Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

There are alot of cartoons of president getting killed and so on. But no one is arrested for it.....

Edit: So, i wonder why the hell did they arrest him, don't they have anything better to do like arresting real child pornography criminals?



[edit on 14-2-2010 by Ufokrazy]

Again, what the guy should have done is ask "Show me the Law"! Then, "Prove you have Jurisdiction". Then, "Identify the court!". Good or bad, high or low of such material and behavior, there is no crime. Crime is when you interfere with someone's property, their person or try to manipulate them. There is no other real law. All the rest is fraud.

Alternatively, he could, very successfully argue that such people have no "Authority" over him whatsoever. Where did he agree to their supposed authority? What did he sign that gave the judge any authority over him? The only presumption of authority is based on his being considered a "United States Citizen" and that presumption is based on fraud. He did not voluntarily enter any contract with the state, country, city, whatever. They have no real authority except under Common Law violations.

His success would depend on the sincerity of his convictions and his strength to stand up for them.

To me it is just paper and ink of a fictitious depiction of a sexual situation in some ones mind . Literature or art not my type but to each his own . Disgusting it may be but in essence who was hurt ?

Where is the victim ?

For me a a crime is committed when there is a victim . A victimless crime to me these category of crimes are strictly governmental power play laws to make some political points with the moral constituents rather than a law truly protecting a crime victim .

As a side note I believe that crimes against children should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with the longest sentence allowable to be given to the perpetrators of these crimes .

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Lostinthedarkness]

reply to post by hotbakedtater


also, like i said in my post, are we child molesters cause we bathe our children? in which they are YES naked, and YES they are touched, i think if any sh1tbag lawyer called for some cases someone would be considered a child molester in some court somewhere, even though they are in fact just giving their child a bath...

the children would be strpped from the parents custody, by a sherrif and CPS, and given to the STATE, and the parents w2ouldn't be able to get them back.... and probably be jailed, fined, ect,... etc,...

If there's no clear victim, then there's no crime committed. Again, clear victim. Not some potential metaphorical victim never who is never identified.

Funny that this is illegal when I have TV shows that pretty much instruct me how to kill someone and then hide the evidence properly.

I have a couple of related opinions.

For one thing, I think the age of majority being 18 is completely arbitrary. There is a difference between kids, and young adults who have undergone puberty, but once those changes start anywhere you draw the line is arbitrary. It's not sick to be attracted to a 17 year old any more than it is an 18 year old. In fact it's often unavoidable, but obviously you can't act on it because it's against the law. So my point is that 18 years is an arbitrary place to draw the line, and certainly does not have any strong moral justification.

What does have strong moral justification is protecting pre-pubescent kids. Ultimately though, what's fake is fake. You can't arrest people who kill "people" in video games, because it's a fake instance of a real crime. The real crime is real child porn, not fake child porn. Anything should be allowed in artificial mediums, because it's not real.

I guess there are two parts of that discussion. One is that in the producing of real child porn, a real child is harmed. So in that sense, the fake child porn avoids harm. The other part of this discussion is the idea that whenever children(real or fake) are portrayed as sexual objects, that is bad. This aspect seems to apply to both real and fake child porn. This same argument can be applied to anything that creates a "bad" mental state, from sexual attraction to child, to violence against people. I would argue that society has made a distinction between real and fake things that provoke undesirable mental states. Violence against anyone is bad, but it is okay to put it in media("okay" in the sense that society deems is morally permissible, as evidenced by so many movies, video games, books, and tv shows). Since society has distiguished between fake and real things that evoke negative mindsets(violence, for example), we should continue to do so when it comes to child porn. Therefore fake child porn should be permissible.

It is very imporant in this discussion to remember that sexually objectifying a child in cartoons is bad because of the harm that it leads to and promotes, and that in and of itself(it's creation, existance, and viewing) no harm is done to a child directly. As long as we aggessively protect against the actual harm that may come from people viewing children as sexual objects(i.e. protecting against pedophiles) then there is some room to allow artificial child porn with no actual harm being done.


If we decide that artificial child porn(cartoons) is not morally permissible, we are forced to due so with the awareness of the glaring contradiction that would come to exist due to the fact that artificial violence(and everything else) is not only permissible, but is very aggressively consumed in the form of movies, books, tv, and video games.

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

*yawn* Just a perfect example of how insane you are.



