People have been asking for /l/ for years. For YEARS. But what do we get instead? The gutting of /d/, the gutting of /lit/, the creation of an "off topic" board that nobody asked for, the destruction of /asp/, and word filters. How many more boards will he sacrifice before finally giving the community what we actually want??
>>345464
Why is it when I keep seeing these fake board threads, the fake board in the OP pic is always a blue SFW board?
>>345468
Because nobody gives a fuck about the board color except mods.
>>345464
>Lolikon
>kon
I didn't know people still spelled it like that.
>>345476
Why wouldn't it be spelled like that?
>>345479
Because it's usually spelled "lolicon."
>>345480
Actually, it's usually spelled ロリコン.
>loli gets spammed in /trash/
>loli is banned from trash
>furry gets spammed in /trash/
>hiro has a dialogue with them, actually fucking talks to them, asks the community if he should make a furry board
I'm incredibly fucking mad. The least he can do is talk with us and explain what the fuck the status is with this site and loli.
>>345530
It's a legal minefield, and considering that this site is running under the laws of a country that he doesn't live in (And therefore isn't the most familiar with the laws of), I'm not surprised at all that he isn't taking the risk. At the very least, he'll need to get some actual legal advice from an actual US lawyer before considering it for real.
>>345530
>>furry gets spammed in /trash/
>>hiro has a dialogue with them, actually fucking talks to them, asks the community if he should make a furry board
When did this happen?
>>345629
>legal advice from a lawyer
Are you retarded or do you not understand that
Cartoon pictures of children are NOT child pornography
>>345653
That depends on the state.
>>345653
Depends entirely on what country you're in.
go to 7chan fag
>>345661
Supreme court never really said it was legal, states can go against it. It's a legal grey area.
>>345661
It is prohibited under federal law if it is "obscene" (but then again, so is all porn). Whether that law is constitutional is up for debate, but the last court decision said yes.
>>345661
Also obscenity laws, which are ironically unconstitutional based on community standards I guess? Doesn't even have to be porn.
>>345669
It's a state-by-state thing. One guy got three years in prison back in 2012 for having loli comics.
>>345464
He won't give any of us what we want, he's giving us what we all need, a motivation to leave
>>345669
You would be charged with downloading it or distributing it.
From what I understand, 4chan is hosted in California. California is one of the states whose laws specifically exclude drawn fictional depictions of things from being considered "obscene" or "child pornography"
>>345661
you must not keep up on politics that much, States go against even their own constitutions all the time, of course they'd go against the federal constitution sometimes too, because they suck
>honestly can't wait for robots to replace humans in government
>>345464
Die in a fire pedo scum.
yall are confused because the supreme court never guarunteed anyone's "right to loli" or whatever. they simply said that a certain piece of legislature that was over broad in its shitty wording was unconstitutional. as a result, it destroyed the only real federal-level law that could have made loli illegal.
of course, the concept of obscenity laws allows each state to determine for themselves if some type of porn is "too far" or whatever. that kind of goes against our constitution though so hopefully obscenity laws are dealt a mortal blow sometime soon. at any rate loli is not illegal in California which unless someone knows better is the state 4chan's servers are hosted in.
>>345699
This.
>>345699
Wasted dubs on a attention whore
>>345912
im sorry anon i don't like it either but the dubs have spoken
/trash/ was indirectly requested by a ton of people, mostly furries and bronies. /his/ was also a much requested board.
Hiroyuki is trying his best to meet the community's wants, but he's being cockblocked by the retarded old guard mods that moot left behind. They are the ones who destroyed /d/, hiro just wanted a western porn board to satisfy /ac/ but the moderators twisted it with their autism.
Only when the last vestiges of moot's corruption are purged will we see the golden age of 4chan begin!
>>345921
er, /co/ rather not /ac/.
>>345921
so its simple: purge all mods
>>345927
p much
>>345929
that shouldn't take more than a day to do what's the holdup lets get rid of them already, we already know they're mostly bad
>>345933
People wanted a place to post clop and furry porn. Now they have it.
