Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

Originally posted by Nurv47

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.

To force him to get help however requires the law to exist for him to be prosecuted and i am against the law itself as there is no basis, in my view for the law to exist. Further as long as he is just using the images then on what grounds does anyone have a right to offer him help? Maybe he is just attracted to yonug anime characters, like a fetish.

To force him to get help however requires the law to exist for him to be prosecuted and i am against the law itself as there is no basis, in my view for the law to exist. Further as long as he is just using the images then on what grounds does anyone have a right to offer him help? Maybe he is just attracted to yonug anime characters, like a fetish.

Indeed, I only be believe he needs help though if he is a pedophile and if it can be proven that he is at an increased risk for acting out on behalf of his attraction. It would be hard to prove of course ... and there is a possibility he is attracted to young anime characters like you said ... I just meant I believe that "help" or counseling, or something of that sort would be a better alternative than prison.

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]

what you mean is you have no logic to your thinking and no basis behind your opinion...you dont know why you think what you think.

and because your losing the argument the only thing you can think to say is in basic terms.......

your wrong because i say so....end of story

its called dismissive arguing.

you cant prove your point so you assertively brush asside anybody else rational theories and close the argument down by saying im just right because i know i am.

useless in a real debate

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


This has nothing to do with free speech or thought crime.
It has everything to do with importing materials depicting children in sexually explicit images.

Christopher Handley was sentenced in Iowa on Thursday, (.pdf) almost a year after pleading guilty to charges of possessing “obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.”

The 40-year-old was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Read More www.wired.com...

He pleaded guilty!
He pleaded guilty to importing "obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children".
It was in a cartoon.
Big f!@#$ing deal.
The laws have been in place for 6 years.....were was your outrage and your logic all you FreeSpeechers?

SILO13- Keep up the good fight.

The real fear mongers are those that will site a threat to all of our free speech so as to mask their own support of this abhorrent material.

That they would suggest we tolerate this material in order to protect free speech is the sickest of fear mongering, and the sickest logic one can encounter.

What is free in the speech when it is child porn in any guise.

The Victim is ALL OF US.
When we tolerate this.

"And if you tolerate this, then your children will be next". -Manic Street Preachers.

The case began in 2006, when customs officials intercepted and opened a package from Japan addressed to Handley. Seven books of manga inside contained cartoon drawings of minors engaged in sexually explicit acts and bestiality.

I rest my case.
But, hey, its only a cartoon of kids having sex with animals.


[edit on 15/2/10 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro



It has everything to do with free speech, the fact remains that no one was harmed in this so-called "crime".

I do not support such material either ... it's just fact that liberty is dismantled one piece at a time. Next thing you know video games and movies will be outlawed for depicting assault or murder. Do you really want to live in a world where you exchange your freedoms for the feeling of being "safe"?

The focus should stay on real child molesters, not people possessing cartoons.

reply to post by atlasastro


Changed my mind, the question was too loaded to be fair..

As a survivor myself, I find it rather sickening that this guy gets the same sentance as abusers who have actually molested a child.. indeed what do you say to a child that has been molested and their abuser got a suspended sentance.. that in the eyes of the law and society their abuse is less than that of importing and viewing cartoon images..

Not to mention that a lot of therapists and survivors use dolls/drawings ect to depict what has happened during the abuse, which is part of the healing process, it concerns me that this law and this ruling means that those survivors are infact breaking the law and have commited a crime that could be punishable with a jail term if they commit to paper the events that stole their innocence..




[edit on 15/2/10 by thoughtsfull]

off course the thought of child-pornography is revolting but wouldn't this be like having a scarface poster in your room and be arrested for coke-dealing? or even better: playing GTA and be arrested for homicide, grand theft auto, drug running, strong arm robbery, and in multiple occasions walking on a freeway..

you get my point...

reply to post by Nurv47


It has nothing to do with free speech.
The law that was brought in was to protect, to stop the importation of material depicting children in sexually explicit material.

That is what this is about.
This man broke that law.
He imported 7 books with such material. 7 books, with some containing images of children in acts of bestiality.

This was not about his ability to express himself via free speech, not in one instance.
But that there is a need to police the material surrounding child pornography, that comes in many guises.
What is unique about his conviction is that he was the first person convicted under this act that did not also posses real child porn.

Many countries and states have had to continually fashion legislation in order to try and keep up with child porn or material depicting child porn. It is not perfect and an ongoing process as most legislators are aware of the implications and issues regarding freedom of speech and expression.

