It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 19
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


double post


[edit on 5/28/09 by nickoli]




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
No one supports child molestation. Not a single person who posted in this thread.

But the point is, drawings and cartoons are not children. This is, at the very least, thought policing. And, censorship.

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. Not FIVE, but are they 16? 17? 18? 21? How ridiculous is it to say, "Okay, all drawings that might even be preceived by anyone, in any manner, to not be a mature adult, is pornographic if they aren't fully and modestly clothed and posed." Are you kidding me? Maybe artists should sign the back, "I swear that all notions within the borders of this paper are consenting adults 18 or older". It's about as ridiculous.

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.

So tell me, is this child molestation? (dont' worry, it's not nude)

How old is this girl and boy? (woman and man?)

wen-m.deviantart.com...

It's sensual and suggestive, but also, sweet, and well drawn and painted. It's a nice painting, both in composition and talent.

But under these considerations of legislation - it could also be illegal. And that, is simply wrong. This painting is NOT child pornography.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nickoli
 


Like i have already said before,this isn't about what you are i find disgusting or wrong when it comes to such things.This is about paedophiles and their urges,paedophiles will always exist and they will always have their urges,thats a fact.Even if this animated child pornography stopped one from acting on those urges on a REAL flesh and blood little child i cant see how you could be against it.Again,i understand your view on how disgusting it is.But this is an animation we are talking about,if that satisfies a paedophile so that he does not have the urge to go out an abduct or rape a real child im for keeping this legal 100%.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

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.


Do you have any proof that pornography (child, animated or otherwise) stops a known rapist/child molester from committing acts of rape and molestation?

Not worth the gamble in my opinion.
"Maybe" isn't concrete enough and I am sure it is not that simple at all.

It could easily be said that such material could embolden the deviant predator. Kind of like how some couples watch porn to get turned on. Even regular porn isn't out there to stop people from having sex. Having to choose between a casual/long term sexual affair or a porn tape and a couch, you think most people will go for the "self-love" or the real deal?

In most cases the child molesters have child porn already on hand, and yet still claim to feel compelled to act out the sick way they do.

Doesn't stop them at all it seems.


If you think animated child pornogrpahy should be banned you might aswell ban anything that is drawn.


As an illustrator/cartoonist I don't follow that logic at all.
Care to elaborate as to why?

- Lee



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
pedophiles are messed up people no doubt about it but in my opinion they're going to find a way to get their pedo porno so it may as well be cartoon images instead of the real thing. Better the freaks are watching cartoon kiddie sex than offering supporting the market for the real thing.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


This subject is almost too close to home for me to reply too. Any representation of child pornography is in a since acceptance and or admittance of the behavior. Yes it exists but we shouldnt bring it to light in any form in fear of promoting accepting and yes even admitting that yes it does happen.
I'm not so nieve as to state that it would really make a difference but putting light to it in any manor is not acceptable imo and no amount of reasoning will change my mind on the matter. There are lines in this world people,clear cut lines,dont cross the line. There are no gray areas here. I'm speaking toward pornograhic acts committed on children even in art, imo this is criminal.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
...the point is, drawings and cartoons are not children. This is, at the very least, thought policing. And, censorship.


You make a good point here but I also think you simply the issue at the same time.

I think we are all aware that the drawings aren't real.

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.


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.

NY Times


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 article goes on to point out the following regarding the confession of a convicted molester:


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.”


My bolds.

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.

So what obligation do we have to our children?

Should we even try to navigate through this legal minefield and attempt to work something out that protects the innocent as well as the real artists that aren’t attempting to exploit children with their work that MAY possibly border on obscene by some loose definition?


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.


I understand your point and I see how tricky the issue is from a law standpoint.

Defining what may constitute child porn is precarious at best when we come to the more innocuous and abstract images. This could also lead to broader censorship and that to me is a real threat but I am not concerned about or convinced that this is actually happening.

When the supreme court upheld the law known as the "Protect Act" to prosecute those that create, solicit, or offer child pornography it states that the law applies to any materials whether they be computer cartoons, digital alterations of adults.

It even states that if the offer of the materials turns out to be fraudulent...you can still be prosecuted nonetheless.

The law in regards to animated child porn states the following to be illegal:


-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)

Wiki.


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.


But under these considerations of legislation - it could also be illegal. And that, is simply wrong. This painting is NOT child pornography.


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.

Thanks,

- Lee


[edit on 29-5-2009 by lee anoma]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by nickoli
 


Thank you, you legislating moral absolutist... freedom of speech exists for the Pedophiles. Freedom of speech exists for the rapists and the people that YOU want to put a bullet through.

Well, there's people out there that want you dead for your beliefs. And maybe we should let them have their chance, one less superior person dictating to the world what is right and wrong while spouting idiocy of how people know what right and wrong are, that good and evil are some definable transcendental qualities that all mankind are inherantly born into.