>>345940
how much harder do we have to yell to get that for loli? i dunn geddit
>>345934
I don't know. Hiro has been cracked down on the mods a little bit, like in /a/, but I guess he just has other things to worry about right now than finding a whole new staff.
It would take a lot longer than a day to fix the moderator clusterfuck, especially since it means finding new competent mods to replace them which isn't exactly easy.
>>345933
1) It would probably be a red board, because worksafe loli is already posted on /c/. I like blue boards too but there's not really any reason to have a full-fledged loli blue board. Although it would certainly be amusing.
2) /trash/ was created to be /fur/ under a different name. That is why the anti-furry rules don't exist there. They had this planned out.
>>345942
tell him im ready to mod the /l/ board right away ill even do it for free
>>345941
Keep yelling maybe it will happen. It worked for all those other boards.
>>345945
but he seems to be deliberately ignoring us, am i the only one who feels that?
>>345947
I think he reads the request, but maybe he has issues with making a loli board because of the legal aspects of it, or because of opposition from the staff, who have always been rabidly anti-loli.
>>345958
why
wont
he
talk about it
Can't Hiro just purge all the Pony posters from /trash/so the board can actually serve its purpose?
>>346049
but it is serving its purpose as a containment for furfags and ponyfags
Fuck off pedoshits.
>>346060
These words are going to magically disappear, just like "yiff in hell" did.
>>345917
>dubs can kill people
No, you need at least quads to do that.
>>346081
It depends on their mental strength. Lowercase posters can be killed by dubs, so that's why he thinks that. Dubs that kill.
>>345699
This desu. Also checked.
>>345699
Spotted the Redditard.
Were none of you here for his first Q&A?
>>345927
Holy shit this.
>>346283
What did he say about /l/?
>>346296
No, he's wrong. What we really need to do is kill the Batman.
>>345921
I for one am glad people who have been using and moderating this site for some extensive amount of time are there (hopefully) guiding Hiro in the decision making, if only for the sake of him not granting literally every fucking request by retards who just want to turn the site into their personal playground.
>>345921
>Hiroyuki is trying his best to meet the community's wants
Most of the community wants are bad ideas
>>345629
>It's a legal minefield
You do realize that lewd loli threads have been allowed on /b/ for years, right? I was just posting in like five of them earlier today.
>>346659
>stating that most shit users suggest is retarded makes me a tripfag
Nice try anon, but you're a fucking moron
>>346671
But /b/ is a honeypot monitered by the FBI and NSA. Of course it's allowed there.
>>346675
>federal institutions
>monitoring the posting of loli, which isn't illegal on a federal level
unless you mean to imply they're just there to check for 'za
how often is that still posted on /b/ anyway, I wonder
>>346680
2D loli threads are up almost all the time. I think pizza must still show up on /b/, but I haven't seen it there in years. 4chan is not the same website that it once was.
>>346825
Of course pizza shows up on /b/. It's a very popular food. Here, I'm posting some right now.
>>346847
>tumblr
>>346864
I was googling for some hot and steamy pizza to post and then I noticed this and thought "It's perfect!". And as expected, you bit instantly. I would be a great fisherman.
Hiro, please.
4chan is not a safe space for pedophiles and children gangbangers, so hopefully never.
Thanks for not even giving these pedophiles a second of your time, hiro.
You are so based.
>>347896
Nobody wants a "safe space" for pedophilia. Lolicon is not pedophilia.
What we want is a separate board for lolicon, so our threads won't get bumped off /b/ if there aren't new posts for 10 minutes.
>>347910
>lolicon is not pedo
Ah yes. The good old mental gimnastics from the mentally ill pedophiles.
>I fap to drawn children
>man that little girls DRAWN tight cunt makes me so hard
>I dont like real children, for real
>>347920
Your post is nothing but an autistic reaction to a DRAWING.
