Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

reply to post by CRDDD


Imagine the wording you would have to come up with to create the law you want.
There already was one passed that the appeals court struck down.
Take a look at that.
They would have had thought police going through museums all over the country confiscating works of art.
Once we make thought a crime, there is no limit to what we will be arrested for in the future.

@Aeon937s- Pedophiles CANNOT be helped. No matter how much therapy they have, they will still have a lust for children. Once someone is a pedo, they're always a pedo.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
No child is involved at any stage of these images, they are pure fake, created on a computer or drawn by hand. Whilst it's horrible, should it be illegal? Should we allow such pornography so that these people can satiate their lusts? If even one child is saved from abuse, would that make it worth while?

In all truth i'm utterly conflicted on this issue. I rarely have trouble making my mind up about anything, read though my thread history and you'll see that. This however i'm having trouble deciding, if it saves even one child then maybe it's worth leaving it to be legal. If a handful of paedophiles stop using real child pornography, where a child is horribly abused, to use this instead, then maybe we should allow it?

There's only 1 sure fire way I know of to stop a pedophile and protect children from being victimized by him. Kill him. Bullet to the brain, lynched, Columbian necktie, scaphism, I could go on all night with ideas on how to execute these pieces of trash, but the end result is the same. The fact remains, the justice system around the world has miserably failed us in regards to sex offenders and the only reasonable and effective solution is rogue vigilantism which tracks them down and issues real justice to them upon their release from the system.

Animated child porn? Disgusting and totally unneeded under a system that yields actual results and tangible punishment.

@burdman- I couldn't agree more .

[edit on 30-6-2008 by CRDDD]

There are just tons of these comic books being produced in Japan.
There is everything you might be interested in, in drawn out stories.
If these were making people into criminals, don't you think there would be this crazy high crime rate in Japan?
Well there isn't.
There are some special interest groups who want you to think there is some direct link between looking at something and acting out what you see.
It is just not true.
There is always going to be a certain amount of defective people who do crimes independent of what literature is available.
Go to your local big chain bookstore and buy some books for young teen girls.
You are going to find all kinds of underage sex going on in these books.
Or watch TV shows for teens and see how much hooking up is going on.

IMO
if you boil it down with no emotional attachment, and strictly look at the facts


allowing "animated child porn" is no different than "animated violence, murder, and drug use" that is foudn in many video games.

I dont think you should have a law against it.
I dont condone it, and i certainly wouldnt watch it

but i also wouldnt watch 2 men in a porn, doesnt mean i'd condemn gay porn.

its like "punch a pillow" when you're angry.

you're still committing a violent and aggressive behavior ,but through a productive medium which hurts nobody but the pillow

I say why not? Because all the enforcement we have against such acts still fails to dwendle occurances of these sick deviant bastards.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Kill him. Bullet to the brain, lynched, Columbian necktie, scaphism, I could go on all night with ideas on how to execute these pieces of trash....[truncated]

Animated child porn? Disgusting and totally unneeded under a system that yields actual results and tangible punishment.

....yeah. And we could also club our women with the T-rex bone and drag her by her hair back to the cave.



[edit on 30-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

I believe that I correctly interpret the Supreme Court ruling when I say that virtual child porn does not violate the laws against child pornography.

Basically, you can't have child porn without children, real children.

On the one hand I understand that many are disgusted by these depictions, but current laws, unless those laws have been rewritten, don't cover hand-drawn or CGI depictions of the objectionable material.

I would also say that pedophiles are going to find material that satisfies their proclivities, even if they have to spend hours at the beach, browsing catalogs or other common venues where children frequent. So, trying to prevent pedophiles from receiving any gratification at all is next to impossible and unless these individuals cross the line, their desires are not likely to be known.

Laws may have already been rewritten that pass Constitutional muster, but in the absence of that, there's not much that can be done.

en.wikipedia.org...

archives.cnn.com...

query.nytimes.com...