But sometimes things come at a cost.

This issue is about combating child porn. That is it. Period.

This issue is often clouded by arguments pertaining to free speech. In reality, we are in a common contract with each other in society. In these circumstances, we usually have common goals and ideals, some of which will encroach or diminish certain areas of other peoples goals and ideals.
This is the reality we live in and no ideology or goal is truly perfect given the complexity of life.
The idea of freedom of speech is no different.
In this case, I would hope that our goal would be to not tolerate any material that depicts children in sexual or abusive situations.
The cost would be that some would feel that this encroaches on the their ideals relating to freedom of speech.
Logically we have to size up the two in terms of our common contract with society.
Do we tolerate child porn in any form so as to serve an ideology, or do we endeavor to deny child porn in any form at an expense that an ideology will not be served with absolute perfection(which I would say is impossible).

This is not about free speech.
This is about wether you are willing to tolerate child porn in any form!
When you want to talk about free speech.
Put ALL the cards on the table.

Are YOU willing to accept Child porn in any form to serve an ideology?

Simple question.

I add my resounding NO. And accept that free speech as an ideology is something we have to give up in certain circumstances. Like circumstances related to child porn.
I can live with that.
Because this issue is not really about freedom of speech.
IMHO it is about stating what we as a society, will or will not tolerate.
The law enacted says as much.
The law this man broke.
The law this man broke and pleaded guilty too.
The Guilty plea relating to seven books.

The case began in 2006, when customs officials intercepted and opened a package from Japan addressed to Handley. Seven books of manga inside contained cartoon drawings of minors engaged in sexually explicit acts and bestiality.

A list of the SEVEN comics for which (out of his thousands, the pigs could only find seven? Can we say WITCH HUNT?) this man is doing his minimal jail time :

Mikansei Seifuku Shōjo (Unfinished School Girl) by Yuki Tamachi (LE Comics)
* I [Heart] Doll by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
* Kemono for ESSENTIAL 3 (THE ANIMAL SEX ANTHOLOGY Vol.3) by Masato Tsukimori et al (Izumi Comics)
* Otonari Kazoku (Neighboring House Family) by Nekogen (MD Comics)
* Eromon by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
* Kono Man_ ga Sugoi! (This Man_ is Awesome!) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
* Hina Meikyū (Doll Labyrinth) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)

Read More www.wired.com...


Look them up for yourself, oh wait, this is page 14, I am CERTAIN each and every one weighing in on this debate has looked up and investigated the seven comics.

You DO know what you are debating, right? I am not the only one who has checked them out cursorily on GOOGLE, am I?

***********************************************************
Ever watch Sailor Moon, Pokemon, Naruto?

That is what this man got jailed for, comics with characters drawn like SAILOR MOON.

Not characters drawn like a four yr old girl.

I am CERTAIN those who wish to see this comic collector behind bars have CHECKED OUT the list of seven books that got him canned.....just CERTAIN they have done their research before posting.

Anyway, for those that missed it, here ya go.

Deny Ignorance.

reply to post by thoughtsfull

Thank you for the reply, you are very brave in your open and honest responses that I have read on the thread.
Read the law my friend. There is nothing to worry about relating to the examples you use. The examples you used are covered.
There are many provisions in the act that cover the topic. The law targets explicit material. Which this was deemed as being. The guy had 7 books of this material. The man claimed he was a collector, but surely as a collector, you would be aware of importation legislation, and that exemptions or special cause can be applied for in instances where material can be deemed explicit but has a genuine value in terms of art, academic, scientific or legal terms. In this case, if he was a collector he could have stated that the terms of the importation was related to the criteria covered in the legislation.
The gentleman pleaded guilty because the material was simply explicit material depicting the sexual abuse of children.

As I said, free speech is often sited as an argument that cloaks the consent of such materials.

This is the real fear mongering, that we must tolerate this because we may lose everything. This is simply not the case.

I have not lost any rights, ever, relating to any legislation that relates to child porn.
I have not lost any rights because I do not engage in anything related to child porn. There for, I have not lost my freedom of speech. Because my freedom and my speech has nothing to do with child porn.

Pretty simple.

reply to post by atlasastro


The law states that they must have no artistic merit. As the pictures appear in comics with a storyline i think it would be damn easy to argue they have artistic merit. They're still not something i would read, i prefer Naruto, Rorouni Kenshin, Bleach etc.

