone's THOUGHTS being expressed.

Like I already said, I don't like that shit either, but as Voltaire once said "I disagree with what you say, but will defend with my life your right to say it".

Then again, Volataire was French, so if he was alive today he'd have been "with the terrorists". So yeah, I guess it should be illegal to agree with a french guy from the age of enlightenment.

bitch.

[punisher]

I will side strongly in the do NOT ban camp. It does not harm real children, which is my only objection to kiddie porn. It also upsets the FBI, since they have been the biggest purveyor of kiddie porn for years (under the guise of catching the perverts). People say that the virtual porn leads to real porn, what about the real porn that the FBI is putting out there? Wouldn't that be worse than the virtual porn? If the pictures put out there through Operation Candyman hadn't been made so freely available, how many of those people would have searched them out on their own? If pornography is an impetus to rape, then would the FBI be the ones causing the problem?

[Vendetta]

People say that the virtual porn leads to real porn...
Also I'd like to add that there has NEVER been ANY conclusive evidence to support that. It's like saying watching regular porn leads to sex. Sadly I think most boys/men would disagree.

[Necro Mortis]

Is spite of the arguments made I still dissagree with it. Children are children, conceptual or not. Innocence should not be tainted for the pleasure of older people.

[Darth Cluich]

Is spite of the arguments made I still dissagree with it. Children are children, conceptual or not. Innocence should not be tainted for the pleasure of older people.

But you like it when I taint your innocence, Necro... :p

[punisher]

I agree with you whole-heartedly Ven, I was just playing Devil's Advocate.
On the loss of innocence. I don't see how little ones and zeroes had any innocence to be tainted. If the kiddie porn is fake, whose innocence is being tainted? I don't really understand the logic of that statement.

[FMtRIS]

I think this says something about the ills of our society that this has to even be discussed. Sure, we can go into the legality of it but you can't legislate stupidity so I wouldn't even try to ban it. Rather, I have to ask the question as to whether it furthers society or degenerates it? What is the reasoning for making such images? (I won't call it art because it doesn't even enter into that criteria) I agree with Punisher to the extent that the thought police is generally not needed, however there was a time when people had ethics and policed themselves and had more of a consideration other than the simple legality of the matter. This societal stench topic is the reason I am such a misanthrope and that term has nothing to do with werewolves. Gwha ha!

[Vendetta]

I think this says something about the ills of our society that this has to even be discussed. Sure, we can go into the legality of it but you can't legislate stupidity so I wouldn't even try to ban it. Rather, I have to ask the question as to whether it furthers society or degenerates it?
By that criteria I'd say we'd have to ban the majority of books, magazines, video games, movies, TV shows, et al. I'm not saying these things are responsible for all of society's ills, I'm just saying that for most part, most of these neither further or degenerate society. I think the real question is, do we apply one person's (or one group of people's) morality on EVERYONE? I say no.

[FMtRIS]

When you get into the size of a group large enough, we are referring to a populace. Child pornography is a symptom of our societies' ills, not the cause of it. That this topic comes up is like a tell tale mark of disease. To call something like this art would be likened to calling the inside of a trash truck, an aromatic bouquet and does degenerate the artistic ( I mean that also as a frame of mind rather than a tangiable element) form, which stands for something inspired other than jacking off. There is something about the thought of banning though and that is, people take freedom as a given, which it is not. Start removing people's freedoms and they might learn to enjoy them more. This is being done now so just wait, the birdcage will get smaller. I consider that I am part of an older generation that thought beyond whether it was simply legal but as to what it meant to society. There are ethics and then there are morals. Personally I think the internet lets people have too many freedoms. See, you have a nice thing and people can't handle the responsibility of it.

Also, there is the question as to a permissive society that takes an isolationist point of view about these sort of things. For instance, there is a war going on but people think its okay so long as it doesn't effect them personally, ie gas prices. This is all related because people don't want to be bothered because then they might have to do something about it. France thought the same say about Iraq, that it was contained..maybe it was but it was a few people that deemed war necessary. So, these few people in positions of power have spoken for a populace, which I think is what Vendetta had a problem with. I have a problem with it too. The same thing occurs in a court of law, a few (sometimes one) person/people speak for a populace. I am not saying that whole ten commandments thing at the Montgomery Alabama courthouse was right or wrong but again, it was brought about by someone wanting to remove someone else's morals over their own. Basically, a war of who has the bigger penis, which I have little time for and think is a nuiscance, but it illustrates the society in which we live. The minority is vocal enough to sound like a majority and the majority are too complacent to care. So, you get this thing called child pornography which violates a basic thing that humanity has, called altruism. When the basic tenants of humanity crumble, its not too long before it falls apart.

