Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

reply to post by psyko45


What constitutes murder? Can I draw a murder?
Can I draw a rape?
Can I draw a coc aine deal?
Can I draw a diamond heist?

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


Well we have the terrorist thought crimes that society now accepts as the norm to be punished. As that has worked we now have child abuse thought crimes.. and once that is the norm, where will we go next? what thoughts crime will be next? As you say a very slippery slope.. and I would question how effective this is in preventing child abuse.

Originally posted by psyko45
reply to post by SpacePunk

 

No. My question was for the op, and it was reguarding pornography laws. If the law says you cant posess child porn and these items fall under that classification, then the person gets what the law gives..right?

I never saw your question but it's extremely easy to answer.

1. Should a law even exist to charge someone for a victimless crime?

2. If laws can exist just because people don't like something, even though it is a victimless crime then are we not on a slippery slope where all manner of things can be banned? After all many people don't like BDSM and in fact the UK government has taken steps to ban that pornography as well.

After BDSM what about porn altogether (it sonuds nuts but it used to be illegal) and after that it could be anything. You see censorship starts at the edges, with the things most people are not happy with and then it works inwards towards the mainstream. This has ben shown throughout history.

3. Yep the law exists and therefore, according to the letter of the law he should be charged and imprisoned. However it is not a just law because it is a victimless crime and infringes upon this mans freedoms. to define freedom as i have said before "You can do whatever you like, anything, as long as you do not harm another person".

I see shows on television all the time depicting underage kids having sex. Can I call the Police and have them arrested and imprisoned?

There are shows about underage sex broadcast every day!

I am offended.

Originally posted by psyko45
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

I think you misunderstand whats going on here. The question is not about creating a thought crime. Bottom line is, What constitutes child pornography? And what are the laws concerning and penalties for posessing this material where the person in the op is in jail? Most here have expressed thier ideas concerning child porn, but so far we are still looking for the law. I cant find it because my browser wont seem to navigate away from this page for right now. I dont think this thread is really geared to changing any existing laws. If kiddie porn is against the law where this person is and they were caught with a collection of what that law defines as child porn, then is jail the proper penalty for breaking that law?

I understand what you are saying..

however i was pointing out that those offenders who actually commit real acts of abuse get similar sentances, this in my mind equates cartoon porn to actual offences.. that means to me personally, the crimes commited against ME are the same and equal to viewing a cartoon..

Some offenders get suspended sentances, this message to them is that viewing cartoons is worse than the abuse suffered by a victim..

Besides quite a number of the survivors I know utilise age play as part of the healing process.. Therapists use tools like getting survivors to draw their expereinces, which by this law would mean they face a jail term for doing so.. Hence my comments that this muddies the waters..

This being my first time posting,greetings to all.Rarely am I moved to comment on the opinions of others,except where they pose a very real danger.The think of the children brigade,by their sheer arrogance in feeling morally superior are leading us all into a very dangerous place.Fact,no child was harmed by these cartoons,they are imaginary!Fact,just as in Australia with the case of the Simpsons porn,the crime committed was one of imagination,yes a thought crime.When a legal system can convict someone,not for an offence in reality ,but on the supposition that they were thinking of a crime then we should all be scared.Several posters have tried to point this out already,and have been met by the usual emotional and irrational barrage of "save the children",or if you disagree "you must be paedophile".This argument is often used to justify the unjust.Yes children should be protected,but it seem that "adults" who buy into this need protecting also,from their own stupidity.

I think in this case the man who went to jail just had a really bad lawyer.

This is what the man went to jail for:

(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

To summarize:

"An image that appears to be of a minor engaging in sexual intercourse and lacks serious artistic value."

All the lawyer had to do was claim that the defendant's collection had serious artistic value.

'Serious' and 'artistic' are subjective terms. I can take a crap on a piece of paper and say "this is serious art" and simply by saying it is serious art, it becomes serious art.

Serious: "of, showing, or characterized by deep thought."
Art: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

Also, this man PLEAD GUILTY, so he probably didn't realize that what he was doing wasn't TECHNICALLY illegal. He was probably just scared of the idea of going to jail for several years and struck a bargain with the judge. At any rate, this man doesn't need punishment because there is no victim. What he needs is therapy.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by avatar01]

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

 

Well we have the terrorist thought crimes that society now accepts as the norm to be punished. As that has worked we now have child abuse thought crimes.. and once that is the norm, where will we go next? what thoughts crime will be next? As you say a very slippery slope.. and I would question how effective this is in preventing child abuse.

I think it will progress to things like drug thought crimes, and then things like hate thought crimes, and it just gets better from there.

It just dawned on me that we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, and now they're sending us fantasy porn. What has this world come to?

I might have to start up a whole series of stick figure concentration camp rape murder videos with a guy named Romeo Pantski as the perverted hero and diamond dealer.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Cabaret Voltaire]

Originally posted by harvib
I think some posters need to consider the legal precedent that is reaffirmed by cases such as these.