>>347920
Child porn is illegal because of the harm done to the real children involved in it - not because it's illegal for adults to be attracted to girls with child-like features. Moreover, while some real pedophiles might be attracted to loli, it is not universal for all people who like loli to be pedophiles.
>>347938
Ssshhh, you're posting logic and dropping facts, man. That might trigger his autism.
>>347896
4chan isn't a safe space for anyone, ledditard, least of all prudes.
>>346671
See >>344376
>>345464
It belongs on /b/
Literally what is the difference between pedoshit and real shit/gore/furies morally?
Nothing, if not its worse than the others.
>buh buh
Sorry, you gave up your right to argue after you decided you wanted to bugger anyone below the age of 18.
>>348019
By that logic, having an /l/ board would concentrate potential cp postings to one place, making them easier to find and quicker to delete. So, you fail.
>>348025
Trying too hard, bro.
>>348047
>making them easier to find and quicker to delete
Exactly. The board got deleted way back in the early years.
We don't even need /l/. Just allow loli on /e/ and /h/.
>>348025
No one here has sex with children, you treacherous fool. And being under 18 doesn't make you a child.
>>348063
Actually, it varies in the US, with most states being 16, some being 18, and a few being 17. And most having close-in-age exceptions of varying lengths and complexity.
>>348055
The board got deleted because moderation was shit back then. There are enough mods and the system is efficient enough to keep a close eye on a board with very little effort.
>>348068
Ok?
Still illegal for the most part.
because loli usually don't deal with kids around 16
It usually deals with teens or lower.
That is still illegal.
>>348063
>it still belongs on /b/
/b/ is the random board. Nothing "belongs on" /b/.
>>348073
We're already short on moderation as it is.
>>348063
No one is a child after the age of 12. And the age of consent is 14 where I live.
>>348077
Irrelevant, loli is legal.
>>348084
I'll let Hiroshimoot speak for himself.
>>348088
Sorry, but in the united states of america, anyone below the age of 16 is below the age of consent, and because 4chan in in america lolicon is a banning offense.
>>348078
If it belongs nowhere else it belongs on /b/
or >>>/trash/
>>348092
>loli is legal.
Knowingly uploading or downloading child pornography is a federal offense
>>348104
Drawings aren't real people, you fucking imbecile. If you have no knowledge of the law, then admit it instead of copping out like a retard.
>>348077
age of consent laws do not govern what drawings are legal or not
>>348095
He's already speaking for himself by engaging with ponyshitters and furfags, but not lolishitters.
>>348112
>>348117
From what I heard if it depicts someone under the age of consent its child porn under the eyes of the law.
That is why most site that show cartoons pornography usually clarify that the depicted character is above the age of consent.
>inb4 well I can just say otherwise.
Still doesn't clear your conscious though.
Also I think law enforcement can take their own artistic representation.
Either way its still garbage and belongs on /b/
No site with that shit will get good ad revenue, the moment /l/ is allowed is the moment 4chan dies. Hiro wont like that
>>348100
>anyone below the age of 16 is below the age of consent
How old are these "children"? Do tell.
You must give exact ages for every one. Not age ranges. Because obviously they are real children with real birthdates and they exist in the real world.
>>348141
You obviously heard wrong.
>>348141
when the fuck is hiro going to come out and say any of that and end this charade, then? he didn't seem opposed to the idea during the q&a, and only considered whether it is legal or not (which it is) and now he is silent. speak the fuck up hiro
>>348152
They're all exactly 18 years old as of this moment. You're welcome.
>>348141
What you heard != facts. Loli is 100% legal under federal US law and can only put you jail if it's deemed "obscene", which is something that applies to any kind of porn anyway. What is defined as "obscene" is as arbitrary as 4chan's NSFW standards.
>No site with that shit will get good ad revenue, the moment /l/ is allowed is the moment 4chan dies. Hiro wont like that
4chan only has weeb ads already which are perfectly fine and even cater to lolicons.