/6exdah


[edit on 2008/6/30 by GradyPhilpott]

a very slippery slope indeed

yes u want "alternatives"so these people dont actually go out and hurt children

but at one point you have to stop and wonder, is this only providing a way around hurting kids or is it contributing to further development of the pedophile way of life

i have to stop and wonder if we start to allow this type of thing, will it become too main stream and start to destroy our society's moral values

a comparison would be to the britney spears paris hilton phenomena... in a way....i mean you have these idiots that few people like, but you put them in the main stream and now a large percentage of youth is corrupted and we went from a few news stories here and there about celebs to what we have today


makes me go back to my main thought process

you cant put a band aid on a someone who has the flu to make them better, you have to address the cause of the problem to find the solution, and while allowing fake child porn to be accessed by these mentally corrupted individuals will provide short term relief you have to wonder what type of things are going to emerge from the pandora's box that is being opened

now i know pedophiles are in no way like britney spears or paris hilton and i dont mean to downplay the seriousness of the situation of pedophilia but i do see similarities as to what the outcomes of the situations are

Come on people this is quite simple.

Yes we may not like it and may be disgusted by it. But the facts are really simple!

1. No child is hurt.

2. It is not real!

3. Therefore no crime has been done.

4. No innocent people should be executed for this! (quite obvious lol)

5. It's a CARTOON, yes some of us hate it! But calling out for them to be executed or saying you will kill them yourselves, THAT is a crime! THAT is EVIL.


So the point is, some people don't like it, but no crime is commited, banning any form of drawn art is simply the START of what's to come, what would be next?? Remember don't you people want freedom??? Or have you changed your mind? That is where I'm confused.

Remember guys, when you want to murder someone, you do realise that would really be "real", you would be looking into their eyes and taking their life out of them, would you really kill an innocent person just because of something he/she has fantasized about?? What have you people fantasized about? I'm sure many of us would be shocked of what everybody has fantasized about once or twice (husbands might fantasize about their wifes sister for example lol, some may fantasise about killing those annoying people in traffic or their boss at work etc etc haha)

I don't like any of this animation, but I am against murder of innocent people. lol

Think logically.



[edit on 30-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Well i wanted some help with the issue, seems i got it! Five extra pages since i went to sleep, ill have to read through them all. Thanks to everyone on ATS for keeping it mostly civil. Without a doubt it's one of the more evocative subjects and i undersand everyones anger. In threads where real child abuse is reported, keeping my own temper under check is difficult. We should try though, so we can approach it logically.

Still undecided but i havn't read the last 5 pages, so off to do that now.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well i wanted some help with the issue, seems i got it! Five extra pages since i went to sleep, ill have to read through them all. Thanks to everyone on ATS for keeping it mostly civil. Without a doubt it's one of the more evocative subjects and i undersand everyones anger. In threads where real child abuse is reported, keeping my own temper under check is difficult. We should try though, so we can approach it logically.

Still undecided but i havn't read the last 5 pages, so off to do that now.

Yes this is a very interesting topic. It is not a crime yet it is worrying at the same time.

We can all agree "real" child abuse is one of the most inhumane crimes. But this is not child abuse at all, we have to put that aside and look at this from another point of view, it's hard but this is something we should keep our cool with and think logically.

Peace to you all.

I would like to remind people that there are probably animated porn of, humans with aliens, tentacles, animals, demons, ghosts, pokemon(lol), mickey mouse, robots, phantoms, vampires, nuns, incest, Final fantasy characters, your favourite celebs, or fantasies etc etc

Sounds funny, but where do you draw the line and say lets kill these people?

[edit on 30-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by CRDDD
this may be true,but maybe we can understand what makes someone a peadophile,by looking at the way their brains work. Scanning and comparing them to a normal persons brain. Then prehaps it can even be detectable,and preventable.

I've not read this thread,but I'm going to presume as it's a nonce type thread,that it's turned to the good old fashioned mob "string'emup" thing.

