Simp Chat Cockteasefiona | Mama Fiona | Fiona Costello | Goddess Fiona - Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Perverted Chicken
- Start date
DegenerateNerd
Bathwater Drinker
- Nov 18, 2023
- 1
- 1,134
I'm surprised some sick bastards haven't tried to challenge that law then under like a 1st amendment violation. Although good luck to them for finding a sympathetic judge/jury.
batchest69
Casual
- Sep 1, 2022
- 0
- 23
In the story you linked, the person is being charged with creating CSAM of actual children he knew. So to say "no actual kids were involved" is inaccurate. This isn't the same thing that Fiona does. A doll is not the same as creating CP of actual children.
No I don't think it's "common sense." Things like lolicon for example have gone through US courts and been declared legal, so I don't know why doll videos would be any different. Again, the fundamental difference we're looking at is whether actual real life children were involved. If they aren't, courts are not likely to charge with anything.
batchest69
Casual
- Sep 1, 2022
- 0
- 23
I imagine people will continue to target her, which will make it difficult to create a consistent income if she can't avoid getting banned from everything again. But in terms of legal ramifications, I doubt anything will come of it.
Well it's a dog eat dog world out there, content creators will do anything to get ahead. Some of the vids though that Sidney harwin has done, I'm surprised they are still up on manyvids, so obvious who she is referring to in the vids. When they start putting in disclaimers about all characters being over 18 , well you know that's bs. Paintedrose is another, made a ton of apparent AP vids but now feels bad about doing such vids.
Last edited:
He had AI generated images of children he knew, as well as completely AI generated images of children who don't exist in real life that he made giving AI bots descriptions. I thought that the article I linked mentioned that. It does not. That's my bad. I only skimmed that article having heard about the story elsewhere.
As for the lolicon, there is a very important distinction between that and what Mama Fiona did. There is a narrow exception for written and drawn depictions of children where they are allowed if the work has artistic merit. That only applies to written and drawn stuff, not anything with real people (even if the real person isn't a child). Also, lolicon hasn't made its way through the federal courts well. There's a number of people in federal prison for possessing things like that.
Virginia Man Sentenced in Landmark Obscenity Case
Former Meridian teacher sentenced for obscene cartoons
Former Meridian teacher sentenced for obscene cartoons
www.ktvb.com
Federal Inmate Convicted of Producing Obscene Images of Children
A federal judge convicted a federal inmate yesterday on charges of producing and possessing obscene images of children.
Those are just a few examples.
A doll is not the same thing as creating CSAM with real children. You're right. But that doesn't mean it's legal. I'm not a lawyer so I can't tell you if it is or not, but I have every reason to believe that at the very least it's cutting it pretty darn close. Given the way people are talking about how they went after Fiona, I'm sure at least someone has reported her to the feds.
batchest69
Casual
- Sep 1, 2022
- 0
- 23
Looks like you only skimmed through the articles you linked here as well.
The first one you linked, the FBI case, the man in question had pictures of actual children on the computer and was using the same computer to send explicit emails to a minor. This is how the FBI caught him. I found the actual appeal here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/06-4288/064288.p-2011-03-15.html. If you read carefully, it wasn't really about him having anime girls on his computer. Rather the court argued that since he did have it in addition to the actual photos, it could be used to build the case against him. Also he had already been charged with something similar in the past.
I looked further into the second story you linked about that Meridian teacher. The details are vague as he pleaded guilty so it didn't go to trial. However, it looks like he was sharing actual CP. German authorities tipped off the US authorities to him after tracking his IP in a related case. This is likely why he pleaded guilty - it wasn't having possession of Simpsons cartoon porn, it was being caught red handed with actual CP material.
The last story you linked I didn't bother to look much into. Looks like a guy who got thrown in prison for CP started tracing kids from books/magazines in sexual situations, which got his sentence extended. Every story you linked here has actual children involved, it has nothing to do with the type of fictional roleplay that Fiona does.
It has. The Supreme Court has stuck down bans on this type of material. Read here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
I don't know why I bothered spending my time on this. Everything you linked just proved my point. I can't believe I'm debating someone who thinks having sex with a plastic doll should be illegal.
You realize that Congress passed the PROTECT Act in 2003 in response to the Ashcroft decision, right? You're aware Ashcroft was a decision regarding a different law, right? You realize that the over broad assertion has been challenged by various federal courts of appeals, right?
I linked you to cases that took place after 2002. You linked to the appellate case it flat out states he was "convicted of (1) knowingly receiving on a computer 20 obscene Japanese anime cartoons depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462." If you read carefully, you will see that those explicit emails to minors were separate charges. He also wasn't found out by the FBI because he was emailing minors. He was found out because he was caught downloading lolicon while using a computer at the Virginia Employment Commission, who then notified his probation officer. The FBI investigated his email after he had been reported to them for lolicon. This is literally in the document you linked me too.
As for the second case, it's 100% clear, because he entered a plea agreement where he specifically agreed it was images involving The Simpsons I'm sure he owned other images too. His deal with the government was specifically that he was admitting he owned those images of the Simpsons in violation of a child pornography law.
Lastly, I never said I thought having sex with a plastic doll should be illegal. Learn to read. You clearly can't since you sent me a link that proved my point.
