Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

page: 22
38
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
No, the guy should not be jailed. It would raise some concern though. If he does have this "disease" then I feel, the drawings would only fuel it. It's not like a cartoon has a valid ID. How am I to know the age of a cartoon unless of course, it's blatant. I think once we cross that line of throwing people in jail for what FICTION they look at or read, then we find ourselves walking on egg shells. Now if it was completely obvious that he had a sick obsession with chilldren, then personally, he would be high up on my A-hole list.




posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
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 100% ridiculous. Unless children are now being made of paper and ink, then no children were harmed. This is not an issue of harm to children, it is an issue of expression.

We don't really know what he had. So, a lot of you are judging without even having any proof. Unless, you feel comfortable completely trusting the government or the media.....lol.

These are cartoon pictures, not real people. It's ink on paper, I don't care what it seems to depict, it is a drawing. And, drawings are a form of expression. Which are protected by the United States Constitution.

Whoever judged them as "for the sole purpose of sexual gratification". I want to know their qualifications for doing so.

Stephen King's novel "IT", has a scene of child group sex.
Why is that art, but this is not?

The album "Virgin Killer" by Scorpions, shows a completely nude real child on the front. Why is that art, but this is not?

What right do they have to declare something art or not?
What method did they use to determine that?
Did they just look at them and go "it's sexual"?
What about the pages that depict no sex and/or no characters?
How do you know the characters are children?
How do you know they don't suffer from Kallman's?
Maybe they have Anageria?
What if they are "Little People" and just look like children?
Maybe they are Hobbits?

The age of consent in most states, is 16...not 18 as is commonly thought.

If these characters are Asian characters, then they could very well be age of consent, but look young to American eyes.

REALITY:
In the US, we can only put people on trial who violate the rights of another human.

A comic book is not a human. A comic book has no rights. A comic book is not a child.

The real criminals here, are the ones who arrested him and put him on trial. He has not violated anyone's rights.

The Protect Act is absolutely un-Constitutional.


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."


This is the only real crime, the violation of Handley's privacy.





[edit on 18-2-2010 by Byteman]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
The man purchased the cartoons from Japan where they are legal but was prosecuted in the USA as he was a US citizen. Therefore the artists have not been imprisoned. If they were US citizens then they would have been.


Well, the US is extradititing Marc Emory (a Canadian) for selling hemp seeds to US citizens through the mail.

Marc is a Canadian and hemp seeds are legal there to sell.

What's the difference?



i was thinking the same thing.
free marc emery!
legalize cannabis! (another victimless crime)

-subfab



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

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]


the way people feel about this topic will depend entirely on their backround. if a person was/is abused, then they will have one way of thinking of the topic and vice versa.

-subfab



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOmen
reply to post by Slippery Jim
 


I believe you are being VERY contradictory.

I would not let a man who has looked at these child porn comics, look after my kids.

That does not mean I am up high on my morale horse, it just simply means I do not trust a man who looks at these images, look after ANY kids.

Saying that, until the man commits a crime i.e. looking at REAL child porn, or abuses any child, he is innocent in my eyes. However, I personally wouldn't give him the oppurtunity to commit such an offense. But he shouldn't be imprisoned for looking at comic books with these images.


[SNiP]
You wouldn't let any man who at looked child porn comics look after your kids.

"Saying that, until the man commits a crime i.e. looking at REAL child porn, or abuses any child, he is innocent in my eyes."

Let him look after your child. See what happens [SNIP]!

How stupid can you be? Please PM me your name and address so I can alert the authorities.

 


Removed censor circumvention

[edit on 20/2/10 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   



the way people feel about this topic will depend entirely on their backround. if a person was/is abused, then they will have one way of thinking of the topic and vice versa.

-subfab


Don't be [SNIP] pathetic!

I was not abused as a child. Anyone who wasn't and thinks this is so wrong is not a bad person.

Why are you making apologies for this pervert?

Are you honestly saying you think its okay for a grown man to have cartoon images of adults having sex with minors?

Really?

Really???

I think you should have a long, hard look at yourself.

 


removed censor circumvention

[edit on 20/2/10 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Mumbotron
it helps to breed a culture in which grown adults are walking around thinking of children in a way that is unnatural and unhealthy for the children. There is a line somewhere that needs to be drawn to protect our most valuable resource and our future. Where that line is or how it should be drawn, I'm not sure but it's the kind of thing that is worth working towards.


What we know is that the Colombine kids watched and loved movies like Natural Born Killers...we dont even know if they seen a porn in their life.

These teens/young adults murdered many students, murdered teachers, then killed themselves. They played violent video games and watched violent movies.