Don't you think it is odd that he had thousands of comics and only 7 were deemed illegal? Does this not strike you as being a collector who happened to have some things the authorities decided were illegal?

Yep witch hunt, obviously the authorities want to spend time prosecuting a man who had 7 illegal comics, among thousands and thousands of comics rather than go out and catch paedophiles who use pictures of real children.

Oh and to repeat what someone else has already said

We can now be arrested for drawing something.
We can now be arrested for drawing something.
we can now be arrested for drawing something.

That is a mantra you should repeat to yourself a few times until you realise the insanity of it.

Edit to add this little gem of insight into this persons mindset.

Originally posted by atlasastro
I have not lost any rights, ever, relating to any legislation that relates to child porn.
I have not lost any rights because I do not engage in anything related to child porn. There for, I have not lost my freedom of speech. Because my freedom and my speech has nothing to do with child porn.

Pretty simple.

I don't engage in homosexuality therefore if they ban that i have lost no rights.

I do not engage in using drugs or smoking, therefore i have lost no rights if they ban that.

I do not play football, therefore if they ban that i have lost no rights.

Man you just don't get what free speech is do you. It's not about what you think is acceptable, in fact the whole point of free speech is that it may very well mean you hear and see things you really don't want to. It seems that if they ban things that you are not into then it's fine and you don't care because you haven't lost any of your precious things in life.

However you fail to see that when things start to get banned it's a slow and steady progression where more and more is taken away. That is why all free speech should be defended, as long as you don't harm anyone then it should be protected.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by atlasastro


It's those fudged lines that I worry about.. I read though the detail and find it very open to miss-interpretation... (especially mine ;-)

But when the sentancing of cartoons can equal that of the stolen innocence of a child, something is wrong with the system.

I am also concerned on the message it sends not to the abusers but to the survivors, since the message to those who like use this material for kicks will be that it is time to move over to furry animals and other such images..

The main part of this for them is the visualising of material.. anything could be a trigger for that.. hence why I feel in part this is a wild goose chase to promote an image of gov doing something instead of it fixing the current systems.

In my opinion we need to get the core laws surrounding child abuse tightened up before even thinking of introducing new laws, since the scale and scope of additional laws will only make the whole system stutter and become painfully slow.

Which ultimatly leads to poor prosecution of those offenders who have stolen a childs innocence.

I keep going in a loop that sees real victims in this being missed out in favour of prosecuting the non existant ones..

reply to post by atlasastro

Let's see here ... I believe has everything to do with free speech and freedom of expression. For instance, with this law, people no longer have the right to draw something from their imagination and to express themselves if it depicts "children" (even thought they are simply cartoons and these "children" don't even exist) ... I contend that even though it is rather distasteful in this instance, people have the right to draw and read whatever they want ... as long as it doesn't infringe on anyones rights or freedoms.

I simply don't understand why such a law exists ... this man wasn't bothering anyone ... and frankly it's none of our business what he does or doesn't read, regardless of the content.

It wasn't just about this man and his freedom of speech and expression, but the very artists and authors of such books.

Of course I disagree with the subject material ... but it's not real ... and I am not going to support someone to be imprisoned because I disagree with them.

This issue is about combating child porn. That is it. Period.

Are YOU willing to accept Child porn in any form to serve an ideology?

In my opinion child pornography would require ... you know ... children? Not cartoon images ...

These cartoons do not exploit children ... for these children do not exist.

I would never support child pornography ... but these images are CARTOONS and they do NOT depict REAL children. That would be a completely different situation.

NO ONE is harmed except people that are overly sensitive and are obviously disillusioned enough to confuse reality with cartoons. That sounds like a personal problem ... not the man who was arrested.

Also note they found no evidence of REAL child porn in his possession.









[edit on 15-2-2010 by Nurv47]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by Nurv47]

For the few who can't understand the difference between a HUMAN CHILD and a MANGA DRAWING (which apparently includes our justice system), here is an illustration.

Female Human Child (Reality):


Female Manga Drawing (Fiction):


But sure, the legal system is based on words, and there are many grey areas. Guilt depends on how well a lawyer can manipulate the minds of a jury or judge to interpret laws a certain way. After all, to define a word we must use other words, which are defined by other words, and so on... there is no absolute.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Wow. 14 pages in 24 hours. Good job!

I agree with your first post 100%. I haven't read the whole thread, but my position is that this is a form of "thought police". The fact that these thoughts are put on paper does not constitute a crime and this tendency to use emotion (instead of logic) to punish people for doing something that doesn't have a victim is dangerous, in my opinion.