Let me make this abundantly clear: Do whatever you want. I really don't care what you do. At all. If you want to convince yourself there's nothing wrong with making videos where you simulate having sex with a toddler, go ahead. You don't need to convince me, which you want to for some reason.
Last edited:
batchest69
Casual
- Sep 1, 2022
- 0
- 23
What does this have to do with anything? The PROTECT Act says what I've been saying to you this whole time; that one of the fundamental aspects of this kind of sexually explicit material is whether or not actual children are involved in some way. You can just read this on Wikipedia:
- "Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code)."
Yes, but the violation of this law isn't about the material itself, it's about the trafficking of the commerce. It says this directly in the case. This is why I said it was used to build the case against him. When I read your posts, all I can see is motivated reasoning. You're desperately searching for anything that can be used to say "look see, some guy (kinda, sorta, maybe) went to prison for it, therefore it's bad."
No, the plea deal here says: "In exchange for the benefit conveyed by this plea agreement, the defendant knowingly and intentionally waives (gives up) any right he might to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1466A(b)(1) in any form, directly or indirectly." This literally means he isn't going to argue about the Simpsons porn being fine, because he's admitting guilt on all aspects of the case (which means the CP he actually got caught with).
I'll just ask plainly: do you think that the content Fiona has made SHOULD be illegal? Or do you just think it's bad? Because I genuinely have no idea what point you're making with all this, and if you don't even care then what are you doing here?
Geekn
Fan
- Jun 29, 2022
- 11
- 66
She’s still on x under savvyxstar and she’s posting new vids and stuff, idk what happened to her none of the stuff was real. Ai/deepfakes is one thing, could be used as revenge, and technically still using an image of whoever/whatever. But using toys in a taboo way seems like no harm no foul
As I told you, if you want to watch videos of women grinding on baby dolls, you don't need my permission. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this.
Wrong. You're reading intentions into my posts that aren't there, and it's weird.
I've already made it abundantly clear in my posts what my point is. Being turned on by this stuff is classified as a mental illness in both the DSM-V and the ICD-10. Those are facts, not opinions or arguments.
So is all the information I provided about people being incarcerated for possessing CSAM that doesn't involve real life children but depicts it. You're either choosing to misread things or just flat out don't understand it. I'm not going to tell you what I do for a living, but let's just say I have a job where I know that I'm right on this. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. I'm not going to keep arguing with you about it, and I'm obviously not giving you anything other than my word to go off of so I don't dox myself.
And if you want to rationalize watching videos of a woman simulating sex with an infant as something that's totally healthy, you're only hurting yourself and I hope someday you realize that. If you don't, at least I tried. Have a happy life.
Geekn
Fan
- Jun 29, 2022
- 11
- 66
I mean gooning in general isn’t necessarily healthy stop gooning 2025
NoI mean gooning in general isn’t necessarily healthy stop gooning 2025
grizzlytree
Bathwater Drinker
- Mar 23, 2022
- 36
- 2,648
I wonder if Sloansmoans name change was a result of Fiona getting banned everywhere. Potentially trying to distance herself from her own past extreme AP videos to avoid consequences.
Davybrenan
Bathwater Drinker
- May 19, 2023
- 17
- 1,461
I didn't know sloansmoans was doing that stuff. I'm curious why she was able to hide it for so long
grizzlytree
Bathwater Drinker
- Mar 23, 2022
- 36
- 2,648
She quit making them like a year ago because people wouldn't stop leaking the vids. She still sold old ones to people that asked though.
She wasn't as blatant as Fiona and didn't really advertise that she offered those type of vids.
Her vids weren't as extreme as Fiona's, but I'm sure the same people that went after Fiona would be upset with Sloans vids as well.
Davybrenan
Bathwater Drinker
- May 19, 2023
- 17
- 1,461
where are those leaked sloanmoans vids
Pillowfighter
Bathwater Drinker
- May 27, 2022
- 62
- 3,178
Best bet is checking CWTV. There’s a few on there, I can try to find the names if I have time. It’s a lot of daddy Ageplay stuff, usually the numbers don’t go below 61 (
)bigfuckingcock
Lurker
- Oct 19, 2023
- 0
- 18
I'm late to the discussion but I'll be honest...I think the reason she got busted is because I think she's like genuinely fucked in the head. Super hot, sexy as hell, but like mentally unwell. I had a cam call with her a few years ago when she still offered that sort of thing and when she asked me if I was ok with mother son roleplay I was like, "nah, not really my thing," and she basically was like, ok well its mine and I need to do it to get off so if you don't mind I'm still going to refer to myself as your mommy. Like, it was still hot, but bizarre. Not to mention if you've ever seen her reddit comments, she only comments on incest and ageplay stories talking about how hot they are. I get trying to drum up business and maybe looking like you are into something for the $$$, but I genuinely think this is something she is deeply into and its a dangerous path to tread lightly on.
She's super deep into taboo. Its like her main kink and while she's very much dialed in on it getting off n whatnot, that doesnt make her fucked in the head or unwell. She got attacked because she got too comfortable and keep going publicly with certain material like the bb-doll stuff which Im not into but she should have never posted that let alone openly on her website. Also, That pet play vid was a misunderstanding that wasn't cleared up which was unfair on the clip sites part to my best knowledge. Again she got the hammer because she got reckless and didn't keep herself in check.