>>348152
me holding the phone
>>348161
Why are you quoting baseless lies as if they are true?
>>348161
It's not illegal. Why do you claim higher authority than the Supreme Court of the United States of America on this matter?
>>348172
>where do you get these ideas?
Federal law.
>>348176
explain
>destruction of /asp/
>rids a 60+ million post board of its biggest board cancer and arguably the biggest board cancer since /vg/ or /mlp/
>gives a sub-million board actual on-topic traffic
Literally what got destroyed? This sounds like a good thing for both /sp/ and /asp/
>>348177
I don't have to. The SCOTUS already did.
>>348172
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law
>>348177
there is no federal law against loli. the only concievable federal law that might make loli illegal is child pornography, which only applies to representations of actual identifiable human beings.
>>348183
>I don't want to give sources, so just believe me ok?
explain or the argument ends
>>348189
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States
>>348187
>, which only applies to representations of actual identifiable human beings.
which is what most loli is unless you masturbated to larvae or egg cells
>>348189
do you have a source that shows that loli is illegal on the federal level in the united states? it's kind of hard to prove that its not illegal when that would mean pointing out every law that exists that doesn't ban loli
>>348186
I see no indication that what is commonly defined as loli is illegal and in fact quite the opposite
>>348195
you clearly do not understand. clementine from telltale's the walking dead is not a real identifyable human being. she does not, has never, and never will exist in the real world (sorry waifufags). on the other hand, the little girl who lives next door is a real human being. its possible that a lewd drawing of her could be charged as child pornography. that's never been done before though.
>>348193
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"
thanks for proving my point for me
>>348198
your own source you dumbfuck
>>348206
anon i demand proof that loli is illegal across the united states
>>348209
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
>>348189
>>348172
>>348141
The way that Common Law (the system of law used in the United States) works is as follows:
>Everything is legal unless otherwise specified.
It's not reasonable to expect someone to cite a law expressly permitting loli because such laws DO NOT EXIST for anything that is legal. I hate to shift the burden of proof, but you actually have to prove that it's illegal or else you don't have a leg to stand on.
>>348212
>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.
This is what obscenity laws are. And obscenity is judged based on a "community's" defnition of what is considered obscene. In the United States, it is each individual State who gets to determine what is and is not obscene. For example, as read from the wiki page, Utah considers loli obscene. California specifically does not consider it obscene.
>>348206
>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"
Keep reading, kiddo.
>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.
>>348168
You're not any of those, you liar. *punches you really hard in your big gut*
All Hiro needs to do is come on /qa/ and say something about this once and for all
>>348219
>deliberately ignoring the parts of the law which prove you wrong
>>348214
In all the tests in code 1466A, the offending image must be determined to be "obscene". Whether or not an image is "obscene" is a matter of "Obscenity laws" which are passed on the state level. What is obscene in one state can be perfectly fine in another.
You'd think that the mere fact that loli threads have been permitted on /b/ for YEARS AND YEARS would put the absurd claim of illegality to bed.
It surprises me that people are still so stupid.
>>348228
>>348221
>>348220
>>348232
Alright, you got me.
I admit I'm wrong.
but still, I don't think the rest of the site will allow it. Go ahead, screen shot this
Prove me wrong, I'd loved to be.
but hear me now, if any of you get busted for possession of child pornography, leave a little thought out for me.
Go back to /b/ now ya hear?
>>348232
It gives a definition right there in section (a)
(a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
And then we scroll down a bit
(c)Nonrequired Element of Offense.—
It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
>>348241
And then to put some more nails in that coffin, they spell out exactly what counts, and it's pretty much everything that could go on /l/.
(f)Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;
(2) the term “sexually explicit conduct” has the meaning given the term in section 2256(2)(A) or 2256(2)(B); and
(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.
>>348239
no. fuck off. give me /l/ or give me death.