...agreed but thats not likely to happen until someone they care about is falsely convicted and, depending on the degree of their self-righteousness, it may not even happen then...

Originally posted by harvib
We as a society believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilt.

...yeah, people like to believe that - but - its a fantasy and it always has been... from the moment you are arrested, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent - thats how it really goes... if we were truly presumed innocent until proven guilty, people wouldnt sit in jail for months and months awaiting trial or be forced to put up a bail bond rather than sit in jail for months and months awaiting trial...

Originally posted by harvib
How do you prove a cartoon is a minor?

...excellent point - but - first, the prosecutor would have to prove (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the cartoon depicted humans having sex, then prove it was under-age humans...

Originally posted by harvib
Cases like these must presume guilt because there is no way to prove it...

...thats exactly the beef...

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Thank you. Are you suggesting a change in child porn law, or at least what constitutes child porn? Arent the laws concerning this too liberal as they are, or maybe I live in a vaccum somewhere?

Main charge

(a) In General. - Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that - (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic

codes.lp.findlaw.com...

Cut the description short about to get graphic

Other charges

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing - Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.

law.onecle.com...

Under the law he is guilty of charges as defined .

But is the law right or legal to begin with , It is a thought crime .

I don't think I wanna touch too much on this, but just thought I would point out that most anime/manga out there, depicts cartoon teenagers, not five or six year olds. We're talking about seeing a character who looks like a teenager, but is drawn by an adult, voiced by an adult, etc etc. Point being the depiction of a 'potentially' underage person in a sexual scenario is a far cry from depicting young children. Pedophilia is a type of sex addiction, not biological, and therefore it can be unlearned. Properly assessing the reasons for this behavior are necessary to curb it. Should looking at animated teenagers reduce their thirst for the real thing, I say go for it.

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness


I saw the movie ''Kids'' and it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The movie was lauded as a beautiful motion picture. It played everywhere. You can rent it or stream it right now. How do you explain that?

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness


No thought crime due to posession of physical, distributeable contraband. If the law stated that one could not think of these things and they had some sort of machine that one could be plugged into to read the thoughts, and the findings came back as such then we would have a thought crime.
Child porn is not a naturally occouring plant. It is a manufactured item created by human beings for entertainment. Its ok for uncle sam to tell me what kind of flowers I can grow in my yard but when the law says no kiddie porn suddenly theres a free speech issue. Talk about hypocricy.

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


I remember when that movie came out. Alot of contreversey surrounded that scene. When I learned there was a sex scene involving minors, I didnt watch it even though the movie dealt with some real issues and problems thaat street kids were facing at that time. And from what I heard of the movie it wasnt a hardcore porn scene. (no penetration on screen, so intercourse was insinuated at best)

reply to post by psyko45

Let me see if I understand you.So a judge can within a rather vague frame work define pretty much anything as child pornography,on the basis that another person might view it as such,without their admission to it.In that case we should ban all Rorschat tests,who knows what sick depravity is freely available in those.

We have been conditioned from early on to believe that Thought, Imagination, Fantasy, Daydreaming and Ideas are harmless, because they are intangible and therefore in mainstream thinking classified as "not real".

However, it is the very power of Thought, Imagination and Fantasy that creates what we define as Reality. What you entertain in thought and belief, is the basis of who you/we are and who you/we will become.
To enjoy child pornography in thought or even one step further in artistic expression, is the root of manifest reality. Ultimately somewhere, sometime, in someone's life, that thought will manifest.

We are more powerful creators than we give ourselves credit for, and we would be well advised by directing our thoughts toward love and kindness. Especially where it concerns our human children.

"First, do no harm" applies to our thought process first.

Originally posted by psyko45
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

 

I remember when that movie came out. Alot of contreversey surrounded that scene. When I learned there was a sex scene involving minors, I didnt watch it even though the movie dealt with some real issues and problems thaat street kids were facing at that time. And from what I heard of the movie it wasnt a hardcore porn scene. (no penetration on screen, so intercourse was insinuated at best)

BUT it does depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

I think this guy with the manga is a scapegoat being used to further a Leftist agenda. Somebody has already pointed out that his lawyer didn't try very hard, and I bet the whole courtroom was packed with Leftist scum.

I'm drawing in Microsoft Paint right now a tall male stick figure with a diamond ring raping a much shorter stick figure with female features and a tattoo of a Star Of David. She is saying ''Oooooh! Ouch!'' and she is very, very short. Is she too young or is she just height challenged? Is that a gun in her hand?! What is she ~thinking~? Who can decide? HO HO HO!! Merry XXX-mas!!!!

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Cabaret Voltaire]

reply to post by psyko45


What is the difference between this porn and that of a survivor drawing out their experiences?? (which is part of the healing process) would those not also constitute child porn, should they face not same jail term for possessing that material? The law is the law after all...

BTW, in my opinion all this will do is shift those who view such material into viewing "flurry" versions rather than allow us scope to identify potential abusers and use a real framework to "assist" them in not offending.