No.134285
DEFCON 3 : US-based doujin site, pururin.to, was seized by the Feds. This is a fairly significant event. The obscenity laws surrounding drawings have largely been unenforced at the Federal level.
The banner itself claims that this was done on the grounds of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1466A and 1467; per the banner itself, "It is unlawful to produce, distribute, receive, or possess an obscene visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Individuals who do so can face significant criminal and civil penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture of property."
But... The banner also shows the seal of the Intellectual Property Rights Center, which is suggestive of this being brought by foreign rights holders claiming copyright infringement, but then pururin being seized and prosecuted under obscenity law. Sites being seized for obscenity are typically done by the FBI, whose seal is conspicuously missing in this case.
No.134286
Hmmmm........
Well, I don't know how any of this works, their twitter has been dead since 2021, the /h/ thread is mostly shitflinging, there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the e-hentai forums, and in
a reddit thread most are calling it fake (someone commented that whois directs to ns1.seizedservers.com/ns2.seizedservers.com, for me it just refused connection but this is a week later).
Could it have something to do with Idaho specifically? Some searches say lolicon can't be banned due to a supreme court decision, but others say it can still be trialed as obscene, and that Idaho doesn't protect it somehow.
No.134287
>>134286>most are calling it fakeIt is real. A WHOIS does show that it has been seized.
>Could it have something to do with Idaho specifically?No. The banner mentions the District Court for the District of Idaho. This sounds misleading, but it means that it was brought to a Federal court, not a State court.
No.134288
Did this banner go up recently? It's surprisingly light on discussion but I guess it was a smaller site.
No.134289
>>134288It has probably been there about a week. The WHOIS record changed on the 10th
No.134292
Dunno.
I never used the site but I would think the site owners have a twitter or blog somewhere. Then again, if it's now a federal case they wouldn't say anything and we'll have to wait a month for any updates
No.134293
>>134286If the supreme court had ruled it unconstitutional, the law itself would be invalid and new legislation would have to be passed. "Obscenity", however, is an excessively broad term and it can and is used to prosecute things that would fall under the protections of the first amendment if they were outlawed directly. If a court really does judge drawings of fictional "minors" to be obscene then it will have far-reaching consequences.
No.134294
The obvious theory here is that they were hosting CP on publicly accessible locations and didn't take any action
No.134296
>>134294I'm pretty sure CP gets prosecuted for reasons other than "obscenity".
No.134297
>>134296No, but 18USC pretty clearly is the application of a case with actors under 18 and obscenity is a seperate case. So potentially they have a primary charge and a secondary charge that they will try and use to tie loli to CP in court case.
But I find it amusing that US think it's safe when many states are just Christian caliphates held together by a chief warlord. Federalaw not going to save you when state law has such powerful override
No.134299
And the reading of obscene in this case is different from obscenity law so. It's open to interpretation
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A No.134301
>>134294There's no FBI seal, just DoJ, Homeland Security, and NIPRCC. The
National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center would not be involved in a CSAM case.
No.134304
>>134301Homeland security is a pretty big deal...
Everyone one of those seals is another agency who has a problem with them.
You can be involved with copyright theft of Fakku trademarks and also involved with other crimes.
No.134306
>>134304I'm almost certain they're involved because it's part of an international copyright investigation; FBI only deals with domestic cases, Homeland Security probably has jurisdiction because of the international scale? This is a nearly identical banner that was used for seizing a site streaming soccer matches during the World Cup. Same DoJ, Homeland Security, and NIPRCC seals.
What's concerning is that pururin being seized wasn't done on the same grounds of copyright infringement, but instead had obscenity laws as the primary listed reasons for seizure. That's a big change in enforcement.
https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-doubles-down-and-seizes-comeback-domains-of-pirate-sites-221219/ No.134308
>>134306there aren't a whole lot of sites that are on clearnet involved with CP that aren't hijacking some sort of free hosting platform, so you don't even see these banners.
This was Silk Road's apparently
No.134310
>>134306NIPRCC is under the ICE
>>134308 which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. That's why they're there. Customs are part of protecting the homeland and someone decided IP should fall under that banner.
I'm guessing the main thrust was about IP and someone in ICAC with too much time on his hands heard about it and had them tack on an obscenity charge just to see if it would stick and escalate things. It would be a sort of karmic justice if someone like Fakku got their IP takedown only to be served with an arrest warrant for selling obscene content, but it would also be devastating for just about everyone else on the internet.
No.134311
>>134310Do you want people to make money or not... the sale of japanese pornographic material is vital to it's proliferation in the culture..
