Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

page: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

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]


Mind if I ask how so? Please do not just tell me that it puts children in a sexual light or else you would have to agree that the existence of slutty clothing hurts all women everywhere all the time. Do you?




posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

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.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by silo13]


if you gonna make bold statements on a forum like this you need proof and logic to back yourself up.

this entire topic is everyones business on this website and the second you comment is the second it becomes everyone elses business...like i sed...dismissive arguin...you state something and then say you dont need to prove anything because your logic isnt our business?

in that case just dont argue with anyone.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thatguy1
I didn't even read your entire post. If you're not going to debate your stand on the issue STOP POSTING HERE. There is no point to come here, throw your "opinion" in everyones faces, yell that you're right, then storm out.

Your opinion is moot, since you choose to think that you are correct in every way. Please, find another thread to inject your ignorance.


well said and 100% agreed with...why would anyone argue with someone and then tell them the reasoning for it is none of their business...he basically has no reasoning...dont need to be a mind reader to know that



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Pedophilia? Do you want to lock somebody up for life because he or she is born pedophile? Let's lock those homos up for life while you are at it.

Gosh, some of the posts I read makes me want to cry and puke.

Seriously, I sometimes wonder why we have made it this far.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by humilisunus
 





Freedom of speech used to mean you respected the right of others to express themselves in a free society, it never mean some can say what they want at the expense, hurt, or expliotation of others. All of this should be looked down upon, the fact that we are even having a debate about what appears to minors ingaged in sex makes me see how far we are from fixing our futures.


How can a cartoon exploit anyone? Furthermore what gives you idea that the first amendment is only applicable when you don't agree with a persons expressions? Looking down upon something is fine but some posters are demanding that people should be imprisoned for a victimless crime. I look down upon the "saw" movies and believe them to be damaging to those who watch them and therefore choose not to watch them myself. However I could never imagine demanding that no one else watch them because I look down upon them.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 





Pedophilia? Do you want to lock somebody up for life because he or she is born pedophile? Let's lock those homos up for life while you are at it.


Hmmm. Are you comparing pedophilia to homosexuality? I do agree that a person shouldn't be imprisoned for owning a comic book however I would support life imprisonment for a person that acts out his or her pedophilia on a child.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 




Are you comparing pedophilia to homosexuality?


How is that a comparison? You are born with what you have. It does not make any sense to claim that pedophiles are that way because of some childhood trauma.

But I do agree with you. It's ridiculous to imprison someone of owning some silly cartoon books.



posted on Feb, 15 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Nobody should be jailed over pixels, paint, or ink arranged in any way whatsoever. The notion that children are harmed by pixels is prosperous and makes a total joke of the justice system. If there is no victim, there is no crime. This is one of the most ridiculous things that happens in the modern justice system... punishing someone over pixels.

Harm is done by the person forcing children to pose, not by the pixels! So the person should be punished not some random guy who copied pixels. If the pixels themselves are the problem, then the police would be the worst people in the world as they've got the biggest child porn collections in their evidence storage.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Why does this have to be a total agreement or disagreement?

The way I see it, the guy shouldn't be jailed, but at the same time, he does need help, a lot of it. I feel morality, law and ethics never mix with humanity, they never will. You cannot mix them and EVER get good results.

Mangas are weird, they are never really upfront about any matter or subject. The cover never says anything like "21 year old boy's love story in Tokyo" or anything of the like. If the man is getting jailed for reading something like that, whats gonna happen to everyone else who plays video games that have the box described as "Bloody good fun!" "Gore fest!" "Rob your grandmother and then take a chopper to the next city to deal drugs to a crime lord!"?

It is a touchy subject, but in the totality of it all, there is just no right in any of this. The guy is innocent of crime, but he is sick. The law was wrong in throwing him in jail, but they had the right moral state of mind. As I said, morality, law and ethics, its like a pipe bomb waiting to explode.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by LeTan
 





The way I see it, the guy shouldn't be jailed, but at the same time, he does need help, a lot of it.


How do you know he needs help? Help with what? The article said he was a comic book collector. I think you may be jumping to conclusions.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by LeTan
 





The way I see it, the guy shouldn't be jailed, but at the same time, he does need help, a lot of it.


How do you know he needs help? Help with what? The article said he was a comic book collector. I think you may be jumping to conclusions.


Maybe I am, and If i am then I apologize. It's just my opinion that if I found something like that in my collection, in this case, children (or drawings of children) being exploited, t wouldn't be in my collection in the next 2 seconds.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeTan
Why does this have to be a total agreement or disagreement?