I don't agree with the death penatly,nobody has the right to take a life. Especially not those in charge!! We can learn more from a live subject,than a dead one. (edit to add) also,you want someone to suffer,don't kill them. make them live out their life in fear of what will happen to them in jail)

back to the topic of the origional post,I certainly think that innapropriate cartoons involving sexual imagry of kids should be banned. But then,where does one draw the line? On the extreme cases,you've got the anime type stuff,which can be pretty disturbing. And on the other side,you've got innocent cartoons with kids on,that maybe on a beach or something. This will show some cartoon skin,and will end up falling into some law that if you watch it,you're a peodononce and you should be killed dammit!! How far does it go?



[edit on 30/6/2008 by Acidtastic]

Originally posted by Alien_Question
Fair enough,

I will add that I believe as you mentioned we have decided as a society what is legal and right when it comes to age difference so if someone is 18 or above they are basically free to have sexual relations with an 80yr old man if they choose.

Would you clasify a 16 year old as a child? Because here in the UK that's the legal age for sex, the graphical depiction of people is still 18 though. Just wanted to clarify that for our friends across the pond.

Originally posted by Alien_Question
So 18yrs old seems like a fair age to let them legally free to choose don't you think?

16 seems fine here in the UK, no younger than that though.

Originally posted by gekko
No victim no crime.

Half right if you're in the UK. Here it's being made illegal, the other half about no victim is logically correct as they are fake images, created from an artists mind. My worry about allowing them is it's almost like we're saying it's ok, on the other hand it may save real children frm abuse, as i originally stated a very difficult issue. My other worry is once you start censorship where does it end?

Originally posted by gekko
Everyone claiming that porn watchers need stronger and stronger stuff; wouldn't that lead to every regular guy ending up watching extreme stuff? If they do, evidence should be easy to find. Please show me one scrap of evidence for this feminist myth and I will shut up.

Yes i agree here, it's a myth propogated by some people. People who watch the extreme stuff were always into it, they were just embarrassed. They might have started off watching the soft stuff because they thought it was normal. No matter how much pornography you showed me i would never find a man defacating on a woman a turn on, or children. So the myth above needs to be exploded now.

Originally posted by gekko
The bloodthirstiness of the moralists here makes me sick!

There is nothing wrong with being moral, the ones who want to torture paedophiles and such do worry me, whilst i myself have a rather extreme reaction to paedophiles i tamper it with common sense. Prison for life if they ever touch a child or view real child pornogprahy, all this talk of torture has me worried about society, maybe a different thread though.

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
Wow... I never expected ANYONE here to say allow it. Pedophiles are pedophiles, end of story. By allowing them lolicon, you feed their sexual desire for children. Ok, it doesn't hurt a real child... yet. You can't say it will prevent them from raping a child. Instead of feeding their screwed up desires, they should be in intensive counseling and kept away from children for the rest of their lives. Allowing them lolicon will NOT fulfill their urges for little kids.

Actually i can and am saying that. Porn for normal people can be a buffer, having known a couple who followed the whole abstinent rule i know this is true. If it works for people of normal prevoclivities then why not paedophiles? That's my conflict on this issue you see. Also any person who can actually bring themselves to have sex with a child was always going to do that. The porn has absolutely nothing to do with it, they are beyond hope from the start and should be imprisoned permanently.

I suppose you could call it counseling, in a way watching the porn may aleve their desires. Note i am talking about some paedophiles not all paedophiles. The predatory kind will always hurt people, just like rapists and serial murderers.

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
Do you lose all interest in real sex because you're so obsessed with Naughty Nurses XVII?

Well i don't watch porn (yes honestly), i always felt it was like walking into a sweet shop with your jaw wired up, it's why i don't visit strip clubs either, kinda pointless in my view.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I think having access to a picture of a naked child would make someone less likely to go buy a camera and make their own.
That is just my opinion, but it would have to be true about some people.

That is what keeps drawing me back to the idea of allowing it to be legal. If one child is saved the suffering of being made to pose for photos and abused then isn't it worthwhile to let this stuff exist?

Originally posted by Incarnated
I'm not sure what it is, but I don't like it.

An amazing quote, anything you say after this is null and void unless you understand the issue. Go back and read my original post please.

Originally posted by Toelint
Well, it's clear that Child porn falls into a very different realm than adult porn. It won't be long before we see the internet slough off these sites, right or wrong, in the interest of "cleaning up the house." Personally, I say good riddence.

