[etplayer]

It was stricken down at the federal level. I believe that laws still exist against it at the state level. Their validity, to my knowledge, has not been questioned as of yet.

However there are such laws which remain, and in fact have been recently introduced, in Canada, England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Rep. of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and various European countries.

What's perhaps even more concerning is that even stories are illegal in Canada. The mere possession of the material, i.e a drawing that you made yourself is illegal in England. Publishing a story or even sexual roleplaying with another adult over the Internet might find you sentenced under the Obscene Publications Act.

It's hideous in my view and such laws deserve to be stricken down with ferocity.

[DanBC]

It would be more persuasive if you linked to the laws. Some of what you're saying about England doesn't sound right.

[etplayer]

As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1]

I'm sure I've replied to you about this before, actually, not long ago. (Edit: found it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904716)

I'm not sure why my comment here is downvoted, though.

[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/62

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-38146988

[DanBC]

I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that.

Your bbc example is telling: he's an admitted paedophile, who was offending against children. The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law.

> He admitted at Preston Crown Court to storing hundreds of child abuse images and posting on a paedophile website.

[etplayer]

>I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that.

Wrong about what, exactly? Images of children in sexual situations, or rather, as is described in the act, is illegal even to possess. Unless you know something about the act that I don't, or I've completely misread it - in which case I'm very open to corrections - I'm an optimist that the law isn't as hideous as I am reading it out to be.

>The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law.

I was talking about that section of CAJA, I know that OPA is old, but the "lolicon law" is only from 2009.

>he's an admitted paedophile

So what? That's completely irrelevant to any point that's being made. The fact is that he was imprisoned for spreading stories, fiction, and it was through UK law enacted by parliament that this happened.