The way I see it, the guy shouldn't be jailed, but at the same time, he does need help, a lot of it. I feel morality, law and ethics never mix with humanity, they never will. You cannot mix them and EVER get good results.


While it doesn't have to be total agreement or disagreement, most of the people who bother to post will naturally feel strongly about it or they wouldn't speak up.

I believe laws, ethics, and morality would work fine if only the legal system would only deal with topics that have a victim and the victim can easily proove harm. Right now what the justice system attempts to determine right from wrong and that is fine, but it goes an off-kilter step further to determine healthy behavior from unhealthy behavior and punish "unhealthy behavior" when in fact they've got no clue what is healthy and what isn't.

It should be up to individuals to determine what is unhealthy while the courts determine what is morally wrong and has a clear damage and victim. That would go leaps and bounds into helping solve the problems with justice. There are other problems with the justice system such as unequal victimhood, brute tyranny of police, etc. but the victimless "crime" problem is quite easily the worst and makes our justice system work terribly overall.



[edit on 16-2-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by thatguy1
Less than a century ago people where married and engaging in sexual intercourse at the age of 15 and sometimes younger. Was it child rape then? No, why is that? Because our "ideas" and "laws" about the situation where different then. Can a 15 year old be sexually mature? Yes.


You know, I was thinking of something very similar to this as I read through this thread. I have often thought about the oddness of certain laws here in the U.S. For example, when your 12-13-14 or so, in Jr. High (or whatever other places call it), and you flirt with the opposite sex, perhaps experiment a bit, etc. Then on into High School, 15-16-17, and your naturally attracted to people of that age group. Then you turn 18... and BAM. Suddenly, your not supposed to be attracted to your girlfriend/boyfriend because they are still 17... despite the fact that you have just spent the past few years developing an attraction to other teens because until now, you were one. I think people get too caught up in the whole age thing. Now I am not condoning actual abuse, and I agree that there should be a line in the sand somewhere, but where?

As for the hentai. Pffft. That whole case amounts to an abuse of this persons freedoms. Then again, he put his foot in his own mouth by pleading out, so, whatchagunnado? I often wonder if the police and law enforment agencies in this country are overrated. I mean, for the most part, it seems to me like there are a lot of police and prosecutors that have so very little do do, that they just invent things to arrest people for. You see a lot of that here on ATS. Like the lady who was ticketed and threatened with arrest for collecting rainwater.

It seems like kiddie porn is the hot button ticket ATM here in America. I heard a thing on the radio the other day about a fellow that was arrested for child pornography that was downloaded onto his computer by malware. True abuse should never be tolerated. But there is a HUGE difference between true abuse and this particular issue with the comic books. For those people who say: "Well he might have gone out and done this and that," let me repeat what I wrote in the Iran thread:



If people were tried on what they might do, then the whole world would be in jail, or dead! PERIOD.


Chrono



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Well,this thread has been going a while and there seems to be a pretty good representation of both sides.Those that can see what should be obvious to anyone with enough intelligence to log on and post,that there is no child involved,so therefore it can't possibly be Child Pornography.And of course the think of the children brigade,where the complete absence of a child can still equate to Child Pornography.To those in the latter group I would ask,can it still be Child Pornography if there is no pornography as well?Is there a scale, a graph or table that can give me these answers,or do you just know it when you see it?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
As for the hentai. Pffft. That whole case amounts to an abuse of this persons freedoms. Then again, he put his foot in his own mouth by pleading out, so, whatchagunnado? I often wonder if the police and law enforment agencies in this country are overrated. I mean, for the most part, it seems to me like there are a lot of police and prosecutors that have so very little do do, that they just invent things to arrest people for. You see a lot of that here on ATS. Like the lady who was ticketed and threatened with arrest for collecting rainwater.


He may sound like an idiot but look at the situation a little deeper and you realise he was screwed. He could have faced a 15 year sentence if he didn't plea. Imagine he went to court and told a jury of people that he had cartoon images of children. The prosecution would easily play on peoples feelings, as we can see in this thread there are many people who simply react. The guy would have most certainly ended up in jail for a very long time.

So i can understand why he took the plea option.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
He may sound like an idiot but look at the situation a little deeper and you realise he was screwed. He could have faced a 15 year sentence if he didn't plea. Imagine he went to court and told a jury of people that he had cartoon images of children. The prosecution would easily play on peoples feelings, as we can see in this thread there are many people who simply react. The guy would have most certainly ended up in jail for a very long time.

So i can understand why he took the plea option.