>>348241
That does not change the fact that the states are the ones who determine what is or isn't obscene. That nonrequired element of offense is what gives states like Utah or that other fucking awful one that I'm not going to name the power to enforce their obscenity laws over loli in their state.
>>348239
I don't have a single image, video, or even thumbnail, of real CP on my computer. The only way I could get arrested for it is if I were framed.
>>348244
Again, obscenity under this law is ALWAYS determined on the State level. This is the law that gives State the power to choose whether or not they wish to mark things like loli illegal. And not every state has chosen to do so.
>>348248
There's nothing about obscenity in there, buddy.
Look at (a)(1)(B) again. Notice that big fat OR right there.
Then look at the very next section immediately after that. (a)(2) combined with (c) kills the /l/.
>>348250
well they have some pretty good evidence to frame you with regardless.
>>348254
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
Notice the lack of the word "obscene" here. This is a hard definition, not a vague suggestion. If you do any of these things, you are breaking this law unless you immediately follow one of the rules laid out in section (e), which is to either immediately delete/destroy it without sharing it with anyone, or immediately reporting it to a law enforcement agency.
>>348262
Not at all. Did you just totally gloss over everything in my post? >>348250
>I don't have a single image, video, or even thumbnail, of real CP on my computer.
They would have to have found any of that on my computer for me to get in trouble, but I don't have any of it. I'm not interested in it at all.
>>348256
The very nature of this law requires a "community's" judgement on the matter (community having been determined to be the state. This applies to declaring something as "obscene" or not, and also to determining what "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;"
>>348274
I think parts of that were deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court but I'll have to look deeper into it. From the wiki page:
>Parts of the law testing the criminalization of a "visual depiction of any kind" has been tried in the courts. In the Dwight Whorley case, a conviction was upheld on appeal to the Fourth Circuit. The court noted that the minors depicted in obscene material need not exist. The Supreme Court would later refuse to review Whorley. However, in the 2008 Christopher Handley case, a judge overturned parts of the PROTECT Act as unconstitutional while charging Handley with a lesser obscenity charge.
>>348274
>>348286
That exact section was deemed unconstitutional by supreme court actually. Which means that only the first two clauses are functional, which would be
>(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene
Since everything under (2) has been nullified, the material must be determined to be obscene. And whether something is obscene or not msut be determined by the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley
>>348310
That seems wrong to me. The part that explicitly says child pornography is illegal with exacting definitions was deemed unconstitutional, but the part that has no definitions and is entirely subjective based on a minority opinion isn't?
>>348310
>since everything under (2) has been nullified
i meant just section (2) has been nullified. 1 and 3 are still in effect. So although no real child has to exist in order to be charged under that law, the offending material must still be tested for obscenity which is done on the state level
>>348314
all of this was deemed unconstitutional:
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
>>348323
Okay, now let's see the California laws (The ones under which it would be judged because the servers are there) stance on the matter.
>>348323
also I'd like to take a moment to point out that this court ruling was only possible with the support of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund who you should support because they fight for loli.
polite sage for shilling
>>348332
This one is more of a maze
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=311-312.7
It seems that because of this clause that appears everywhere:
(c) "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association,
corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity.
the person depicted in the offending material has to be that of an actual real "legal entity" in order to be charged as obscene material.
4chan is a business, not an individual. Unless it's become a corporation (It's an LLC last time I checked) at some point, it doesn't fall under the same laws as individuals.
>>348343
There are no separate laws for obscenity set aside for LLCs. Unless you can find some.
>mfw this fucking thread
Let's get it back on track, huh?
>>348367
you're right.
RAH RAH HIRO GET YOUR ASS IN HERE
Those are some cute anime girls, anon
How exactly was /lit/ "gutted"?
>>348404
I never /lit/ so I don't know but I assume it has something to do with /his/ somehow taking away things that /lit/ used to be the go-to board for. OP is possibly dramatizing a little though, blinded for his passion for /l/. I certainly won't judge him for that.