[thunderhawk]

sorry spelling...
"Only so much as we seek can we find.. Only so much as we dream can we be..."

First is virtual porn then real porn then rape(as there is no legal/moral way to have child sex)

as for reg porn leading to sex...I think the kind of porn you watch says what you want and what you might actully do.
(as.. for as..lovers who first try for as..)

therefore since I hope none of us condone vergin sacrifice of 5year olds...why should we encurage people to think about doing it when there are other adults they can hook up with at sex sites

[McKitty]

I'm Jewis, all we do is sacrifice those virgins :)

Oh a serious note: If you want to consider child bondage and rape in a manga, art, then you have some serious issues.

Lolita was done in taste and not the extreme perversions that hentai loves to put out. WWAAY big chasm between the two. There's a difference and you know it.

[Locksmyth]

Firstly because someone enjoys watching something does not mean they want to do it or are likely to do it. I enjoyed watch gone in 60 seconds but I would never consider stealing a car. I also enjoy watching gory films about serial killers but I could never bring my self to harm another person in anyway other then in self defense, let alone kill someone.

Secondly I'll just point out that a lot of people don't consider Lolita to have been done in taste and would like to see that movie banned.

My gut instinct is to ban virtual child porn and lock the offenders up and throw away the key. But I can't find any reasonable grounds to say this particular crime cannot be used in a work of fiction in the same way as other criminal and immoral act can be. To ban this I would also have to condone the banning of movies like Friday 13th, in which a man brutally murders a number of people. We can all agree that anyone who does that should be locked way and that it is one of the most horrific crimes that can be committed (multiple homicide) especially with no real justification behind the act just random mayhem. The movie does nothing but attempt to entertain a group of watchers with this criminal and immoral act.
The point I'm getting at is that if you let the government censor things you find amoral and disgusting then it will get to a point where the things you don't mind and eventually the things you enjoy get censored.

In Australia the latest Leisure Suit Larry has been banned, solely because the game depicts has sexual connotations and would require an 18+ rating. Not a big loss I know but it still an example of what can happen when censorship is allowed to go unchecked. The computer games industry in Australia is routinely censored, because the view is taken that games are a child's domain, ignoring the fact that most gamers in Australia are aged 18 or over. There are only 7 people that have to power to amend this injustice, but if even one of them disagrees, as happened last time the issue was debated, the current system remains. These 7 people are not voted into their positions they are appointed by the queens office, and so they are not swayed by public opinion.

So while I would like to ban it, being a victim of a corrupt conservative censorship system, I can find no way to ban one amoral even evil act while expecting to be allowed to watch another amoral and yes evil act.

So at what point can the line be drawn with virtual crimes that have been dreamed up for purely entertainment purposes. As far a filming real crime for entertainment purposes that should definitly be a criminal act in itself, regardless of the crime.

[McKitty]

Not talking about the movie, but the book. Most movies that come from books with scenes like that are terribly done anyways.

Another, so you're condoning the rape/violation of young, young children in books and movies?

Take the book the Reader, (the author escapes me) it deals with a younger teenaged boy having an affair with an 30 some odd woman. The sex scenes aren't too graphic and you get the gist but hints and sublties the author does. Again, not like the graphics in mangas.

Also, Lesuire Suit Larry has always been that rating. I remember it being around when I was a kid. It also doesn't have anything to do with young minors either.

Child/Adult romances in stories/books shouldn't be banned because I'm very for the 1st amendment but to have a little girl graphically drawn out being raped .... I don't think so.

And I never said that looking at it would make you want to do it, I just think that it's a bit wrong.

[Locksmyth]

Not talking about the movie, but the book.
If I remember correctly many people wanted to ban the book.

Let me be very clear on this point. I DO NOT condoning works that despite these acts and would get many happy joy joys reporting people to the authorities and letting them rot in prison for owning, or creating them. The thought that they exist my me sick to my soul. I dry retched when I read your comment suggesting that I do condone it.

