Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

Child porn is not banned because it is gross or sick. It is banned because its production harms children.

Interesting question: For example, if there was a way to somehow put an adult mind to a childrens body, would such a being be banned from being a porn actor?

In my opinion, such a being could be a porn actor, because there is no direct harm to any child in this case. Thoughts?

Originally posted by Maslo
Interesting question: For example, if there was a way to somehow put an adult mind to a childrens body, would such a being be banned from being a porn actor?

Statutory Law only governs a "person" and that means the physical body of the human being. Even if the mind is thousands of years old, the "person" is underage and therefore the law is applicable to it.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by avatar01

 

*Yawn* Just another perfect example that if you don't stand for something you fall for anything.

That any of you can see anything right in child pornography astounds me.

Because that is what it is - artistic rendition, written word, or photo, it's still child porn.

Easy - If it's not child porn then what is it, and what is it used for?

It portrays sexual acts with children for the use of sexual gratification, child rape as the protagonist for the gratification...

What's that called? Child porn.

As to why this man can be jailed?

Because it's against the law.

peace

I'm going to write a comic, which depicts the character conspiring to murder the Queen.

Should anyone that reads it be tried for treason??

No.

I do not condone any of these said images or cartoons, but you simply CANNOT imprison a human for looking at Cartoons.

I pity the fact you fail to see beyond your emotion and use reasonable logic to look at this.

tO

I totally agree that, as long as there are no actuall victims, freedom of speech should reign supreme.

I also think that any person looking at any type of child porn should be beaten within an inch of their lives.

Its just one of those things which are inviolate.

If you think I'm being a bit reactionary and contradictory answer me this: would you let the man who had the cartoon porn babysit your children?

Seriously, would you?

If you answer no then get off your moral high-horse.

If you answer yes you should be reported to Social Services.

reply to post by Slippery Jim


I believe you are being VERY contradictory.

I would not let a man who has looked at these child porn comics, look after my kids.

That does not mean I am up high on my morale horse, it just simply means I do not trust a man who looks at these images, look after ANY kids.

Saying that, until the man commits a crime i.e. looking at REAL child porn, or abuses any child, he is innocent in my eyes. However, I personally wouldn't give him the oppurtunity to commit such an offense. But he shouldn't be imprisoned for looking at comic books with these images.

reply to post by avatar01


I agree with you, and any actor willing to perform with anyone who's body is below the age of consent shouldn't be in their line of work!

Well, not outside of prison walls anyway

Originally posted by Maslo
Child porn is not banned because it is gross or sick. It is banned because its production harms children.

Interesting question: For example, if there was a way to somehow put an adult mind to a childrens body, would such a being be banned from being a porn actor?

In my opinion, such a being could be a porn actor, because there is no direct harm to any child in this case. Thoughts?

You're right, it is not banned because it is gross or sick. But it is VERY gross and sick.

An interesting question indeed, but then who in their right mind would WANT to perform with a child actor? Even if their mind was that of a 30 year old??

Originally posted by TheOmen
You're right, it is not banned because it is gross or sick. But it is VERY gross and sick.

Laws are not made to eliminate things that are "gross" or "sick", they are made to protect REAL PEOPLE. If we made laws to ban things that were gross and sick then there would be laws against slaughterhouses, commercial fishing, public schools, politicians... you get the picture.

Some of us are debating the logic of having a law against fictional artworks which portray imaginary children. Some of us are ignoring logic alltogether and venting our disgust with the idea of children being abused, even though there were no actual children involved in this case. At any rate, there is really no point to any of this and we are all just venting our frustrations.

I for one do not like to see people put in jail when they have not committed a crime, no matter how sick they are. Some would argue that the man is sick and deserves to be beaten to death because he may have fantasies about things that are appalling to them. I can't really say that either opinion is false because truth depends on your perspective.

Does it really matter how "old" these fictional comic girls are? They aren't real people. They're drawings and it is all pure fantasy. And how realistic do the drawings have to be before they become illegal? I mean if I drew a stick figure having sex with another stick figure and wrote "An old dirty man having sex with a minor." next to this crappy stick drawing, would that be considered child pornography? According to this new Law, yes it would!

Is it right? Who's to say. Is it wrong? Anything can be seen as wrong if it seems to be against their interests. If I had a young daughter I would probably argue that the man should be in jail because I would be afraid that people like this may try to molest my young daughter. Just because someone fantasizes about underaged sex doesn't mean they are more likely to do it though. And reading a comic about underaged sex is not going to make them more likely to do it either. If they don't already have these desires then why would they be reading this stuff in the first place? If anything these comics are an alternative to real child pornography and may even prevent child abuse.