Replace child porn with any illegal thing that's constantly being written, artistically portrayed, on TV, Movies, etc. etc.: murder, rape, drug abuse, umm... speeding. really, anything on TV/ Movies.

By your clearly insane logic: "Because that is what it is - artistic rendition, written word, or photo, it's still ____something____" and if that something is illegal and it portrays that illegal thing, whoever is in possession of a depiction of that illegal thing should be jailed.

But I suppose you're too moral to rationalize, eh?

peace

reply to post by OnceReturned


same thing goes for returning soldiers, why can we be trained by the US military/ Amred Forces to kill "enemies" of the united States, but when it cant be turned off and they return home and act as how they were trained they are charged in courts for murder?

[edit on 14-2-2010 by nvprose1]

I agree with Hotbakedtater above. Also, things are going to get much worse as we head toward 2012. After 2012 I really believe I want be here to keep seeing this abuse of so called power these idiots are getting away with.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


cartoon porn is cartoon porn and it is sad but I don't think he should go to jail for it.

Originally posted by silo13

Allowing children to be used for sexual gratification in any form, or condoning it in any way is the one greatest offense mankind can perpetuate against it's own species.

Oh I get where your confusion comes from. Let me clarify. We are talking about drawings here, not children.

No children are involved in anyway... Just drawings.

As most people know here I think that people who exploit children are monsters. People who do any kind of harm to children piss me off far more than you can possibly imagine and I challenge you to find any one who gets more pissed off than I when they hear about children being hurt....

But we are not talking about children being hurt hear. We are talking about a drawing! Ink on paper.... Not flesh on bone...

No children were harmed at all here. In fact, as gross as it may sound, a child may have been saved when this guy decided to use a drawing instead of a child.

Now you say your opinion is not debatable, and you are correct. It is your opinion... AND ONLY YOUR OPINION.... Not fact...

Fact is no children were harmed and if it saves one child from being harmed than I say let the creep have his drawings....
ACTUALLY hurts a child, I will be on your side of the debate then....Not now though.

wow ImaginaryReality1984!!! You’ve really gone and stirred up the wasp nest this time

OK... i haven’t read all of the posts cos its getting a bit late now... but...


Real children were not hurt by the act of drawing these images (at least that’s what we assume)

The person who owned these images has not hurt any "real" children (again we assume)


However... i see it like this...

Morally this sickens every fibre in my body... this may not be logical, and it may not be right, but as a father of two, if this bloke lived next door to me i would probably do some serious harm to him!

Now you may be thinking that this makes me a bad person... but this is something that i cannot help... it’s like a protective instinct... ANY threat to my Children is dealt with in the severest of ways.

Damn... i didn’t even like typing that... but this subject does bring out the more primitive side of me....

Legally... As far as i am aware it is illegal to own or distribute ANY material that depicts children in a sexual way... so... guilty!!

And i can see the reason behind this.... to me its common sense... if he has possession of this type of material it means he has moved on from "thought" crime to actual crime...

And if he has moved on from just thinking it... what’s the next step???


Every instinct in my body says lock him up... sorry

These cartoons don't look like children. They have sexually mature bodies. They may have a child like face but not many children I know of have large breasts and curvy thighs.

To me a childs body wouldn't be attractive as they just aren't sexually mature.

I bet the US government is collecting taxes for the pornography and then using it as a tool to entrap people. People are sexual animals and weird kinky taboo stuff is very tempting. Or perhaps they are losing revenue from the porn magazines they used to collect taxes for like Play Boy, Penthouse and Hustler. We Know they aren't doing it to protect the population.

Too me it's better than watching a full grown adult being sexually abused for real. Some of that adult stuff should be outlawed as it obviously isn't good for the body.

Real child porn should be taken very seriously. Cartoons aren't real and may save actual human beings from being used by the porn industry.

Heh.
Thought Crimes, touchy, real touchy.
Am I a pedophile if I think about the first time I had sex because I was underage at that time? I believe most rational people would say "no"-
If your parents ever took even slightly naked picture with you as a baby in it, are they pedophiles? Again, I think most rational people would say "no."
Pedophilia is the society's ultmate taboo at the moment, heck, Bush could've just said "Hussein has child porn!1" and that would've done it.
The guy who had the drawings of fictional characters did nothing wrong, if anything, he should sue back as he was alleged of pedophilia without any real proof.
If I write that "Lucy had sex with Jack when they were both 17" Am I a pedophile? I don't think so.
The fact that even some people need to argue about the line between fiction and reality and claim that fiction is "harmful" is well, sad really.
Let's put it this way. I imagine that I'm going to shoot my neighbour, I can see in my mind he getting shot and dying.
Now, am I a murderer? Nope, I didn't do anything REAL.
If I were to shoot him really, then hey, lock me behind bars by all means. (I wouldn't shoot anyone, though.)

