By the way, there is currently massive drama going around Schlep because he spoke against lolisho. He is currently a target of a massive harassment and smear campaign by lolishos. They are using pedojacket tactics to falsely frame Schlep as being a sexual predator.
Debunking this
community note [A] because it is false as usual:
Schlep falsely claims anime is CSAM
This misrepresents what Schlep said and responds to a claim that he never made. He never said that lolicon was CSAM. He said it was "child erotica".
Child erotica refers to material that doesn't meet the legal definition of CSAM, but is still sexually arousing to pedophiles. Here is an affidavit from an FBI Special Agent defining the term:
Source (pg. 3)
A different affidavit, also by an FBI Special Agent, specifically states that drawings can be "child erotica":
Source (pg. 3)
Summary: Schlep did not claim that anime is CSAM. His actual claim (that lolicon is "child erotica") is accurate and supported by definitions that are endorsed by law enforcement.
Furthermore it may be a violation of CSEM laws to lead people to believe fiction is CSEM.
It is obviously not illegal to claim lolicon is CSAM.
The statute cited by the community note is the pandering statute:
The Supreme Court has stated that this statute targets instances of people advertising specific images as depicting real children, even if they are virtual:
Source
Importantly, the statute penalizes speech that accompanies or seeks to induce a transfer of purported child pornography. There must be a recommendation of a particular piece of purported child pornography with the intent of initiating a transfer. A simple statement claiming that lolicon is child pornography does not accompany or seek to induce a transfer of anything and does not violate the statute:
Source
Source
The defendant must also believe (or intend for the listener to believe) that the material is child pornography under the law (i.e. that it shows real children). A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children:
Source
Source
People stating that lolicon is CSAM are not suggesting it depicts real children. They are expressing an opinion that the average person would think that lolicon is CSAM, not that it meets the legal definition of CSAM under the law.
Summary: It is not illegal to state that lolicon is CSAM.
," "child erotic," "damn brat," "needs rape correction," etc., all from him ("mammoth" is his account too). The connection is super understated. I would hope most of them don't know about his actions, but I've seen one going all "separate the art from the artist." With child rape memes...