I am a victim of childhood sexual molestation. I wish my abusers had looked at cartoons to get their jollies.

Now I'll go read what some have to say.



[edit on 2/15/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by avatar01

It's unfortunate that some people seem to confuse the second (fiction) picture with the first (reality, lets focus on protecting this!) ...

Now that I think about it why wasn't Pokemon banned for depicting animal abuse? Think about it ... little animals fighting each other for the fame and glory of their "masters" ... and when they aren't fighting they are forced to live out they days in tiny spheres ...

Why wasn't it banned for child negligence? The whole show focused on a 10 year who traveled the world with his friends ... yet no adult supervision ... except perhaps Team Rocket ... doesn't that condone crime and stealing also?!

It also depicted evolution ... how evil and wrong ...

What an outrage ... *end sarcasm*






[edit on 15-2-2010 by Nurv47]

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

what you mean is you have no logic to your thinking and no basis behind your opinion...you dont know why you think what you think.
and because your losing the argument the only thing you can think to say is in basic terms.......
your wrong because i say so....end of story
its called dismissive arguing.
you cant prove your point so you assertively brush asside anybody else rational theories and close the argument down by saying im just right because i know i am.
useless in a real debate

Oh bother. Here we go again, someone who can't read.
I posted on page one I will not debate my stand on this issue.
The OP asked for opinions, I gave mine. Period.

And for you to state that I don't know why I think what I think or have logic behind it?
'Get outta my head get outta my head.' LOL

Facts are you have no idea why I think what I do much less the logic behind it because I haven't told you.
And why not? Because frankly, it's none of your business.
So go bark up another tree or better yet prove to us you can read my mind like you seem to think you can. I'm thinking of a number between looser and 0.




So it's been established there is nothing you can say, no mud you can sling or insult you can hurl, no faulty logic you can try to coax me out with that will cause me to change my mind or debate you. Punto.

That's why I don't debate it and that's why you shouldn't bother either. You're wasting your time trying to win a one sided argument.

And just in case you missed the other part of my first post, the one where I said I wouldn't debate this issue?

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.

peace

[edit on 15-2-2010 by silo13]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Sorry about the delay..it got pretty late. Anyway..Your logic is sound pertaining to a great many things we as a people face today just not kiddie porn. I realize by taking this stance on even one issue makes me discredited in the acedemic arena, but you know what? Im a landscaper and woodcutter. I dont think that conforming to these particular acedemic standards is really going to affect me all that much, so I at this point am far too tired to explain the faults that I DO find in your logic here. I dont see how anyone can try to paint someone who doesnt in anyway condone kiddie porn as someone who is ethnocentric and intolerant of other cultures. Why would someone do that? Isnt that being a bit dogmatic yourself? Surely you must realize different crimes have different penalties.

I suppose though at the end of the day, the law was upheld in this case, and all the disagreement in the world is not going to change the fact that this guy didnt have enough money or political pull to get himself out of this little jam. For which I am thankful. This is a victory for the system in the US in my opinion. And until the law is changed this stuff is a crime and will be treated as such. Good job to LE in thier apprehension of this criminal. Keep up the good work!

[edit on 15-2-2010 by psyko45]

ADDED NOTE:

Though I will not debate my opinion I will contribute one more bit of truth to this thread before I leave all you wonderful great thinkers behind.

For those who try to kid themselves that cartoon porn will save 'real' children would you please go back and check to see if your head's screwed on straight, then ask yourself this...

What's the one thing in common and the biggest problem faced by all addicts?

..MORE...

The addict always wants MORE. Ask any smoker, drug user, alcoholic, over eater...

The bigger better high, a new drug or smoke, another pack a day more, that second box a twinkies, just one more drink at lunch, etc.

What makes you geniuses think this is any different?

It isn't.

And if you think these pedophiles are going to be satisfied with cartoons forever?

Smarten up and pull your heads out of your bat caves.

Cartoon porn will only delay the inevitable.

PEACE


[edit on 15-2-2010 by silo13]

Originally posted by silo13
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.

After a statement like this, I wonder why anyone would even bother debating your opinion on this at all. It's as irrational as any I've ever seen. Saying we're all as guilty as pedophiles. Very emotional, illogical and irrational.

No one here has condoned the viewing of children as sexual objects to be used for sexual gratification. That's just an emotional trigger. There was a time when my reaction would have been as extreme as yours. But I got help. It made all the difference in the world.