Yes i agree child porn depicting real children should be banned in a second, removed from every internet website with fanatical zeal and the secret chat rooms that exist be infiltrated at every opportunity and every member arrested. That's the real stuff though, i'm not sure about the animated stuff.

Originally posted by maybereal11
There is a strong case to be made that such pornography does not "satiate" the misplaced "lust" but rather re-inforces it. Most serial killers are found to have progressed via fantasy reinforcing and and in some ways in their mind legitimizing their urges. The potential resulting damage is to profound to tolerate such pornography.

The killers did progress by fantasy, but most of them already had their sick tendencies during their childhoods. Lots of them started by killing animals remember. They progress by fantasy for a multitude of reasons, but the fantasies aren't what drive them to the crime. There is a difference between being capable of the act and fantasy of the act, i'm sure we've all had the fantasy of dumping our bosses favorite coffee mug over him/her, our minds however controlled that fantasy.


How about executing the producers of the film and their illustrators?

For gods sake, the illistrators are just doing a job, lets not jump on them. What about the famous paintings depicting children? I'm pretty sure there are a few in the sistine chapel, that was art.

Whist i agree with locking paedophiles up for the entirety of their lives, if they never ACT upon their thoughts then we can't lock them up. If that were the case then most of the populationw ould be in prison as we have all had flashes of doing bad things in our heads, that guy cuts you up at a turn whit driving, how many times has your mind switched to wanting to jump out and batter him? Should we arrest you for that thought?

Execution does nothing, other than make the sadistic feel happy.

Originally posted by gekko

Sure I watch porn, never known a lad that didn't.

*waves* Nice to meet you. I know i'm odd for not watching it, sorry read my above comment to understand. It's in the post somewhere.

Originally posted by pikypiky

I am just now looking up 'aversion therapy' and a bunch of other thoughts came to my mind. I was thinking about how prisoners could be utilized as random samples in a study on the effectiveness of this 'aversion therapy'. But I don't know about torture from electric shock. Maybe this is the only way to make sure those who end up being released from prison from sexually deviant acts won't pursue their 'bad', habitual behavior from re-occurring later on. I dunno. It's worth a try for the benefit of society.

Clockwork Orange, that's the film for you. Whilst aversion therapy can work, i think in this case it wouldn't, the drive is so strong in these people. I think it would lead to misplaced hate and violence. Because they couldn't get what they needed in the form of these animated images maybe they'd turn violent against people.

Originally posted by alienj
You are naive to think pedophiles are going to stop at animated child porn or even listening to a pedaphile. Did you know the recidivism rate of pedphiles that have undergone treatment is like 80 percent return to abuse another child. After animated porn comes real porn come the child.... I tend to wonder why you even brought this conversation up. Anything that could lead to harming the most vunerable among us should not be allowed. Children in my eyes is a national treasure we should do everything in out power to protect. My advise to you is to never believe the criminal....he is always innocent.

Actually i'm not naieve, i've listened to the police and even a prison guard on such issues, i've read studies where i can. You are naieve if you think every paedophile who views these images will offend with a real child. If you look up the statistics with the rate of prosecution of people having the images and the rate of prosecution of actual offenders you will find a massive discrepency. Many like the images and not the act.

Yes absolutely we should protect children, that's why i'm not calling to legalise real child porn now am i. I disagree that it will lead to offending because the people who are going to offend would just get the real thing anyway. By your logic anyone who watches a horror film will eventually commit a serial murder.

Originally posted by wolf241e

I wish we lived in a world that didn't have people like this in it.

I am right there with you, i wish they didn't exist, but they do exist and now we have to deal with that issue. Killing is not the answer, prison for life to anyone that offends, anyone who merely has fake animated images, well that's a very hazy one. Once you imprison for that, you can imprison for horror movies.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
Waves back. There's got to be a first.

There is actually much more agreement on the thread than I would have thought it would be.

to all civilized debaters in here, wether I agree with you or not.