Thoughts cannot be punished for. I bet most of us had sexual thoughts about some of our peers when we were teenagers, that certainly isn't pedophilia in my opinion. Neither is fictional drawings.

Pedophilia is really a "tool" these days. It's a way to attack someone personally by claiming they have child porn, and nobody will believe them anymore. It's stupid and evil. By making a real problem a mere "joke" ("joke" as it's not funny) the society is once again, failing miserably.

What next? You imagine someone with "jewish background" being burned, you're automatically a nazi and go to prison for life? I hope not. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised.

Remember; As long as it's a thought, you haven't done anything wrong. To actually perform the thought in real life..That is a whole different story. What happened to the "Innocent until proven guilty"?

I hope I gave someone, something to think about.

EDIT: Typo or two.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Klavier]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I can't believe your sticking up for this, it's almost guilt by association. Anytime a child is depicted in a sexual way, is an assault against children everywhere and anything that draws a grey area around children and abuse of them is disgusting and should be illegal.

Anyone looking for this kind of stuff is in a sick fantasy that could lead to the kidnapping, abuse, murder or all of the above. Remember what Ted Bundy said about this kind of stuff, when he said "it started with porn, then went to crime magazines" and how he would "fantasize that he was doing all these evil sexual things to women" and it kept building in him until he actually went out and did what was portayed in the pages.

reply to post by Klavier


Some of your responces are the same things Charles Manson says and sticks to, " i dont have to kill anyone i just imagine it" But we all know what good he has done for people right?

Thought is not a crime until it becomes action, but possesing child porn is action, and he took the initiative to collect pictures that depict child sexuallity which is not a thought crime it is an actual physical crime that deserves one of the highest punishments.

There is a difference between thinking about a Jewish person on fire and actually having documents depicting it. Someone died from it and someone is fantasizing about anothers death, and of course worst of all someone profits from it. All things that should br regareded as psychopathic traits.

Ya man, I posted this a while back and it still makes no sense.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Hmm...my only response is..

show me the victim. for this to be a crime, there must be a victim.

Censorship is bad, m-kay. dont like his tastes in cartoons, then dont hang out with him, but this is like drawing a murder on a napkin...does that make him a murderer? they will always use "think of the children" to remove libertys of all. with this step, it will be anyone whom looks underage (considering manga/anime/hentai are typically not underage but quite often hundreds of years old in pixie type bodys and whatnot). Who decides what looks underage anyhow?
I look at society and basically anyone under 25 looks underage to me now..and I am not as old as some lawmakers whom view people up to 30 looking underage.

show me the victim or get out...no arguement on earth should ever be made against literally victimless crimes...this is thought police and if you think the law should start clamping down on peoples thoughts, then you are the one that needs to be clamped down on.

I say one more time...show me the victim

Wrong.

I agree with the OP here, but just wanted to point out that there are tons of victimless crimes on the books.

Where do you think the term came from?

[edit on 14-2-2010 by abefrohman]

reply to post by humilisunus


Maybe so, but still: Drawing, about a fictional character (=DOESN'T EXIST IN REAL LIFE) even though meant to "be underage" is not child pornography; mainly because it is fiction. You can imagine the portrayed character to be 8000 years old if you want to, it is not real either way.

Now, assuming the guy had REAL child porn, that would be a whole different story. But since he apparantly doesn't, then there's no case against him.

Punishing from Fictional "art" is the same as punishing from thoughts.

Originally posted by Liberal1984

This man does not deserve imprisonment.

No he shouldn't be in prison, but neither would I want him to work in a primary school, and definitely not one a child from my family attended!
Why? I would say I (that since most people don't want to possess graphic child images, let alone get sexual gratification from looking at them) that although they are cartoons, there is a much higher chance (than normal) that this man is (in the wrong situation) open to child abuse.

Obviously people who read manga depecting children having sex makes them more likely to be open to child abuse, kind of like how people who read manga depicting murder makes them more likely to be open to murder.