There are tribes in Africa that indoctrinate their young males with oral sex to clan elders. There are places in this world where prepubescent children are arranged to be married. There are places in this world where people like you, with your moral certitude and ideas of who deserves to live and die.... are judged guilty of blasphemy, and themselves are sentenced to death.

You pitiful, ignorant, self-deluded fool. You have no clue how good you have it to spout off about how other human beings should die, what exactly that means. You've never lived in fear of your life, of people like yourself coming in the night and disappearing you because they believe you are human trash.

You deserve no compassion, and you deserve no say in this matter; your emotions and fears have spoken, and your biased hate-obsessed mind has taken judgment against a person whom has hurt nobody in this world.

All because you are afraid of someone jacking off to drawn pictures made of ink and color, which has no life and no awareness of their exploitation. And you excuse your hatred with self-justified smugness, a superiority that you feel over pedophiles and people who enjoy such things as "Lolicon" or "Animated pornography".

Freedom of speech doesn't exist for people like you; it exists for people like me, so that I can defend what others feel is indefensable and do so with a clean conscience without fear of someone coming in the night to take me. So that people like I can fight for human rights for all people, not just the delusionally obsessed morons who parade their moral superiority over the rest of the human race and tell EVERYONE what is good and evil, what is right and proper, what society will accept and what it will reject.

I defy you. I defy everything you are... and my whole life will be spent defying it, for i will not go gently into that good night. I shall rage against the dying of the light, and I will be a light for those who have been spit upon by the world, a light in the darkness... I need no approval or sanction by you or any other. I will defend what is right, which is keeping YOUR morality off everyone else's body.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I attempted to fix a spelling error in my post above but could not for some reason even though it claims to be edited.

Oh well, just ignore any you see.



- Lee



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

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.


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.



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.


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.



Animated child porn is not a release or a preventative tool as some have claimed.


As if you know anything whatsoever on the matter, you quote one study and suddenly you KNOW things.



My bolds.

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.


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?



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.

Thanks,

- Lee


[edit on 29-5-2009 by lee anoma]


You apparently don't Don't read the news.

If you feel this is correct, you defend the decision without using the tenuous possibility that this somehow leads to actual abuse... because literally, this man was convicted on NO HARM BEING DONE and NO POSSESSION OF ACTUAL PICTURES OF CHILDREN.

This is a conviction of moral majority, it is the destruction and death of freedom of speech... and if you somehow think that THIS SHOULD NOT BE COVERED BY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, you are as disgusting as the people who argued that black men shouldn't have rights since they are only 2/3 of a person.

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.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by TheColdDragon]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


There's nothing wrong with the picture you posted, I'm talking about sexual pictures of young children not people who are late teens, or even early teens, im talking pre-teens 0-12 (probably only



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

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 think you missed the correlation I was stating that seems to exist between viewing child pornography and committing acts of actual molestation. I didn’t advocate locking innocent people away, but by viewing child porn they are breaking the law. That isn't demonizing it's a fact. At that point they cease to be "innocent".

I’m not sure but are you speaking specifically to the animated or are you advocating the free viewing of live action?

Seems that with your line of thinking non-animated child porn is fine as well provided no one molests.


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.


No need to be rude.

According to studies and from the horses’ mouth (jailed pedophiles) regarding child porn actually fueling their depraved appetites, this seems to be the case.

Here are some other studies mentioned that show this.


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


My bolds.


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?


The government in some cases.

What proof do you have that all studies pertaining to the link between child porn and molestation by studying convicted/jailed pedophiles are propaganda?

You can dismiss all studies as moralist propaganda if it doesn't fit your belief system.
There are other studies but I didn't feel the need to post EVERY one of them to prove my point.

If you are inclined to baselessly reject them all, then nothing I provide will be good enough.


You apparently don't Don't read the news.


I merely asked for examples of what the OP I was actually talking to stated existed.
No need to get snarky.


Thanks for the link.

From your article:


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.


He plead guilty and what he possessed does seem to fall under the category of child pornography as laid out in the Protect Act.

This however was not what I asked for.

My question, which you may want to read carefully this time, was:

"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?"

This is not the type of ambiguous art the person I was responding to was talking about at all. The type of art this gentlemen pleaded guilty to possessing seemed to fall under the category of child porn so I'm not amazed he was confronted on that.


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.


Yes it does.

There are associations and groups that advocate everything from child molestation (NAMBLA) to race wars and they have the platform to do it.

Freedom of speech provides that much.

It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with impunity but WITHOUT repercussion.

Someone can call up the White House and claim that they intend to kill the President if they like, but don't be surprised if the secret service rightfully knocks on your door.

P.S. Try and relax.

Maybe this topic hits closer to home on some personal level with you but I think you can get your points across without immature sniping and name-calling.