My problem comes in to it with the banning of works of fiction. While I think these works come for a place of pure evil in the minds of it's creators, and they all should be locked up, maybe studied to find out if it's a problem that can be fixed. However they are works of pure fiction and as such the are afforded the same rights as any other work of fiction regardless of the legality, ethicalness or morality of its content. The people who own/make/distribute this material should be very closely monitored. But if I want to protect the rights of people making fictional work that contains other illegal acts, be robbing a casino, stealing a painting, killing teenagers one by one in a single night of terror. All of which to, some members of the public, are evil reprehensible acts. I'm sure there are many people out there that would like gratuitous violence to be out lawed in fiction. I know at one point many people wanted the bible to be banned in public libraries because of it's violent and sexual nature, and in some places was restricted to adult readers. Banning this type of work out right will lead to movies and books which are tastefully done being banned. At the moment Australian censorship laws which are designed to ban both actual child porn and fictional works containing it, also mean works such as Lolita, and most probably 'The Reader' are supposed to be banned under the letter of the law. As yet they haven't actually banned it but future boards using the current laws can and with the bureaucratic mind set they tend to have will. If it stopped there I would not mind, it wouldn't affect me. But it won't stop there. In Australia adult pornography is illegal every where outside of the capital territory, (which is also the only place that pot is decriminalize, it's good to be in government). You can only get film about naked people who are probably having sex, can can't really be sure, but you go with it. Once again what is being banned isn't to my tastes so I don't care, other then it will has has led to the banning of lesser again.

Also, Leisure Suit Larry has always been that rating. I remember it being around when I was a kid. It also doesn't have anything to do with young minors either.


That's when we get to the Leisure Suit Larry series. All previous versions of the game have been released in Australia with an M15+ rating sometimes and MA15+. The latest one which from what I can find out is not really any different has been rated R18+ and thus banned in Australia. It doesn't have anything to do with minors and that's the point, we have been gradually censored over time from the most heinous acts only to the point that cartoon breasts are being banned.

If I access any content on the Internet which would be rated greater than R18 I can report my ISP and have them fined for allowing me to access the site. Which is the most stupid and pointless endeavor the current conservative government has embarked upon. Australian censorship laws brought in to protect children both from being exploited and from accidental exposure to adult porn are continuing to erode the viewing/gaming choices for mature adults in this country. It is very real and it is happening. This is all because selected works of fiction are allowed to be banned.

Australia is all round a great place, but we are sliding down the very slippery slope of censorship, it's gotten away from us. More movies and games are banned in Australia then any other western country. It's ok if you have friends and family in New Zealand that can smuggle the banned media to you so long as they and you don't get caught.

I don't believe there is a harsh enough punishment for people that view child porn regardless of it authenticity, but when it come to purely fictional works I don't have a choice about should and shouldn't be banned, because that means anyone with more conservative views then me is allowed to say even more is banned. I want desperately to have my views on what should be banned be law, but why mine? Why not my boss who refuses to watch a breakfast news show because the female host is to assertive? or his wife who believes that the tv and movies should never contain a swear word or a use the lords name in vain in any circumstance. Or my sisters friend that thinks all violence should be banned in any context. Why not use their ideas on censorship?

And I never said that looking at it would make you want to do it, I just think that it's a bit wrong.


That was in response to thunderbird, sorry should have used the quote tags and made that clear.

[Vendetta]

NOTE: This is going to be long, but I tried to respond to everyone.

When you get into the size of a group large enough, we are referring to a populace. Child pornography is a symptom of our societies' ills, not the cause of it.
That's a PURE assumption on your part, and has no fact to back it up. I'm fairly certain that degredation of children has existed in SOME form since the dawn of time, so by your logic society was BORN sick.

To call something like this art would be likened to calling the inside of a trash truck, an aromatic bouquet and does degenerate the artistic ( I mean that also as a frame of mind rather than a tangiable element) form, which stands for something inspired other than jacking off.
I would posit that art is, for the most part, subjective. But even so I like the American Hertiage Dictionary definition of ART:

"\art\ n. 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

No where do I see that EVERYONE has to say that drawn images of children performing sexual acts is art. Nor do I see where it says the SAME must be condemned as not being art.