Yeah. Add in the issue that most defense lawyers are NOT on your side, and just want to get through the case and on to the next one, and it can be pretty scary. But then again, if you know you've done nothing wrong, then you really shouldn't have anything to fear.

Chrono



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin

Yeah. Add in the issue that most defense lawyers are NOT on your side, and just want to get through the case and on to the next one, and it can be pretty scary. But then again, if you know you've done nothing wrong, then you really shouldn't have anything to fear.

Chrono


It's very easy to say that but when faced with a 15 year sentence and you know the jury is in all likelihood not going to be on your side, would you risk that sentence? A jury is supposed to look at the facts but as soon as children are mentioned, even cartoon children you are risking the sort of reactions that have been seen on this thread.

I feel sorry for the guy, especially as it has now been shown he had thousands of comics and only 7 were deemed illegal.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin

You know, I was thinking of something very similar to this as I read through this thread. I have often thought about the oddness of certain laws here in the U.S. For example, when your 12-13-14 or so, in Jr. High (or whatever other places call it), and you flirt with the opposite sex, perhaps experiment a bit, etc. Then on into High School, 15-16-17, and your naturally attracted to people of that age group. Then you turn 18... and BAM. Suddenly, your not supposed to be attracted to your girlfriend/boyfriend because they are still 17... despite the fact that you have just spent the past few years developing an attraction to other teens because until now, you were one. I think people get too caught up in the whole age thing. Now I am not condoning actual abuse, and I agree that there should be a line in the sand somewhere, but where?



If sexual partners have age difference less than for example 3 years, then it should not be a crime. I think that is how it is in some countries.

A pedophile is a man attracted to prebubescent, sexually undeveloped children, with ages of less than 13 years.
Sexual attraction to 14 years and more teens is natural.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 




The law states that they must have no artistic merit. A........ artistic merit.
Here is the law. In 1973 the USC found that obscene pornography lay outside the First Amendment. miller v. California. That is the law.
Here is the prosecution in the OP case:
"The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene."

Further more in 82, child pornography is not protected speech. NY v Ferber.
2002 "Virtual Porn" deemed not abuse over ruling 1996 CPPA which was tabled to deal with the net and images, then we get Protect Act 2003.

Bye bye free speech argument.
Hello issue of obscene child porn.

If it was so easy to argue that it has artistic merit, why did he plead guilty? He admitted it was obscene.
And that regardless of what medium it is presented in, the purpose of the material is to specifically present minors in obscene sexual acts, acts of sexual abuse and acts of bestiality.


They're still not something i would read, i prefer Naruto, Rorouni Kenshin, Bleach etc.
I was a huge Akira fan years ago. But both our comments relating to Manga are pointless, it is like saying, "I don't watch child porn movies but I think it can be argued that it has artistic merit because I have watched Adult movies which I think are good".


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?
The 7 you mention all contained images of children in sex acts, being sexually abused or engaging in acts of bestiality. The authorities decided 6 years ago on this issue. 6 years ago. Where was your outrage then?
Over 80 books were also taken that were LO. Lolita Only books
He was charged relating to material after the Post Office seized goods that were mailed to him, that he purchased.
This man was aware of the Supreme courts Ashcroft V Free Speech Coalition 2002. But claims he knew nothing of Protect act of 2003. I find that odd.
I also find it odd that people think this is about free speech.

If you want to argue that it is art, go ahead. But it lies outside the limits of free speech.
The laws that he fell foul to were created after Ashcroft V free speech coalition.
This is still an ongoing battle in courts as the laws are tested and refined so that they do not broaden and become invasive.
Prosecutors notice that Pedophiles alter habits so as to circumvent laws. People that seek alternative depiction of child pornography go to anime, cut and paste pictures of minors or altered images of minors, onto the bodies of adults who where engaging in sex acts so as to distribute and trade images whilst still falling under free speech after Ashcroft v FSC. It is still happening all the time: www.abovetopsecret.com...
The US brought in USC 1466A. This was done in 2003. There have been many convictions already for similar offenses and some relating to Anime. Where were you in 2005 with Dwight Horley?

This man, in the OP, by his own admission, imported obscene images depicting children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality specifically for sexual gratification.
This has nothing to do with free speech.
It is about child porn.

Laws have been created to combat this behavior, because it is not something that people will tolerated. Nor will they be bullied into tolerating it by people who site 'free speech" like it is the only principle we live by.