I would say it's a similar argument to marijauna.. though I am not sure how to feel in either case. Is it truly a gateway to more drugs.. Is manga a gateway to becoming a pedophile..
Can you honestly arrest a man for watching manga flicks. they are full fledged on youtube. who will they arrest next. You teenage son because he was watching youtube on his phone and came across manga.
It's not like they are all nasty but most depict exceptionaly endowed cartoon figures.
Everything has more then just one side. 50 people can see the same thing differently. So it is hard to accept any one right or one wrong.. I do not agree with this man's sensibilities,I don't beleive he should be sent away. Maybe fined maybe give himone of thse sexual preditor signs on his front yard
Therian Shadeslight

ermmm... did anybody here looked at original article...

or when you here child porn, mob gets the fire burning...

guy is an ordinary manga collector - you know comic books, printed and released, approved, with price on them etc.

and some of you jumped as he was raping babies.

you should first inform yourselves about manga and then comment.

2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

and if here is some law expert i would be happy

if i depict minors in sexually explicit conduct how can that be or not be artistic, or serious???

reply to post by Therian


These types of manga or hentai whatever you like to call them are very popular in Japan. I don't think you could say these sorts of images in anyway leads to being a paedophile otherwise japan would be crawling with them. Then again Japan is culturally different than many of us regarding sex. I think the age of consent over there is 13.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Solomons]

reply to post by Solomons


The age of consent is 13, however that is federal law and the prefecture laws are usually used and they say it's 18 years of age. I wrote an article about sex tourism and the exploitation involved about a year or so back and it surprised me as i always thought it was 13.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Cheers for the info, it must be a quite a common misconception i take it. Mind linking me to your thread? In any case i am not really well informed about this subject although i do like a few anime movies. Are these sorts of manga books or films simply seen as a story/entertainment and the sexual scenes are just part of it or are they sold as some sort of cartoon playboy? It doesn't matter in the end as it's still perfectly legal imo but understanding how die hard fans view this would help.

Originally posted by Solomons
Cheers for the info, it must be a quite a common misconception i take it. Mind linking me to your thread?

Oh it wasn't a thread, i wrote it and sent it to a few magazines, sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by Solomons
In any case i am not really well informed about this subject although i do like a few anime movies. Are these sorts of manga books or films simply seen as a story/entertainment and the sexual scenes are just part of it or are they sold as some sort of cartoon playboy? It doesn't matter in the end as it's still perfectly legal imo but understanding how die hard fans view this would help.

I'm not into hentai but of course if you watch a lot of anime you know about it. Basically there are two categories. The first type of hentai has a storyline, sometimes it is quite involved and the sex scenes are a part of it. Other times it is just a porn film, no story but this kind of hentai is actually the minority.

Of course still images are a different story and i know in Japan you can buy manga books which are basically cartoon versions of porn mags. Very strange, but each to their own.

There is also a specialist kind of hentai called lolicon, it involves depictions of children. I actually had never heard of it until someone told me what it was called in a different thread i made about the same sort of subject matter. I did some research (wikipedia ) and it's an absolutely massive industry in Japan.

I hope that gave you a little insight into anime

ere's the question, were they dipicted as real kids, or as 15-16 year old high school kids? there is a bug difference that most seem to rather overlook

Originally posted by Gren
ere's the question, were they dipicted as real kids, or as 15-16 year old high school kids? there is a bug difference that most seem to rather overlook

Quite simply it doesn't matter if they were depicted as 2 year old kids or 16 year old kids. The point is that cartoon drawings should not be illegal and someone should not be imprisoned over a victimless crime. The authorities say they are images depicting minors but as no real child is involved i just can't see a reason to make them illegal.

If someone could provide evidence that the use of such images leads to real abuse of children then i would be for a ban on them, but in fact it seems either there is no effect on the rate of child abuse or indeed there is a reduction in abuse when such images are available.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


? and your point is?

[edit on 17-2-2010 by lalatheterrible]

Originally posted by lalatheterrible
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

guess ya gotta stop having sex with 13 year olds now huh

Typiical, because i sit here defending cartoon images you accuse me of being a paedophile. Check back not only on this thread where i say paedophiles who act out their drives should be locked up for life but other threads where i have said the same. View again where i call those using these images sick and say they need councilling.

If you don't have the intellectual merits to debate a topic without accusing those you disagree with of horrible crimes then you shouldn't even bother.

Take your ignorance and feeble mind elsewhere.

Originally posted by lalatheterrible
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

? and your point is?

[edit on 17-2-2010 by lalatheterrible]

I see you edited your original post, no doubt because you realised how utterly stupid you sounded. My points are very clear, why don't you go back over the thread and read them again. Then once you have why don't you provide actual arguments against them instead of providing no logical argument.



[edit on 17-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by lalatheterrible


I like how you edited your post ... pretty pathetic and rather pitiful.

It's a shame people like you are here on ATS ... of course you have the right to act as ignorant as you like ... and I would defend that right to the grave.

reply to post by Nurv47


Careful nurv, he/she will accuse you of being a paedophile next, afterall you dare to defend the existence of such images under the idea of free speech and then you dare to criticise him/her for attacking the poster and not the points they were making.

Actually as that account was registered today i can't help but think it is someone who was embarrassed during this debate and so is trying to cause trouble. I can't help but notice the article i linked which is an accumulation of studies has not yet been attacked.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]