Start removing people's freedoms and they might learn to enjoy them more.
How do you ENJOY a freedom you don't have? All you will do is make a person MISS that freedom (and perhaps rebel against the system that restricts said freedom.)

Personally I think the internet lets people have too many freedoms. See, you have a nice thing and people can't handle the responsibility of it.
What responsibility is that?? See you're once again applying your OWN personal opinions on what should and should not be.

Also, there is the question as to a permissive society that takes an isolationist point of view about these sort of things.
Isn't that oxymoronic? How can you be a permissive isolationist society? The two I would think are mutually exclusive.

So, you get this thing called child pornography which violates a basic thing that humanity has, called altruism. When the basic tenants of humanity crumble, its not too long before it falls apart.
Ahahahahaa. What makes you think that altruism has EVER been a basic tenet of humanity?? It's an ideal, not the norm! It's not like suddenly people have become this immoral bunch of saps. Once again, I point you to recorded history. Mankind has been (and I daresay will always be) a warlike, savage, uncaring breed.

Oh a serious note: If you want to consider child bondage and rape in a manga, art, then you have some serious issues.
According to who? You? Again people, stop applying your morals to EVERYONE. Also, whether it's art or not isn't the main point. The point is IT IS FICTIONAL!

Lolita was done in taste and not the extreme perversions that hentai loves to put out. WWAAY big chasm between the two. There's a difference and you know it.
So would you consider the literary works of De Sade to be the same thing as hentai? He wrote at length about perversions FAR greater than most things you'll find in hentai. And yet he's still regarded as a major voice in human sexual expression (not to mention a scathing political satarist.) There's NO difference because "taste" as you put it, is a matter of opinion and cannot apply to EVERYONE across the board, equally.

Another, so you're condoning the rape/violation of young, young children in books and movies?
I STILL think you're missing the point. THEY ARE FICTION. I would have a problem if people were condoning the ACTUAL rape/violation of children, but see they're not. It's BOOKS & MOVIES. Maybe some people have a hard time seperating reality from fantasy, but that's not MY problem. Lock THOSE people up, but don't ban something just because SOME people find it distasteful.

Child/Adult romances in stories/books shouldn't be banned because I'm very for the 1st amendment but to have a little girl graphically drawn out being raped .... I don't think so.
Way to contradict yourself. Fine, think that it's WRONG. Protest it all you want. But the SECOND you start banning it, what's next? Maybe those "romance" books you mentioned. Maybe Lolita. Maybe historical texts. Where does it end?

[Darth Cluich]

I've decided that this argument is essentially a legal one, thus off it goes to Politics.

[punisher]

I will also argue that the book Lolita was NOT done in good taste. The book is far more explicit than the movie could ever be. The book also makes Dolores so annoying that I lost much of the sympathy I had for her. It seems at many points that Humbert is the captive to her.

[McKitty]

According to who? You? Again people, stop applying your morals to EVERYONE. Also, whether it's art or not isn't the main point. The point is IT IS FICTIONAL!

I'm sorry if my morals don't like that. For myself, I'd draw the line at that, it's just the way I'm brought up. And fiction or not people ARE going to have different points of view then you. You don't seem to grasp that.



So would you consider the literary works of De Sade to be the same thing as hentai? He wrote at length about perversions FAR greater than most things you'll find in hentai. And yet he's still regarded as a major voice in human sexual expression (not to mention a scathing political satarist.) There's NO difference because "taste" as you put it, is a matter of opinion and cannot apply to EVERYONE across the board, equally.

I've never seen any of his works. Thus I really can't relpy to this as well as I would like tool


I STILL think you're missing the point. THEY ARE FICTION. I would have a problem if people were condoning the ACTUAL rape/violation of children, but see they're not. It's BOOKS & MOVIES. Maybe some people have a hard time seperating reality from fantasy, but that's not MY problem. Lock THOSE people up, but don't ban something just because SOME people find it distasteful.


Way to contradict yourself. Fine, think that it's WRONG. Protest it all you want. But the SECOND you start banning it, what's next? Maybe those "romance" books you mentioned. Maybe Lolita. Maybe historical texts. Where does it end?

I never said banning. I was talking about FOR ME. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, for that I apologize. I am AGAINST banning even if the stuff was pro-nazism. Never once did I say ban. I just don't want to look at that.