A argument of banning all forms of violence in games and television almost makes sense if you consider the actual effects...if your stating that people that watch stuff become what they watch, then by default you would also see the logic and reason to ban all crime forms because of how it programs the mind.

Please give a response back that doesn't make you sound like a hypocrite.

Sorry, haven't checked in in a while. Well, in an attempt to reclaim my non-hypocrite status, I would like to start by pointing out that I stated I wouldn''t touch on the freedom issue... for a reason. I think many of you have cleared that up to some degree. The only thing worth pointing out or acknowledging is that breeding a culture that enjoys or fixates on things that can invariably destroy that culture is dangerous (not exactly rocket science). Can you say dangerous? Kids are smart enough to understand this, we just need to tell them (and in some cases the adults too). If we can agree on that fact then we can make some kind of progress. I never advocated censorship in my hypocracy defense.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slippery Jim



the way people feel about this topic will depend entirely on their backround. if a person was/is abused, then they will have one way of thinking of the topic and vice versa.

-subfab


Don't be f******g pathetic!

I was not abused as a child. Anyone who wasn't and thinks this is so wrong is not a bad person.

Why are you making apologies for this pervert?

Are you honestly saying you think its okay for a grown man to have cartoon images of adults having sex with minors?

Really?

Really???

I think you should have a long, hard look at yourself.


I am merely saying that a person's history directly effects their thoughts and actions today. i am not saying the cartoon is ok or not ok.

an easy way to settle the legality of the cartoon is this:

1. go to your local borders bookstore or video sales store.
2. ask to order the cartoon.

if you can purchase the video then the guy should not go to jail
if you can not purchase the video (for reasons oulined in this thread) then the guy should be punished for the crime of owning the banned video.

-subfab



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
its a sad day when people get arrested JUST INCASE they mite commit a crime.

we all watch films with murder, robbery, rape, terrorism in them...we watch them and find it entertaining...but you dont get arrested for that do u?

altho child porn is sick the guy hasnt even been in contact with kids..only drawings not worthy of a prison sentence...



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Slippery Jim
 





Are you honestly saying you think its okay for a grown man to have cartoon images of adults having sex with minors?


Is it okay for a grown man to have a movie depicting rape or murder? If you demand the censorship of cartoons do you also demand the censorship of movies that depict crimes?



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I can understand the argument that such things, in circulation, even if just cartoons, might feed the genre as well as individual obsession.
On the other hand, what about the murders and other crimes committed on our TV screens every day in the name of entertainment? What about video games? What about the many examples of fairly graphic 'art' already out there?
On balance I don't think someone should be prosecuted for this. For a start, it's dangerously close to being prosecuted for a 'thought crime'. How long before someone from one of these forums is hauled off for saying something considered anti -government?
Though if someone is already under investigation for an actual crime, the possession of such material should form part of the evidence.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by unicorn1]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by unicorn1
I can understand the argument that such things, in circulation, even if just cartoons, might feed the genre as well as individual obsession.


Once again, i have linked an article which lists numerous studies and statistics that seems to show, very clearly that the availablility of this form of pornography leads to a decrease in actual, physical child abuse. I will happily keep this stuff legal if a child is saved from abuse because of it's existence.


Originally posted by unicorn1
On balance I don't think someone should be prosecuted for this. For a start, it's dangerously close to being prosecuted for a 'thought crime'. How long before someone from one of these forums is hauled off for saying something considered anti -government?
Though if someone is already under investigation for an actual crime, the possession of such material should form part of the evidence.


Either it's legal or isn't, you cannot say that if they have it and they're a real child abuser it can then be used as evidence. Any real pornography they have should of course be used to prosecute them.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Bring it on. Lets outlaw depictions of murder, rape, and violence on tv. And how about the adultery on the Soap Operas. Clean up everything. Some people get off on these sick Soap Operas with dysfunctional immoral people. All these sick reality shows where people are eating bugs to get a chance at some money.

Cartoons are extremely violent on tv also! I think outlawing all of this would be an excellent idea.

This sick person has been absorbing all this other sick garbage on tv so long he probably went on to the next level.

This Satanic brainwashing media machine is obviously having a negative effect on the population as a whole. I don't even watch television anymore as it is just too bizarre, confusing and violent.

Entertainment should comply with the Ten Commandments. Don't judge others when you are most probably participating in something equally as immoral.