No.134312
>>134311You can sell something without going on a crusade against the community that built a viable market for it out of volunteer work. Betrayers belong in the deepest level of hell.
No.134313
>>134312They're getting $$$ by doing things legitimate.
You're arguing what the order of symbols on a takedown notice mean.
No.134368
>>134308Ahhhh nostalgic banner...
>>134364>Sites like Fakku can kiss my buttEven more nostalgic. I remember naming one of my characters in an MMO after Fakku and people left and right would recognize the name and giggle, now it's barely known at all because they purged everything and went corporate.
>>134311The culture can't survive behind a walled gate of payment providers that censor the content and limit the quantity of publications that allowed it to thrive in the first place.
No.134369
>>134368people need to eat and pay rent and if there isn't a good enough economy providing people with more money than they need then they can't cut the number of hours at their job to produce art
No.134390
>>134298I have never seen any actual sources as to why each area is colored the way it is, and the cited Ashcroft case would make the entire US green (and the law cited in the takedown in the OP would make the entire US yellow at best, with some if not all places being red depending on how this goes).
Federal law overrules if it is protected speech or not (basically, are those parts of the PROTECT Act constitutional or not).
No.134391
>>134390>the cited Ashcroft case would make the entire US greenbah, I fucked up there, I meant to type blue
No.134395
>>134390That picture refers to state law which is only applied to limited situations. Pretty much only to locally produced contents that never crossed the state border. The federal law cited applies in all other situations, including anything on the internet.
>Federal law overrules if it is protected speech or not (basically, are those parts of the PROTECT Act constitutional or not).The seizure notice in the OP refers to obscenity as the reason, which isn't protected speech and is banned by the PROTECT Act.
No.134396
obscenity is such a bullshit "catch-all" reason
my third world country has pretty much the same laws and what it means in practice is that "fuck you, if we don't like you we can make you go to jail for any reason"
No.134397
>>134395Also the law text says
>(A)depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and(B)is obscene;
It's actually quite impossible to prove someone in a fictional work is a "minor" (rather than "is, or appears to be, of a minor") unless it's explicitly spelt out. Most of doujinshi I see have the "everyone is over 18" disclaimer or have their ages blurred out. The only ones I can recall that do explicitly say that characters are under the age of 18 are from Comic LO. The website might got some trouble with that.
No.134419
>>134397It explicitly says it doesn't matter if it's real or fake
No.134421
>>134420
this person owns seven terabytes of CP and is trying to divert attention
No.134433
>>134419Even if it's fake they still need to prove that the characters are under 18 years old based on the information provided by the story.
In fact there is another category of banned content in the same article that uses "is, or appears to be, of a minor" which doesn't have this requirement, and has a threshold lower than obscenity. It's questionable whether that category is constitutional or not since multiple attempts to expand the scope beyond obscenity were struck down by the supreme court.
No.134460
that guy's not welcome to stay though
No.134545
>>134285>prosecuted under obscenity lawProsecution just means that a case was opened. It doesn't mean anyone's been sent to jail yet.
Obviously it's another move by those in power to censor and control the internet even further. A victory would set a precedent and let them use obscenity law as a an excuse to censor even more.
But given the deteriorating geopolitical situation in the Middle East, Europe, and almost certainly the Pacific, and some of the worst domestic malaise since the 70s I think the feds and Big Tech will have a much worse time trying to crackdown on actual dissent from unhappy people and saboteurs instead of
anime pros and
touhou experts : ^ )
I don't think they'll win anyways. Even if "minor" is well defined how do you prove the content is depicting minors when all the characters are fictional? Either they're attempting to power grab or sabre rattling again.
No.134575
>>134545We have to protect the drawings from the imaginations of the viewer.
No.134713
There are examples of even written erotica being attacked under obscenity laws, and if you go back even further just writing about unsavory or sexual topics itself could get you prosecuted under them
It's certainly a little troubling... It makes me nervous going through airports incase some random TSA agent demands to go through my phone or something
No.134893
>>134868I just bumped this shab
No.135129
>>134308>there aren't a whole lot of sites that are on clearnet involved with CP that aren't hijacking some sort of free hosting platformwhat do you mean by hijacking a free hosting platform?
No.135132
>>135129Any website that allows email/phone number-free file uploads I'm guessing. The scum are like locusts and will eventually find such places and hammer it with illegal content until the provider yanks the site or the admin does it himself. Anonfiles was the most recent victim that I'm aware of, but it hits everything eventually.
No.135133
>>135132>Anonfilesmust have confused it with AnonTalk wwwwwwwww