@Zipzo said in Regarding the character height restrictions:
@SoppierHades8 said in Regarding the character height restrictions:
@Wiibu said in Regarding the character height restrictions:
@Novaline Yikes, I'm not supporting a nsfw mod for them. People that do that are creepy. I'm just pointing out that female Lalafells can look like kids and can wear skimpy outfits.
So that is your reasoning for PSO to follow the same suite as FF? Sorry, but this entire thread is creepy as hell. You are literally going out of your way to say that you want to create childlike girls in a game that heavily revolves around skimpy outfits. Do not sexualise children, and I don't want to see childlike characters roaming around wearing bikinis - it is disgusting.
Whether your intentions are innocent or not, other people's wont be and i certainly do not want to see them. I'm here for the gameplay, not a sick fetish
FYI this take is always a flawed argument, IE the "why do you even want such a thing in the game, are you a pedophile?" argument.
To make this argument you essentially need to rope in the entire development team of the game who allowed the game to be designed in a way that it allowed the original height restrictions, because after all they designed it that way in the first place.
People like Wiibu just want the game to remain unchanged, even if it's something as arbitrary as height restrictions.
And for the millionth time across the internet, anime lolis are not children. They aren't real.
@Zipzo laws say other wise about the anime lolis buddy, art depicting underage or what apears to be underage sexual acts or lewd or obscene images is still child porn.
The PROTECT Act
In 2003, Congress found that law enforcement agencies had difficulty in prosecuting cases where computer-generated depictions of children were indistinguishable from depictions of real children. Other cases involved using parts of images of real children to create a composite image that was unidentifiable as a particular child and in a way that prevented even an expert from concluding that parts of images of real children were used. Some cases even involved the disguising of pictures of real children being abused by making the image look computer generated.
As a result, Congress passed the “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today” (PROTECT) Act. This law prohibits the production, distribution, or possession of a visual depiction of any kind – including an animated motion picture, drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting – that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Why is the First Amendment Not a Defense?
The Supreme Court previously ruled that a law banning any depiction of simulated sexual activity by a minor was too broad (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). The PROTECT Act was passed as a response to this ruling.
For this reason, a key word in the PROTECT Act is the word, “obscene.” The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the First Amendment protection for freedom of speech does not apply to “obscene” material (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)). Using the word “obscene” in the PROTECT Act eliminated any concern that the law would be considered a violation of First Amendment rights.