If you can't then I will have to pass on our discussion hereafter and simply not respond to your posts.

Thanks,

- Lee



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

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.


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.

- Lee



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I think maybe some of you are missing the entire point here...

Allow me to extrapolate:

I believe that anyone in possession of a picture or image of jesus nailed to the cross is in favor of murder, and by (YOUR) logical extension of stupidity.... IS A MURDERER!

They are PAINTINGS!

Is someone painting an image of the holocaust a genocidal maniac?

Is someone drawing a recreation of a murder a murderer?


You cannot legislate MORALITY for one very specific reason:


WHOSE Morality are we legislating?


You know, the "Final Solution" of Adolph Hitler was a Legislated Morality.

That fit your bill?

We make laws for ACTIONS, not THOUGHTS.


I would wager that most people have contemplated the murder of anouther they dont like...

It does not mean that they are murderers.


Thoughts are not Equal to ACTIONS.

You can no more THINK someone to death than you can traumatize a child by looking at a drawing of a naked child.


"...It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson (On Belief, and Religion)


If you start legislating Morality, then you are subject to Laws based on morals that are NOT YOUR OWN...

You know, like making Christianity Illegal?

You get it?

I swear...


-Edrick



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

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.

- Lee


Hang on i think you just proved the point on free speech lol. Free speech is the ability to do whatever you like as long as you don't harm anyone. Doing the things you just mentioned could harm people if they panic and stampede out of somewhere. The emotional distress caused to a bank teller by shouting gun could also be considered harm and you'd have trouble explaining it was a joke and not just a threat. They'd probably slap you with attempted robbery.

The fake aniated pictures however.............they harm no one, hence protected under free speech.


Are we to make things illegal because we don't like them? Wel it that case skat porn should be banned in my humble opinion. I find it's very existence truly horrid. Oh but wait i believe in free speech! They can do it as long as no one gets harmed.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

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.


-Edrick


Oddly enough this one is true. I argued it earlier in the thread, many pages back. Everyone, i don't care who you are and if you want to lie and disagre, everyone has had violent thoughts at some point. It's part of our psychology, in our genes from cave man times. Humans still have violent emotional responses when put under pressure, it's been seen in brain scans.

How many of us have been shouted at by a boss and momentarily flashed images of picking up the stapler and hitting him with it? Does that make us violent, dangerous people? Of course not we control ouurselves. The thought was there however and it's the same with the paedophiles who use this animated stuff. The thoughts are there, but they've chosen not to act, they've chosen to control themselves and they've even chosen not to use real porn of children.

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]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Paedophiles chase the dragon, ever trying to recapture the high of the original experience.

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).

Child sex abuse not only ruins peoples' lives, sometimes it takes their lives. Many children DIE at the hands of paedophiles.

To all those who advocate paedophile freedom of expression (the artist), thought and speech (the artist, publisher and perveyour), this is exactly what they want, to be legitimised, perhaps even use your arguements to attempt to capture the moral higher ground.

Freedom of expression will never be more important than the life of an innocent child.


But of course, the hidden paedophile agenda of the PTB, with the mass MSM sexualisation of childhood, these cartoons will not be discouraged let alone banned and any child within reach of the perveyours of this material is at risk whilst the paedophile chases the dragon.

It does not matter who funds research into the causes and affects of child sex abuse. What matters is the safety and protection of the child. No adult freedom that impinges upon the freedom from abuse of the child can ever take precedence.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

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]





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!






posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

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!





You are sadly ignorant aren't you. IT has been studied that men who do not get their sexual release become more aggressive, simple science. IF these comics give them release why not allow it? Consider for a moment, you are only saying no because you are short sighted and to sensitive. I am not supporting that we allow them to use the real thing, in fact i believe in tougher sentences over possession of such material.

So give me a logical reason as to why you are against it instead of your silly little emotional response. Oh and i never, ever would excuse someone actually abusing a child. What i'm saying is without any alternative pornography like this animated stuff they will just end up using the real stuff. Which would you prefer? Because those are the two options.

You spin it however you l ike and claim you would prefer neither, but in the end it really is one or the other because they will find ways of sharing it.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

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).


As you have suffered it first hand you are in no position to make any logical debate because it is very unlikely you can put your emotions aside. It is like asking the family of a murder victimt o sentence the murderer. Why don't we do this? Because people aren't logical when to close to the material.

As for giving them ideas, if you have worked in that area you know full well they already know how to gain access to and manipulate a child. Your concern about this stuff being used to groom a child is baseless because paedophiles for years have used the real thing to groom children! So again, if this animated stuf can stop one child being abused then why not leeave it as legal. If it has no victim (which is doesn't it's animated) how can we ban it? If we start doign that we can also ban video games where people get killed, it's the exact same logic. Just because it's on a subject you're sensitive about doesn't mean it should be banned.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join