If you are a lolicon pls boots bookmark this. Creddits goes to kyoshourz back on minds for doing research god bless our loli vets. Yes, Lolicon is legal in the United States! Does this answer your question? https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/ashcroft-v-free-speech-coalition-merits Further of note, the excerpted text and link is from a brief to the Supreme Court by the then Attorney General to overturn the 9th Circuit which ruled the CPPA violated the constitution by being overly broad. What this means is the people arguing to keep the CPPA in place with an expanded definition of CSEM to include realistic 3D depictions agreed that drawn art and cartoons were protected speech. Moreover SCOTUS still upheld the 9th Circuit and struck down CPPA as overbroad and unconstitutional on April 16, 2002. https://www.britannica.com/event/Ashcroft-v-Free-Speech-Coalition And more: "The Supreme Court denied the last appeal of the Government from an Appeals Court decision that turned down the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA establishes criminal penalties for any online commercial distribution of material harmful to minors. The Appeals Court held COPA unconstitutional on the ground that COPA made every web communication provider abide by the most restrictive community's standards." EPIC had challenged the implementation of COPA over ten years ago and had been fighting the case along with the ACLU and the EFF. EPIC argued that COPA violated the First Amendment as well as privacy of the individual on the internet." https://epic.org/free_speech/copa/ Lastly. "But what about the PROTECT ACT". COPA was struck by SCOTUS as unconstitutional in ACLU v. Mukasey on Jan. 21, 2009. It's in the post you are responding to. That's the part which would have allowed them to charge a host for lolicon (such as Minds). I've researched the Protect Act. Here's what has been done with it so far: ------------------------------------ In 2008, Christopher Handley, a "prolific collector" of manga, pleaded guilty to charges related to the PROTECT Act, in exchange for a six-month plea deal, five years of probation, and forfeiture of his collection of manga and anime that had been seized by police. He was facing a maximum sentence of up to twenty years. While not convicted by a jury, he was the first person charged under the PROTECT Act for the lone act of possessing art deemed obscene, in the form of seven manga graphic novels ordered from Japan. In the case United States v. Handley, district court Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act that criminalized certain depictions without having to go through the Miller test were overbroad and thus unconstitutional. Handley still faced an obscenity charge. ​Both prosecutors and defense attorneys noted that the plea deal was due to the high risk of a constitutional challenge, and the federal government agreed that Handley would not be required to register as a sex offender. ------------------------------------ --CONT- What did this mean? Handley took a plea deal and was not charged under the Protect Act because the prosecution realized the Protect Act itself would not survive Constitutional challenge, as the Judge in the case had already indicated. More here: http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/cbldf-case-files/handley/