>>345468
>actually using default board colors
>not going blue for everything
Shitto taste-u, bakayaro!
I'm fairly indifferent towards the idea but I don't suppose it would go down well with whatever future incident links itself to the site.
>>348429
>taste-u
That is not how "taste" would be rendered in Japanese, aho.
if it gets that trash out of /v/ and /b/ then it should have been done ages ago
>>350445
>/v/
Show examples or you're full of shit.
>>350453
/v/ has one loli thread that reaches bump limit almost every day, unsurprisingly they are usually higher quality than standard /v/ discussion (not that it's much of an achievement)
>>348323
>depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor
once again this would already make illegal NEARLY ALL OF THE CONTENT POSTED ON /h/ AND ALL HENTAI EVER since 99% of anime characters are in highschool.
>>350516
Minor = 16 in most states. 17 in a few, and 18 in the rest. Many, if not most, high-schoolers turn 18 before graduating.
>>350521
No that's not how it works.
The U.S. a minor is anyone under 18 years old.
The definition of a "minor" is unrelated to AoC.
>>350521
Minor status =/= age of consent, otherwise we'd be flooded with porn of 16 yo girls
Why do anti-lolifags claim that loli is illegal when it's already hosted on this site via /b/? Is /b/ exempt from rule #1?
>>350533
No, /b/ is exempt from >>>/global/rules/3.
>tfw AoC is 14 in my country
>tfw loli is 100% legal
Feels good, nigga.
It's funny to see how self-centered Americans are since they think their absurdly high AoCs and pedohysteria exist everywhere in the Western world.
ayy yo Hiro what's the status on this
>>345629
Hiro should know by now that where 4chan's servers are located it is legal to host loli content.
There will be people trying to spam cp but those people already exist on /b/ and /sp/ in high quantities.
>>345958
>opposition from the staff, who have always been rabidly anti-loli.
This.
The mods are likely pulling a cock block.
They are the NoA to Hiro's NoJ.
Hiroyuki
please
just a yes or a no
if we all raise our hands in the air and pray together, Hiro will provide an answer to our prayers
>>348088
>MUM I'M 13 YOU CAN'T TELL ME WOT 2 DO
Posting in this thread to provide support to my fellow lolicons.
Please Hiro.
>>345464
Why do f/a/gs think they're the center of the universe?
>>345464
>removing /pol/ from /lit/ and having the board actually discuss books again is gutting it
>>352967
this is a question deserving of its own thread, anon.
we dont want the universe, we just want a small place for ourselves
>>352887
>biological VS sociolegal "child"
>age of consent VS age of majority
Posting for support
>>346671
> Spend about 3 minutes on /b/ sometime. There are lewd loli threads up almost constantly. The reason we don't have a NSFW /l/ has NOTHING to do with legality. Got it? Nothing.
how many years has loli been on /b/?
it's like you batshit retarded kids skipped the process of usually going from /b/ to /v/ or some other shithole and somehow made it here
> The reason we don't have a NSFW /l/ has NOTHING to do with legality
complete bullshit, trashed opinion right here
>>347938
>there isn't loli out there based on REAL children
>>353193
He's completely right, though, mister lower-case poster.
>>345464
Despite what you try to claim, loli- and shotacon is nothing but glorified kiddy porn.
You're a degenerate and a sick fuck.
>>353219
okay
and we want /l/ back
>>353219
There are many other chans you can shit up. You can whine and beg until you are blue in the face, but it's never going to happen. You pedobeards are just an obnoxious minority.
>>353210
This isn't a meme if you're the only one posting it.
>>353219
False equivalence.
Appeal to majority.
>>345629
It's legal in America, that's all that matters. /l/ & /g/ were removed because the host bitched.
>>345927
While I agree, this thread is full of baseless speculation. People are just pulling stuff out of their asses.
>>345629
If Mr. Jackie 4chan were to create a loli board, it would have to be exclusive to IPs from states where it is legal like New York and California, as it is not legal in all states in the US.