Yep witch hunt, ......... pictures of real children.
This is where you are wrong. This is part of the process. The laws that this man fell foul of were created to prevent the creation, trade and distribution of material depicting children in obscene sex acts after reacting to a supreme courts decisions. He is not alone in this, he is not a scape goat nor unique. He is an example that people do not want to tolerate obscene images of children in sex acts or sexual abuse or in acts of bestiality no matter what medium they may be presented in. Period.


Oh and to repeat what someone else has already said

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.

Yes, I agree that your comment is insane, especially its generalization and its dramatics.
People are arrested for drawing all the time! Graffiti! But anyway-
Point out people who have been arrested for simply drawing.
Did the man draw the material?
Please show me where that has happened.
He was charged and pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing obscene images depicting children in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.
Who has been found guilty of simply drawing?
Just point one case out.
Where does the statute say that anyone simply "drawing something" will be prosecuted?
The law is specific. If you draw children in obscene sex acts, you should be worried. You should be worried on all sorts on levels, not just a legal one IMHO.


I don't engage in homosexuality therefore if they ban that i have lost no rights.
Are we discussing Homosexuality?
No.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.


I do not engage in using drugs or smoking, therefore i have lost no rights if they ban that.
Are we talking about drugs or smoking?
No.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.


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

Are we talking about football, and IF they ban football?
No.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

Your analogies are asinine at best.

My comment was to question:


quote by atlasastroThis 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........ Because my freedom and my speech has nothing to do with child porn.

And is does not. Obscene pornography and child pornography are not covered by free speech.


Man you just don't get what free speech is do you.
I get free speech. I also get that this issue is not about free speech as much as you would like to paint it as such, this is about obscene images depicting children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.


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.

This whole issue is about what is acceptable, on a huge scale. You don't get that. This relegates the issue outside freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is an ideology. It is not an absolute! We as a society set limits on it.
Just one of those limits is Obscene imagery of Children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.
It is also why we don't tolerate things like hate speech.
Why we don't tolerate people who incite violence.
Why we have censors and guidelines and ratings on material.
We have limits. Free speech is limited.


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.
I find your personal attacks weak. You may try to argue that my reasoning is to be construed as a general stance but you are wrong. My stance is specific, just as Freedom of speech is limited, so to is each and every individual. I draw my limit at Child porn as well, if the issue where one of the analogies you used, my stance would be different.


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.
I see child porn being taken away and restricted more and more, as it should be IMHO.
But porn in general is more prolific and available then ever before in history. The internet is clear evidence of that.
Your comment seems rather ridiculous in light of this ongoing restriction of obscene child porn imagery juxtaposed against the proliferation and access to Adult porn in general.

I read this in an Anime Chat relating to this issue and the claim that this mans prosecution is a threat to the first amendment and freedom of speech I think it sums it up:
Q:"Point me to the victim in this case. Point me to the person who Christopher Handley was victimizing such that he deserves to be prosecuted and fined and/or incarcerated for that person's protection, and all of our first amendment rights to free speech put in jeopardy."
A: "The general public, and I suppose the overall concept of decency. Glorifying and reinforcing these products, ideas, and urges only hinders society by allowing these ideas to be seen as acceptable. Not to mention the ever present possibility towards these ideas being passed on towards other people and evolving in shape and form (not unlike the concepts of sexism and racism) It may not be harming a real child directly, but the idea is festering, and can easily spread and have harmful indirect consequences if allowed to cultivate".


Thank you for the reply ImaginaryReality.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
People are arrested for drawing all the time! Graffiti! But anyway-


Trying to reply to your post is difficult because it is poorly punctuated and fragmented. So i'll just pick bits out the best i can.

Graffiti causes actual, real damage to somethign that exists and so it is not comparable. The fact you bring that up proves you have no clue what you are talking about and are unable to seperate reality from fiction.

As to the rest of your post, just because it is illegal does not mean it should be. It was only recently made illegal and you have shown no logical reason for it to be illegal. Lol you can argue that all you like all day long but you have shown no reason, AT ALL for it to be illegal other than you dislike it.


Originally posted by atlasastro
Are we discussing Homosexuality?
No.
We are discussing children being depicted in obscene sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.


Lol nice way of skipping over the agument, how very dishonest. You say you don't use this animated pornography and therefore your rights are not infringed, so it doesn't matter if it is banned. I was saying i am not a homosexual and so if someone bans that it doesn't matter and my rights are not infringed.

The two things are exactly the same in regards to rights and freedoms, the banning of either doesn't affect me, yet here i am defending both. You skip around that the best you can, you missed the point either intentionally or out of ignorance.





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join