Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

Originally posted by psyko45
Thank you. Are you suggesting a change in child porn law, or at least what constitutes child porn? Arent the laws concerning this too liberal as they are, or maybe I live in a vaccum somewhere?

I am suggesting that someone being prosecuted for a victimless crime, over images that are drawn by an artist from his/her imagination is not prosecuted. I am saying that this law should be abolished.

I am not saying we should change the law on pictures of real children because those pictures involve actual harm to a child and that is the very important difference. One is imaginary and the other is real. I believe anyone caught downloading images that involve real children should be locked up for life. It might seem very odd to you but i'm extreme when it comes to paedophiles, if they act upon their predilections then they need life in prison.

Cartoons however are harmless and it may very well be the case it can stop some offenders from offending.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Here is the problem you can use a search engine and search images for nude manga and find many of them.
Google comes back 195,000 for nude manga.

But the laws ban child porn and no search engines will come back with child porn images.

Does that mean these search engine companies are all engaged in distribution of child porn because you can do a search for nude manga and they will deliver.

If the US government does nothing to force the search engine companies to block these sites like they do child porn people will believe these drawing are legal.

Is that entrapment.
Could nude manga be spread by malware to may people computers (by crooked cops???)and these people then be arrested.

Most people would wipe there hard drives if the found malware planted child porn.
But how many people even know the government claims nude manga is child porn. Most people would just deleat it. (which does not remove it from you computer just removes the file address)

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


That sounded good, until you mentioned downloading. Wrong. There is no way somebody can prevent child sex pictures from being downloaded onto their own personal computer. It is an impossibility. We all know that there are websites that will ''download'' pictures automatically to your computer such as CNN dot com, White House dot gov, Google image search, etc.

Haven't you ever blindly surfed into a site and then noticed a questionable picture tucked in with 36 other mature pictures? I've been told that those are put there on purpose. Honey pot? Who knows?

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


Yeah i was a computer tech, when i say downloading i mean someone who actively searches it out. For example if someon has 500 of the pics on their computer then it's highly unlikely they just stumbled upon them. Or if they have used their credit card to buy the images. Now people have been falsly accused when their credit details have been stolen but it's easy enough to prove they weren't the ones who downloaded the stuff.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984




[edit on 15-2-2010 by psyko45]

you have to keep in mind; where this manga originates american porn is illegal and penetration scenes with animals is used in exchange for the censoring of man woman interaction.in america where this material is distributed most of what is within the context of the manga/hentai is intentionally "offensive", by western standards; but that is where the appeal comes from for this type of material.hentai in america has an equal degree of artistic appeal as the movie the good old naughty days; which shows some acts that are considered taboo by american porn standards.this is a difficult legal case because the jury has to examine the laws pertaining the laws broken, and weather they should be changed or altered to produce their verdict; and they have to analyze the charges on the actions of stated law; and weather the person who owns the charges can accept them according to law dictates.most hentai that i am aware of that is popular deals with varying age groups, but high school children are not excluded and there are subsections just for children.within some states in america the age of consent is 17; i graduated high school at that age: but am i also to assume that if i watch a standard hentai or ecchi comic that i am committing an act of crime against a victim because the subjects are young high school students; further if bestiality is illegal where i reside am i to assume tentacle porn is a gross expression of such and is also illegal within american territory.the crime are the people offended by what someone who is not interested in that person uses to get themselves off.if i brake up with my girlfriend and hate her but use her in my mind for my own "sexual" pleasures am i victimizing that person(rhetorical question, please dont answer), if she finds out will i be prosecuted for rape?well in this case the object is imaginary and the subject predicated in the law for protection based on this law is imaginary.the jury has a hard job, but few jury know it is also their duty to define the law and if it is also at fault in charges from the entity of government.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Or it could just make them alot better at what they love to do. How do you become better at anything. You train. SO according to your logic the way to keep a crazy person from being crazy..all you have to do is teach them how to be efficient at being crazy.., All thats doing is making them selective (picky)
In the meantime while were waiting for something to hap[pen are you going to monitor this person and make sure thier not even hanging around any children? Much less breeding. Or is that the kind of chance that you are willing to take? Not only are you willing to take that chance you would suggest facilitating such an event by legalizing a product that stimulated and nurtured thier 'prediliction' to do what they do?

reply to post by psyko45

The text would play some role.(ie, a comic book format versus film with audio) The ability to interperet said text by both accuser and accused would have to be proven. Figureative language would have to be explored. Intentions would need to be judged. Maybe someone here that knows the law could shed some light on this subject.