I wish they would clean things up. But I know none of this will be outlawed as these people in control are devils looking for a tool to criminalize citizens. the government is collecting taxes on all this garbage and they like it themselves.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984


Once again, i have linked an article which lists numerous studies and statistics that seems to show, very clearly that the availablility of this form of pornography leads to a decrease in actual, physical child abuse. I will happily keep this stuff legal if a child is saved from abuse because of it's existence.
The banning of this material is also about perceived risk from a minors point of view. Not a pedophiles point of view of whether they have access to this material as a means to avoid or stop abusing children.
I find you narrow point of view astounding.
This is not only about Pedophiles and people who like images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

There are other methods available so as to avoid abusing kids besides access to images of children being sexual abused that do not carry the risks associated with these pornographic images of children.

When are you going to acknowledge that?
That this issue is not about the rights of people that use this material, people you yourself admit you would not let near children.
"YOu see i agree that he shouldn't work with children," post by ImaginaryReality1984


You acknowledge the risk these people present, yet continuously ignore that these laws are about reducing the risk they present by relegating it to a matter of free speech.


Despite this lack of knowledge, we know that abuse images of children are used by abusers for
some of the following purposes:

• To expose children to such images and gradually create an impression that such image are made by many people and therefore it is normal and acceptable to engage in sexual activity with children, preparing and leading to actual abuse;

• To increase fantasies that offenders have, stimulate and lead them to actual abuse; and

• To use the images to break down defences in children, stimulate their curiosity and groom
children (that is to trick or tempt them) into involvement – by falsely claiming this type of exchange is normal and not harmful.

www.ecpat.net...

This is why we have these laws.

Am I clear on your stance: You would rather that these people have these materials because you think it reduces risk regardless of the fact that there are many other options of help, advice, medical, psychological alternatives to combating a persons urge to abuse kids, alternatives that do not carry any of the risks associated with them that this child pornography carries with it?

This is your logic: To reduce risk, you would encourage an activity that carries known risks of harm to children.

That is not reducing risk. It is argued that this is reducing risk by normalization of a behavior so that it is no longer thought of as a risk.
Like the studies you mention, the key phrase you use it that it "seems to reduce" harm.
Have you considered that the reason why these incidents "seem' to have been reduced is that the material is used to normalize the abuse to children, so that they do not report the crime, because they think it is normal?
That is the risk that you take!


Once again, i have linked an article which lists numerous studies and statistics that seems to show, very clearly that the availablility of this form of pornography leads to a decrease in actual, physical child abuse. I will happily keep this stuff legal if a child is saved from abuse because of it's existence.

You are happy to accept a solution that carries risk to children.
Other people are not.
The most logical approach would be to offer solutions with the least amount of risk of harm and abuse to children.
Would you agree with that or not?
Just some of these solutions are Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Medications, Hormone treatment, making images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality illegal.

These all attempt to reduce risk without inducing a risk to children as a side effect.
That would seem logical given that the aim, primarily, is to reduce risk and harm to children and not to remove the rights of pedophiles or other people who enjoy images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. the removal of those rights is a side effect of protecting children, nothing more.

You are not willing to accept the side effects of the effort to protect the interests of children. In fact, you do not even recognize these as such and only focus on the interests and rights of the offender.

That is the issue.

Rather than putting out material of children in images of sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality and hoping that this "would seem" to reduce risk at a cost of normalization of this activity, providing visual tools that encourage the idea and tools for offenders to integrate into their methods and habits of child abuse.

You risk that children can be groomed and educated by pedophiles of first offenders using these cartoons.
You risk that kids will think it is ok, and normal.
That is why we have bans on this material.
Because people think the interests of children are more important than the rights of pedophiles or people who enjoy images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse or bestiality.

You believe this approach is wrong. Because of a principle of free speech.
Your principles relating to free speech over ride your desire to protect the interests of children.
Don't mince your words or try and obfuscate the issue.
This is what you believe.
If you disagree with these laws, you disagree with their purpose and function.
You prefer the principle of free speech relating to images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality over serving the interests and welfare of children.

Whilst I will agree that there is not enough known to be certain about the relationship between material of this type and its effects on the cause of actual abuse, the doubt swings both ways. We don't know enough to be sure that it does not lead to direct abuse in every case. What we DO know is that this material is used, and thus, probably will be used by pedophiles to abuse kids.

In light of this, the safest course of action is to act in the best interests of children by banning the material at the expense of pedophiles and other people who would otherwise enjoy looking at children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

It seems this is a course of action, that is designed to reduce the risk and potential harm to kids, is something you cannot tolerate given your empathy and sympathy for the rights of people who enjoy looking at images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

An empathy and sympathy that does not extend any further than that principle, as you are only serving your self righteous sense of what is right purely relating to a principle of free speech, and not what is right in terms of protecting the welfare and interests of all the children within the shared society.