>>353674
>what is federal law
Hiro should make this board or explain why he won't make it and say if there is a possibility his decision will change in the future
>>354008
Loli and shota are NOT illegal in the USA, where the sever is hosted
>>353674
No, it wouldn't, you dumb shit. Loli threads have been fine on /b/ for years. There is an /l/ on 8gag. Neither are restricted to certain IPs. Neither faces any legal trouble.
>>353193
It's true that people who type in lowercase tend to be the stupidest people and the ones who are mainly responsible for ruining this site.
You: "nuh-uh! im right cuz i say so, nerd!!"
>>354160
this is what capitalizers really believe
my captcha had some capital letters in it. i still used all lower case. how does that make you feel?
Um, the reason we don't have /g/ or /l/ anymore is because one, the host bitched, and two, advertisers don't tend to like websites that host that kind of thing. No ads, no monies.
Basically, it's legal here BUT there's such a huge stigma most people won't host it anyway out of fear of losing traffic or revenue.
Does that clear things up for you guys?
>>354164
is that Hiros reason, moot's, or yours?
>>354163
>still thinks that the reason there's no /l/ is because of legality
Your opinion is completely worthless.
>>354164
>and two, advertisers don't tend to like websites that host that kind of thing
Who, the jap advertisers who are already putting up some loli ads and selling loli products?
Go fuck yourself. The only reason we don't have an /l/ right now is because moot is a childish gayman.
>>354173
your opinion is the one that became worthless the moment you started capitalizing beginnings of sentences.
but i know the real reason there's no /l/ is because hiro hates us but wont admit it to our faces
>>354130
But that's exactly what I'm saying.
>>354169
Mostly mine through observation. I've been on the website since around 2005-2007 (at the start of DONATE OR DIE, I believe) so I remember some of these things.
Once 4chan started to gain traction as a website and generate more traffic (which was around 2005-2007) moot moved up servers. Once the server was moved, /l/ and /g/ both got removed. You can see that here at the end of 2004's bullet list:
http://tanasinn.info/wiki/Complete_History_of_4chan#2004
Moot removed the /l/ board because some geniuses thought they should post real children. He DID intend to bring it back, though, as you can see here:
http://www.4chan.org/news?all#30
>>354176
>Who, the jap advertisers who are already putting up some loli ads and selling loli products?
Way, way back in 4chan's history we had more advertisers than just J-List. Should Hiro choose to court other advertisers or ad networks in the future, having that board will be a PR problem.
The way 4chan is now, maybe we can handle having an /l/ but it won't reflect kindly on us. Think about how every time we're in the news /b/ gets referenced. If you want to bring leddit into it, they got pulled into the news as some kind of deviant website hosting tons of jailbait or whatever when those boards got uncovered. We might get the same kind of flack, though we are seen as a website of "deviants and hackers" already.
I personally don't mind /l/ or /sm/ at all, I'm just giving you concrete possible reasons WHY we don't have them right now and may never have them. ゆっくりしてください。
>>354276
oh thanks for your contribution. it's more detailed and sensible than most people's posts about how and why the board was originally killed off.
im not really concerned with this site being seen as deviant or having a negative image. are you? is anyone, really? anyway i don't think "4chan has an /l/ board!" is national newsworthy, although "member of 4chan raped a kid, also 4chan has an /l/ board" would be i guess.
>>345660
>that ridiculously shitty layout
>>348182
>A self contained topic that was moot approved kept to itself and wasn't breaching into anything else
>Cancer
>Move topic to /asp/ because some assblasted fags that could choose to ignore it as easily as ignoring other topics on the board they didn't like
>complete culture shock and leaking into /tv/ and completely taking over the board
Face it senpai, /wwe/ was fine on /sp/ and moving it to /asp/ just caused more problems then solved.
>>354160
you didn't even read my post, you just spouted more inane bullshit
>>354298
b-b-but a /l/ board would be trouble!!!!