The law is extremely subjective, i.e. "depicts an image that is, or appears to be". The accuser would only need to state that the depiction "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". The law provides no guidance or methodology on determining what constitutes "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" or on how to determine what "appears to be a minor".

It seems evident that this law absolves the burden of proof from the accuser and places it on to the accused. Individuals charged under this law are guilty until proven innocent. And how do you prove that an image is not a minor or that it does contains serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

``Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse
of children

``(a) In General.--Any person who, in a circumstance described in
subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses
with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a
drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
``(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct; and
``(B) is obscene; or
``(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a
minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic
abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-
genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of
the same or opposite sex; and
``(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value;

[edit on 15-2-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by psyko45
Or it could just make them alot better at what they love to do. How do you become better at anything. You train. SO according to your logic the way to keep a crazy person from being crazy..all you have to do is teach them how to be efficient at being crazy.., All thats doing is making them selective (picky)

The evidence does not support your ideas here. If we look at other areas of pornography, for example rape porn we find massive consumption and i'm sure not all of those are rapists.

Understand that there are very different mindsets here. It's like when someone plays a computer game a lot and then goes and kills people. They were always going to go and do something, they had the kind of mindset that will pick up on any media that suits their needs and if that media is not available they will simply imagine the acts until they commit them. Serial killers have the same sort of mind.

If we look at the consumption of this kind of pornography in Japan we will find incredible numbers of people buying it and yet Japans rates of rape and child abuse are relatively low, or if you use other figures are around the same per capita as western countries like the USA.

So i'm afraid none of what you are saying is backed by any data.

Originally posted by psyko45
In the meantime while were waiting for something to hap[pen are you going to monitor this person and make sure thier not even hanging around any children? Much less breeding. Or is that the kind of chance that you are willing to take? Not only are you willing to take that chance you would suggest facilitating such an event by legalizing a product that stimulated and nurtured thier 'prediliction' to do what they do?

Hang on, you are on about monitoring someone before they commit an offence, this is utterly wrong. If you want to do that kind of thing then why don't we keep close tabs on everyone with a mental health disorder, including depression? Why don't we keep a close watch on everyone who uses the rape porn mentioned earlier? You see you are heading down a very dangerous path.

Again i point out that there is no evidence this man has ever hurt a child and yet he has collected this stuff for years. You would think by now someone would have mentioned something or that now he has been arrested and the police have been through his life that something would have been turned up, but no nothing. On top of that they have found NO evidence of him using images of real children.

If we go along with your ideas then wouldn't he have progressed to using pornography involving real children by now? The fact that he hasn't suggests your ideas are incorrect.

Anyone here remember history?

Remember the 'crusades'?

That's right... Make everything YOU disagree with illegal... Say it hurts EVERYONE...


Why, you folks aughtta know you'll burn in HELL for cartoons!!


haha

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous.

What if the 'children' in the drawings were supposed to depict 15 year olds?

Is that 'an abomination'? If you say yes, what about if it is in another country that allows sex at that age?

Or, are you just going to say "Well they have it WRONG! Because I don't agree with that!"


But... Why? WHY don't you agree?

Because it's wrong?

Or because you're told it's wrong?

Everything is relative.

And imprisoning a man for something like this is just downright stupid.

What next? Anyone that possibly THOUGHT about having sex with someone under the legal age of 18 (depending on which state you are in, maybe 16... You know, 'right and wrong' change depending on your coordinates! Jesus is watching!) should be arrested, because even having a thought about a child can hurt ALL children...?


Christ people, next thing you know, you will believe that just because there are a few terrorists, that all middle eastern folk are out to behead you and fly an airplane into your apartment!


....Oh wait, most people think that as it is.

I give up.

This issue has been in front of the supreme court before and they ruled that this was freedom of speech. We see throughout the country prosecutors running amok and doing this for political reasons. I read of one case recently where a couple had photographed their children in a bubble bath and were prosecuted. You can't fight sex. The people who believe sex is wrong or bad usually have the most problems and become warped. It is part of nature and the human condition. The people speaking the loudest against it are usually the people who secretly desire it. Child nudity, child modeling, beach photography and cartoon sex is not pornography. Finally, all prosecutors and judges who allow these cases to go forward when they know this has been decided before should be charged with crimes.

reply to post by avatar01

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.

