Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

page: 1
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+13 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Now this one is going to be controversial on ATS, just like another thread i posted a long time ago on something similar. Hopefully it can be discussed without insults flying around.

So here is the original story

www.wired.com...

A man has been jailed for possessing japanese manga cartoons that involve sex between minors. For those who are unfamiliar with manga it often contains young looking characters. Anyone who has ever watched any shows like Bleach, Naruto, Evangelion, Inu Yasha and other mainstream stuff knows that. The images this man had however were designed for the sole reason of being sexually explicit. There is no evidence he ever viewed any real chld pornography though.

So should he really be imprisoned for cartoon images? I find the idea of these images disgusting but in the end no children were harmed. If this is illegal then how can we justify any violent media? What about depictions of murder for example? They are fake but the crime of murder is real.

I have a basic view of what is acceptable, as long as no one is harmed then you can do whatever you want. These are fake images, of children that don't exist. Drawings, nothing more and so i do not think this man should be in prison. Disgusting images yes, but not harmful as long as he's keeping them to himself.

I open this up to ATS because i have found that even those who are really for free speech and freedom of expression cannot stretch their convictions to cover this one.



+17 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

I find the idea of these images disgusting but in the end no children were harmed.


I disagree.

Any form of material that portrays children as sex objects hurts children everywhere.

It doesn't matter what form the material is be it the written word, photography, crayon drawing or manga.

EDIT after reading the response below:

I repeat. Anything that portrays a child, as an object for sexual gratification is hurting children everywhere, in every culture in every part of the world.

You don't like my opinion, or don't agree I don't particularly care. My opinion will not change and it is not open for debate.

In my opinion people who condone the viewing of children as sexual objects, to be used for sexual gratification - IN ANY FORM - are as guilty as pedophiles themselves.

That opinion isn't up for debate either.

peace


[edit on 14-2-2010 by silo13]


+18 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
I disagree.

Anything that portrays children as sex objects is hurting children everywhere. It does not mater what form the material may be displayed in - photo or crayon drawing or manga whatever.

peace

[edit on 14-2-2010 by silo13]


That is not true though. The images did not harm a child like real ones obviously would. They were not shown to children (as far as the police can asertain) and he did not abuse children (again as far as can be asertained) so no children were harmed.

I think your post was reactionary, just like many others will be. I believe in free speech and freedom of expression, even to stuff i find disgusting. As i said this is a really hard pill to swallow, even for the most rabid of free speech defenders.

Further it could very well be the case that him viewing this stuff stopped him viewing real pornography and stopped him abusing children. Another thread i made a long while back was about how an offender had switched to using the animated stuff.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]


+14 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


You have said it harms children but you have not said how it harms them. You can have your opinion that's fine but you need to have some logical reason behind it and not just a reactionary one.

I'm just asking how it harms children. Further you have not said how it is different to depictions of murder or even depictions of rape in films.

Oh and i was not condoning the images, they're disgusting but as no one is harmed then i must support free speech and say they're allowed. To put someone who is defending their existence under the banner of free speech in the same bucket as paedophiles as you have is utterly unfair, completely dishonest as a debating tactic and basically you are not helping your side of the argument at all.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 
This isn't a question of rape or murder, please don't ask me to mix apples and oranges.

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.

The fact that it's the very innocence of children that feeds the perversion, CHILDREN, and you even have to ask?

Some basics in life you just shouldn't have to explain, they should be a given.

This is one of them.

Peace

[edit on 14-2-2010 by silo13]


+37 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Ok, if this guy can be jailed for having this stuff- what about the song icons that sell sex and drugs in the form of music and music videos to kids? What about people who wear offensive tshirts that blatantly advertise sex and other decorations on their person, car, ect, where a kid sees it and learns stuff no kid should. How about that? Is THAT ok? How about people who wear bathing suits that leave absolutely NOTHING to the imagination? And dont give me 'the parents are responsible' Parents canNOT protect their kids from this stuff leaking out of everywhere 24/7.

See- if there's going to be laws to PROTECT children, dont just target one group when you have a whole SLEW of others who do just as much damage.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by wylekat]

[edit on 14-2-2010 by wylekat]


+18 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Again you give no logical basis for your standpoint. Are you for free speech and freedom of expression or against it? At the moment you are against it simply because you dislike the idea of something. You have said it does harm and not provided any evidence for how it does this, at all.

Again your viewpoint is nothing more than a reactionary one and while i understand that viewpoint (because i have the exact same revulsion at the idea of this stuff) i am putting my emotions aside and viewing it logically. these are cartoons, which do not involve real children.

