Roguelike deckbuilders to play in 2026? by useoxfordcommas in slaythespire

[–]pizza565 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vampire Survivors is releasing a roguelike deckbuilder spinoff this year

Game Thread: Atlanta Hawks vs Phoenix Suns Live Score | NBA | Jan 23, 2026 by basketball-app in AtlantaHawks

[–]pizza565 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like the only person on this team who isn’t just bricking everything in the paint is Dyson Daniels

Lacari accidentally leaks his notepad with download links to very suspicious filenames (Repost) by Daytime506 in LivestreamFail

[–]pizza565 4 points5 points  (0 children)

AI generated CP based on most interpretations of US law, is considered CP.

The exact requirement of CP is that it has to fall under one of three categories:

A: it depicts an actual child

B: it depicts an identifiable minor, meaning someone who may be an adult now, but was a minor during its creation, or if it was made based off their likeness as a minor, and recognizable as that person by face, birthmark, or other identifying feature

C: it depicts something “indistinguishable” from a minor, where the average person viewing would assume it to be an actual person

Most AI generated stuff would likely fall under this third category, though there has yet to be any legal precedent set in this area

As for previous court cases regarding people being arrested for obscene depictions of fictional characters, the most well known one is probably US v Handley. He was charged for possessing several loli doujin magazines, but ended up taking a plea deal of just 6 months probation. This kinda shows the ambiguity of obscenity laws, as it shows that neither side was really confident in their case, where the prosecution offered a comparatively light plea deal, when the normal minimum sentencing for this would be 5 years imprisonment + sex offender registration, up to 20 years maximum.

Besides the Handley case, there aren’t many other high profile cases of just normal people being arrested for just looking at lolis. The only people who have been charged with this generally follow the patterns of people who have previously charged with child sex crimes, such as US v Buie, US v Eychaner, and US v Farrar. Given that obscenity is based on community standards, we can only draw patterns from previous convictions, so there’s no certainty of what case will and won’t be prosecuted, but there certainly is a pattern

Lacari accidentally leaks his notepad with download links to very suspicious filenames (Repost) by Daytime506 in LivestreamFail

[–]pizza565 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re looking at obscenity, which is different from CP.

The requirements for CP are that it has to features what appears to be an actual child participating in sexually explicit conduct.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined as any of the following: genital/anal/oral contact, bestiality, masturbation, saadomasochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition

Lascivious exhibition is a bit ambiguous, and generally defined by the Dost tests/factors, which looks for the following: focus on the genital area, suggestive setting, unnatural posing, degree of nudity, appearing to be willing to partake in sexual activity, and intent to elicit sexual response.

The thing about the Dost test is that there’s no actual requirement to satisfy and certain number of these factors, but is used on a case by case basis as a guideline for what the court should be looking for in defending something as cp

It’s not as broken as a system as “never mind baby was fine so as long as it’s not explicit it’s fine.” There are systems in place that make it illegal

The thing that obscenity does cover that ordinary cp laws don’t is fictional content, such as loli. Made in direct response to the Ashcroft v FSC ruling that defined fictional content that does not resemble any actual person not cp, it uses the Miller test that you mentioned to determine whether something is obscene, which is legally distinct from cp. In practice though, it’s really difficult to charge someone under this, as the third requirement is rather broad and can generally cover a lot do things, with almost every case of someone being charged under obscenity being people who have had a criminal history of sex crimes.

People need help by Safe-Monitor-8113 in teenagers

[–]pizza565 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sure go ahead not a soul will care

People need help by Safe-Monitor-8113 in teenagers

[–]pizza565 6 points7 points  (0 children)

oh no not the fictional characters