It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Solomons
Yes, and whats wrong with that exactly? it may not stop all paedophiles commiting acts against REAL children,but if *animated* you know drawn child pornogrpahy atleast stops a few it would be worth it.
If you think animated child pornogrpahy should be banned you might aswell ban anything that is drawn.
Originally posted by Jadette
...the point is, drawings and cartoons are not children. This is, at the very least, thought policing. And, censorship.
Debate on Child Pornography’s Link to Molesting
Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.
At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires — exactly the opposite.
“Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”
I'm an artist. I enjoy other artists works. I've seen painting with naked fairies and cherubs and aliens and, well, just girls, that are youthful looking.
And this legislation isn't even saying 'explicit' but rather, making these vague definitions of what would or would not be illegal. So we're not even talking about down and dirty acts, but anything that is remotely suggestive, I think that's the term that they used.
-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).
- Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors)
But under these considerations of legislation - it could also be illegal. And that, is simply wrong. This painting is NOT child pornography.
Originally posted by lee anoma
We recognize that no harm is being committed to an actual child in the cartoon. The point is that the animated child porn appears to be a part of a broader societal threat committed by the viewers of the child porn.
Perhaps even facilitated by the porn itself for its consumers.
The study has not yet be released, and according to the article and some have tried to have it removed, if factual though then there is an alarming connection here.
Animated child porn is not a release or a preventative tool as some have claimed.
The threat from the child porn (animated or otherwise) goes beyond the screen images.
The threat is real, and it is to an existing child.
I don’t think it is as vague as you are claiming but it does it's best to try and shape what it seeks to eliminate.
I am positive that those convicted thus far of possession, creation or solicitation of child porn aren’t simply in possession of a naked fairy, cherub or alien. I think what they are specifically are targeting in this law is something a bit move obvious than you seem to appreciate.
The Protect act has been in affect for over five years now.
Has the artist been prosecuted?
Which state has claimed this was child pornography and have any arrests been made?
I seriously doubt it.
I'd go so far as to say in this example you presented...it will never happen.
Do you have any proof though, that artists under the definition you present here are being prosecuted through the law as described particularly in the section pertaining to animated child pornography?
If so I'd like to see some.
[edit on 29-5-2009 by lee anoma]
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
A threat to your society? God i hope so. I hope it murders your society, I hope it destroys what you consider civilized... because in mine we don't have innocent people demonized based upon thoughts alone.
I'd love to know who paid for the study, how it was conducted and what the sample size was. There's been studies like it before, especially to support legislating moralists and political agendas. Larger and more lengthy studies find a different effect from pornography on sexual offenses.
As if you know anything whatsoever on the matter, you quote one study and suddenly you KNOW things.
Recent studies demonstrate that those who collect and disseminate child pornography are likely to molest an actual child. According to the United States Postal Inspection Service, at least 80% of purchasers of child pornography are active abusers and nearly 40% of the child pornographers investigated over the past several years have sexually molested children in the past. FBI.gov
From January 1997 through March 2004, 1,807 child pornographers were arrested and 620 of these individuals were confirmed child molesters.7 Therefore, between 34-36% of these child pornographers were actual child molesters, defined as someone who had confessed to acts of molestation, someone who had a record for molestation, or someone who was involved in an overt act in order to procure children for sexual purposes.8 The 620 confirmed child molesters led to 839 child victims who were identified and rescued.
In a 2000 study issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 76% of offenders convicted of internet-related crimes against children admitted to contact sex crimes with children previously undetected by law enforcement and had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. NCJRS.gov
So says you... I've heard this sort of propaganda before, and I've seen studies that support it. Again, who funded the study? Whose agenda does it serve?
You apparently don't Don't read the news.
In an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.
Freedom of speech doesn't exist for the people whose speech doesn't disgust or horrify, it is EXACTLY existant for people such as this. For their freedom of self expression and to be free of molestation by morally superior pricks.
Originally posted by gYvMessanger
[edit 4] Freedom of speech only exists (in theory, clearly not in practice imho) in your country, no other country has this bizarre idea you should be allowed to say literally whatever you want, whenever you want and not get in trouble for it, a lot of other countries are very liberal about it (as they should be), but there is a limit, this is one of the areas in which it should be limited in.
Originally posted by lee anoma
Exactly, although I think his definition of "free speech" is not accurate though.
Try shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, "I have a gun" at a bank teller or "bomb" on a plane.
You are free to do so.
There will be consequences, however.
Originally posted by Edrick
I would wager that most people have contemplated the murder of anouther they dont like...
It does not mean that they are murderers.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So why ban this stuff again? You would basically be taking away a harmless release and forcing them into using the real porn! They need the release after all and if they can't get the fake stuff............
[edit on 29-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]
Originally posted by teapot
Ahhh!!! Poor things! It's not their fault!!! They was forced to hurt/cause hurt to real children cos the nasty people who want to protect children took their comic books away!
Originally posted by teapot
Having worked in child protection and having experienced child sex abuse first hand, my fear is that these 'innocent' images will be used to groom the intended victims, giving the air of normality, showing a child a comic book ( I was going to continue with this but I fear that I may provide some dirty pervert with a few ideas on how to procure a real child).