Awesome dude.


P.S. Still a keyboard warrior or have you contacted your representative regarding your concern?
Did you donate to Handley's Defense?
What have your neighbors thought about the issue, you did canvas them right?
They must be outraged that their rights have been eroded, specifically the right to produce, receive and possess images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.

They must be so glad to have you as a community member, given you care more for a principle then the interests of those you live with in relation to a specific matter of images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality.


Keep up the good work!



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


The issue is simple. If we are going to censor this type of material because it depicts a crime then why not outlaw all material that depicts a crime.

What do you believe censorship will prevent?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
There are other methods available so as to avoid abusing kids besides access to images of children being sexual abused that do not carry the risks associated with these pornographic images of children.

You acknowledge the risk these people present, yet continuously ignore that these laws are about reducing the risk they present by relegating it to a matter of free speech.


The stdy you linked appears to talk about pornography involving real children and therefore your point is mute in comparison. Further the above comments you make are in complete disagreement with the EVIDENCE. The study i linked gives very clear evidence that the availability of these images actively prevents abuse of real children. This law does not help children at all, all it does is force offenders to stay well underground and use images of real children being abused.

Once again your standpoint is more likely to lead to the abuse of real, living, actual, children.


Originally posted by atlasastro
Am I clear on your stance: You would rather that these people have these materials because you think it reduces risk regardless of the fact that there are many other options of help, advice, medical, psychological alternatives to combating a persons urge to abuse kids, alternatives that do not carry any of the risks associated with them that this child pornography carries with it?

This is your logic: To reduce risk, you would encourage an activity that carries known risks of harm to children.


Once again you say it causes known harm but the evidence is to the contrary. Your study talked about images involving real children! It appears to me that paedophiels using these fake images do so because they don't want a child harmed. I talked earlier about self hating paedophiles. Some of them get help but most (i believe) don't get help because, well do you think someone is going to go somewhere and admit to being a paedophile? No they're not, so keep these images legal so that they can have their fix and not hurt anyone.



Originally posted by atlasastro
Have you considered that the reason why these incidents "seem' to have been reduced is that the material is used to normalize the abuse to children, so that they do not report the crime, because they think it is normal?
That is the risk that you take!


Did you read the studies? Obviously not. It was stated clearly that the opinion of society had not changed, child abuse was still seen as a terrible thing. It appears that you don't care for evidence at all, you just want it banned, without any logical basis.


Originally posted by atlasastro
You are happy to accept a solution that carries risk to children.



No i am not, again check the evidence. I'm getting very tired of you, you read the evidence and ignore it. Are you a creationist as well?



Originally posted by atlasastro
Just some of these solutions are Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Medications, Hormone treatment, making images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality illegal.


There is no proven treatment for paedophilic behavior just as there is no treatment for homosexual behavior (i'm not saying we need to treat homosexuals but it has been tried). This shows your true ignorance on the topic.


Originally posted by atlasastro
These all attempt to reduce risk without inducing a risk to children as a side effect.
That would seem logical given that the aim, primarily, is to reduce risk and harm to children and not to remove the rights of pedophiles or other people who enjoy images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality. the removal of those rights is a side effect of protecting children, nothing more.


Having to repeat myself is getting tiring. The studies suggest, along with epidemiological evidence that when a society has access to these animated images that abuse rates go down. Just like rape rates go down when normal and rape pornography is available.


Originally posted by atlasastro
You are not willing to accept the side effects of the effort to protect the interests of children. In fact, you do not even recognize these as such and only focus on the interests and rights of the offender.

That is the issue.


No i recognise that this pornography can actively prevent the abuse of children by allowing the offenders to get their fix. Your attempt to turn this around and make it seem like i don't care about the children is pathetic.



Originally posted by atlasastro
You risk that children can be groomed and educated by pedophiles of first offenders using these cartoons.


Any offender that actually grooms children will just use real pornography. I mean seriously if they're going to act on their urges you really think they won't cross that line?


Originally posted by atlasastro

Whilst I will agree that there is not enough known to be certain about the relationship between material of this type and its effects on the cause of actual abuse, the doubt swings both ways. We don't know enough to be sure that it does not lead to direct abuse in every case. What we DO know is that this material is used, and thus, probably will be used by pedophiles to abuse kids.


Hang on you've just been going on and on about how it does cause abuse and you even linked a study which you thought proved your point! Even thoughthat study appears to have been talking about pictures of real children, not animated stuff.

You just massively contradicted yourself.