Originally posted by Acidtastic

 

this may be true,but maybe we can understand what makes someone a peadophile,by looking at the way their brains work. Scanning and comparing them to a normal persons brain. Then prehaps it can even be detectable,and preventable.

Already been done recently a study claimed they could detect a paedophile with a brain scan and flashing images of children. The problem is some peoples brains work in unexpected ways, so whlst we're all essentially the same our circuitry might not be. You could very possibly convict someone who wasn't a paedophile. What if they have the thoughts but have always kept them under control? If you look up say OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), you'll find they are often invaded by sickening thoughts. They don't enjoy the thoughts but they'd show up on a scan.

More importantly though isn't that thought crime? Once we start that we could say, flash pictures of horror movies and anyone who had a good reaction could be sectioned under the mental health act. Be very careful when you advise such measures.

Originally posted by Acidtastic
back to the topic of the origional post,I certainly think that innapropriate cartoons involving sexual imagry of kids should be banned. But then,where does one draw the line? On the extreme cases,you've got the anime type stuff,which can be pretty disturbing. And on the other side,you've got innocent cartoons with kids on,that maybe on a beach or something. This will show some cartoon skin,and will end up falling into some law that if you watch it,you're a peodononce and you should be killed dammit!! How far does it go?

You know that's an excellent point, i know i've seen cartoons where the main character is say on a beach in a bikini, is that classifed as child porn? These images i originally described would involve more explicit acts so different, but the thought you give is sound.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
I would like to remind people that there are probably animated porn of, humans with aliens, tentacles, animals, demons, ghosts, pokemon(lol), mickey mouse, robots, phantoms, vampires, nuns, incest, Final fantasy characters, your favourite celebs, or fantasies etc etc

Sounds funny, but where do you draw the line and say lets kill these people?

I love anime, shows like Naruto, Bleach, Rourin Kenshin and search often for subtitled episodes and yes come across all of the stuff you mention. I don't like it or enjoy it but if you search for anime you'll be exposed to it at some point. All of it exists and you are correct where do we draw the line. I hadn't thought of the censorship angle until jediiller mentioned it on the first couple of pages. An excellent point and another one to seriously consider.



[edit on 30-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by sparda4355
in order to take away this right you must crush the very foundation of the bill of rights that make America the great country that it is!!!*

Fact: drawings are not people

Fact: drawings don't have rights

Fact: drawings don't have feelings

Fact: drawings are drawings!

Fact: you can't prove that a drawing is under the age of 18, only that based on our opinion the drawing appears to be under the age of 18! You can't even prove that the drawing is that of a human and not an imagionary species created in the mind of the artist!

*You damn sheep.

It's all well and noble for you to look at it that way, but don't ever forget that the people taking advantage of that 'foundation' are well aware of the fact that people like you are protecting their interests.

As for your facts, well done for pointing out a few things that people already know about.

The Dude: *snippin Quintana... that creep can roll, man.
Walter Sobchak: Yeah, but he's a pervert, Dude.
The Dude: Yeah.
Walter Sobchak: No, he's a sex offender. With a record. He served 6 months in Chino for exposing himself to an eight year old.
The Dude: Oh!
Walter Sobchak: When he moved to Hollywood he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a pederast.
Donny: What's a... pederast, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut the *snip up, Donny.

reply to post by _Phoenix_

I don't like any of this animation, but I am against murder of innocent people. Think logically.

I join in denouncing the death penalty in America. The nicest thing that can be said about the DP is, “it’s barbaric.” I frequently bring to mind Governor George Ryan of Illinois. After watching as 13 men on the Illinois Death Row were found to be INNOCENT and were released from custody, he commuted all the remaining death sentences for 167 men. He said the system was flawed and he wanted it fixed before anyone else was put to death. That number - 13 - works out to 7.7% of those in Illinois were innocent. Assuming that was a sufficient sample to be reliable, then George Bush as governor of Texas has ordered 11 innocent men be put to death. Maybe that is why he acts “rattled?”

Part of the legal criteria for dividing pornography - legal - from obscenity - not legal - does the item in question “possess redeeming social value.” In the case of child porn - persons under 18 - I find NO redeeming social value.