Not long back there was the intent to ban tobacco advertising. Prior to the new regulations being implemented some big brand manufactures toyed with removing any reference to their product in some weird advertising.

An example would be of a woman holding a gold box the same dimensions and color of the given brand of cigarette. As a user of that brand I knew exactly what was being portrayed but a passer by would have no idea.


This says to me that we can give meaning to almost anything that appears to speak to us, would it be a crime to depict stick people having sex ? Or would it be a crime to depict them with an age attached to the drawing ?

If the same manga "artist" was to represent his work to a blind person would he be guilty of an offense by whispering a description the blind persons ear ?

I know what my senses tell me is ugly but I don't know the mind of the person with a pencil. Well done to the OP for having the courage to discuss a topic which most people cower away from and perhaps perpetuate a problem by not addressing it head on.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I think silo was offended by the idea of a grown man getting off to images of children, cartoon or not. I too think its wrong, you should be in no way attracted to children. I personally do not understand it. What is there to be attracted too, there not developed at all? Is it the innocence of them that attracts these sick f**k's?

Originally posted by seanizle
I think silo was offended by the idea of a grown man getting off to images of children, cartoon or not. I too think its wrong, you should be in no way attracted to children. I personally do not understand it. What is there to be attracted too, there not developed at all? Is it the innocence of them that attracts these sick f**k's?

I think everyone is disgusted by the idea of someone using these images, i won't ever debate how wrong it is morally speaking.

I am only debating the idea of someone being arrested for a cartoon image and being imprisoned when there is no victim. I also take exception to banning these images when it is very possible some of these people are using them instead of the real thing.

As for what attracts them to children, there are many theories and explanations but the best i have heard as i mentioned earlier is a form of sexual retardation.

has the fact that he is a avid comic collecter and that these where just a few in his collection been brought across .. ..

Originally posted by TaintedJustice
has the fact that he is a avid comic collecter and that these where just a few in his collection been brought across .. ..

Yep it has. He had a vast collection of "normal" anime and manga, including shows that are watched every day by millions of people. He also appears to have had adult hentai along with the images that he got arrested for. I think he really is just a collector and like many collectors he wanted everything to do with the subject he had chosen.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Agree with you completely. The man was/is within his rights as long as it does not touch a "real" life children. We have all heard about the new Sex Robot Roxxy which has different personalities.



Tomorrow would it be illegal if a Small sized robot is made? It's not affecting any real life person. On what basis would it be illegal?

Originally posted by seanizle
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I think silo was offended by the idea of a grown man getting off to images of children, cartoon or not. I too think its wrong, you should be in no way attracted to children. I personally do not understand it. What is there to be attracted too, there not developed at all? Is it the innocence of them that attracts these sick f**k's?

Regardless of how disgusting and incomprehensible pedophiles are ... the fact remains that in this case it was a victimless crime and there is no reason to imprison a man for "getting off" to cartoon images.

Indeed though, he is at an increased risk for acting out on behalf of his attraction (of course if these images were simply part of his vast Anime/Manga collection it doesn't really apply because we have no proof that he is even attracted to children) ... I see this whole situation as an attempt to prevent this man from such actions.

I think if anything he should be getting help for his attraction to children, (assuming he isn't attracted to the cartoons themselves or just simply possessing them as part of his collection as mentioned above) help which will not come from a prison cell.



[edit on 15-2-2010 by Nurv47]

reply to post by December_Rain


Lol i'm willing to bet we have not all heard of roxy!

still your point is very well made. This is why it needs discussion because in the future as robots become shockingly real and very cheap, will we allow child sex robots? Of course everyone will scream no, but what are the other options available? If we ban them then the peadophiles will go out and find a real child. Surely it is better if they can use a robot to fill their need. Horrible, disgusting, not someone i would ever associate with but it may very well be a solution to drastically reducing abuse of real children.

This pornography could also be seen in such a light.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I did not want to derail your thread so I have made a thread to discuss this issue between humans and machine Humans and machine. Would like to hear all viewpoints.