I again state that it appears some offenders are using these images so that they do not have to use real ones. These images may save real children from abuse and yet you would ban them? If you want to say those who condone these images are as bad as paedophiles then i can easily turn that around and say you wanting this stuff kept illegal and banned contributes towards real children being abused.


+41 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Who is the victim when the crime is cartoon nudity? Is the cartoon character a victim? The exploitation takes place in the artist's imagination. The crime takes place in the reader's mind. This is a good example of being punished for "thought crimes". There is no victim.

The so-called "justice system" is a joke.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by avatar01
 


I agree this is a true example of being punished for thought crime.

Now if f he had shown the images to children then it could easily be argued he was trying to coerce a minor into sex and then i would happily see him go to jail for life.


+28 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Some basics in life you just shouldn't have to explain, they should be a given.

This is one of them.


It makes me ill when people talk like this. If you cannot explain why you think or feel a certain way, then you do not understand your own thinking! It shows that you are making judgments based on irrational emotions, dogmatic thinking, or pre-defined conclusions without thorough analysis of the issue.


+19 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I think this is pointless honestly ... imprisoning a man for having cartoon images ... no matter what they were of ... is nonsense. If there is no evidence of child abuse or child pornography I say he is completely within his rights and freedom as an American citizen. There is no victim to this crime ...

This doesn't fall into the category of the exploitation of children, because the "children" involved don't exist. I suppose this could be an attempt to prevent a future crime with real children ... but this isn't Minority Report ... and we can't charge people with future crimes ... especially when we don't know that they will commit future crimes.

While I may disagree with the subject of this man's ... collection ... I don't think this is bringing justice to anyone. If anything he should receive help for his problem ... not be imprisoned ... that will solve nothing.

Oh and also ...



Some basics in life you just shouldn't have to explain, they should be a given.

This is one of them.

Peace


Frightening .... I believe everything can and should be explained ... it almost sounds like you are simply saying that because you can't logically explain your opinions.




[edit on 14-2-2010 by Nurv47]


+9 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Sure it might be wrong and ugly, but you cant JAIL people for it

Why would you jail them? Like said earlier, what about people who like S&M, GTA or weapons?

Its not real, its fantasy..

How will it be in the future... will we have mind reading devices that reports you to the police if you THINK about something illlegal?? No, its not right to jail people for not hurting anyone.


+28 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Any form of material that portrays children as sex objects hurts children everywhere.

I repeat. Anything that portrays a child, as an object for sexual gratification is hurting children everywhere, in every culture in every part of the world.


So if I draw a naked anime girl and show my friend this drawing and tell him she is 18 years old, that's fine and dandy. But if I tell my friend this drawing depicts a 12 year old girl, somehow I am hurting every single child on the planet?

Logic fail.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
FAIL:


Law is law. Right?


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
This is all part of conditioning people to live in fear. Just about anything you do can be denounced as a horrific crime. The Ministry of Thought in action!
And there will always be those ready to bloody their hands by punishing whomever they want based on their arbitrary convictions.

The basic means of communication - touch - is proclaimed as a crime!



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Welcome to 1984 where even the thought of something can be prosecuted.

I would never have these cartoons in my home and I would not condone such BUT that does not mean it is a crime to have such!

my 2cents


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
 
This isn't a question of rape or murder, please don't ask me to mix apples and oranges.



I'm asking you to do no such thing.

Murder is a crime but we actively depict it and even design games where the sole purpose is to kill (Hitman is a clear example).

Rape is a crime and movies and tv have depicted it very graphically, no one goes to prison over that.

Not apples and oranges, exactly the same circumstances, the only difference is the subject matter.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
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



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Not apples and oranges, exactly the same circumstances, the only difference is the subject matter.


Like the subject matter doesn't make a difference? rotfl That's absurd.

It's like saying you want me to bake a chocolate cake but use hot sauce instead of chocolate.

Anyway, you asked for opinions I gave it.

That you don't like it - I could truly care less.

I will bow to no man, or no organization, or no group of people, or submit to any peer pressure on line or off when it comes to the subject of protecting the innocence of children in any and all ways.

If you can't do the same there's something wrong with you. IMO of course, lol.


peace


+23 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
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.


I think the difference between our opinion is this.

You seem to think that these cartoon characters ARE children and thereby think these books contain child pornography. I see these cartoon characters as DRAWINGS from someone's IMAGINATION and are therefore not exploiting children in any way.

If you think that the mere THOUGHT of having sex with a child is evil and must be punished then you are a hypocrite, because you have thought of it yourself. By THINKING of this act, you are portraying it in your mind, and therefore sir, you ARE a child pornographer by your own logic.





top topics
 
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join