Originally posted by atlasastro
An empathy and sympathy that does not extend any further than that principle, as you are only serving your self righteous sense of what is right purely relating to a principle of free speech, and not what is right in terms of protecting the welfare and interests of all the children within the shared society.



Yet again you try and turn this around as if i don't care about chidlren. This form of tactic in a debate is transparent and it is only done by someone who is losing an argument.

I care about the children, i recognise that the studies appear to show that this animated stuff can reduce the rates of real abuse and at the same time i realise that these images are not real and so should be allowed. If you could provide any proof that having animated images available increases the rate of abuse of real children then i would absolutely be for banning them.


Originally posted by atlasastro
P.S. Still a keyboard warrior or have you contacted your representative regarding your concern?


You obviously don't read my posts do you, i'm not an American so what can i do to change american laws? But once again you are not debating the law, only attacking me to try and win an argument with an ad hom attack.


I won't be bothering with you again because you provide no evidence at all for your claims, you contradict yourself and finally you add little insults in there to try and cause people reading your post to lose their logical perspective.

Not worth my time.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by atlasastro
 


The issue is simple. If we are going to censor this type of material because it depicts a crime then why not outlaw all material that depicts a crime.

What do you believe censorship will prevent?


Probably because there is very little evidence of murders and rapes being depicted in the media which actively promote those crimes. Everything I have ever seen makes it quite clear that these are bad things and not accepted in society. Can you show me one example in the mainstream media where the victim of a rape or murder actually enjoys what is being done to them?

Cartoon child porn, on the other hand, is implicitely saying it is okay. The minors depicted (and I'm just assuming this because I've never watched any of it - perhaps some of those who are arguing that it should be allowed actually have!) are complicit and enjoy the sexual act?

Doesn't this encourage the viewer to think its okay to act out his fantasies in real life?

Thats what Atlasastro is saying and he/she is absolutely correct.

As I said earlier, if you think this type of person has every right to watch cartoon child porn but you're not happy to let them babysit your children you are a hypocrite of the highest order. You think they may be a danger to your kids but you'll defend their right to be a danger to anyone else's kids just so you can keep your credentials as a free-thinking liberal.

And I'd join in his/her call for all those claiming cartoon child porn is acceptable to go out on the streets and petition their friends, neighbours and colleagues that this material should be allowed under the law and a God given right for all people who find it sexually stimulating.

I suggest you start at a local school. You can stand ouside the gates handing out flyers.

Edited to add vitriol. Second edit for a typo.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Slippery Jim]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Slippery Jim]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
In Japan, there is whole different psychology about sex...and their boundaries are wider and more expressive than here in the Anal-Retentive West.
Cos Play is huge there, and diaper lovers go to school wearing diapers and vinyl pants...especially by the young teen girls who wear short school uniform skirts...which exposes their diaper. It is accepted as nothing weird.
Lolita's are popular characters, and Lolita clothing is big business. The Bar districts of some Japanese cities cater to men who want fantasy girls...which is where you'll find Lady-Boys,( trans-genders ) Cos Players, School Girls, all playing a role to cater to the sex industry. In some rarer instances; Gayboys (minors) are available. When I was stationed there in the sixties, I was at a bar when it closed at 2:00 Am, and then the real stage shows began. It started off with a tiny little woman who looked like she could have been 12, ( but wasn't ) and a Shetland pony...you fill in the details.
In the sixties on Japanese TV, Rape and incest where common themes in Japanese daytime soap opera's. Many of the shows were set in Feudal Shogun times, and some warlord would commonly take a prize from the local village; a young beautiful girl whom he'd Rape repeatedly. It was visceral, gut wrenching, and scary stuff to watch for a westerner. But totally normal over there in their culture.

This was when Japanese comic books would graphically show sexual acts, especially between a young girl and some older male. Some themes seem to be a part of their culture. I know it is common in other parts of the Far East too, where it isn't taboo according to Religion. A more "softer" example of what goes on, was the film "SlumDog Millionaire" which took place in India, where the child sex trades are prevalent. Pretty raw stuff. I am actually surprised that it made it to the USA theaters.

As a feisty kid in high school, I regularly drew "dirty" cartoons until I did one of my study hall teacher as a Nazi Drag Queen, who was getting oral satisfaction from a coed that looked like one of the girls in the room.
I got expelled for it too. It caused a huge brouhaha...and a lot of laughter.

He had it out for me the rest of the school year. The gal hated me for the next three years. No senses of humor apparently!

Art is subjective. One student made a huge clay phallus and put it in the kiln to be fired. He was actually going to have it graded as an art project...the teacher wasn't impressed. He got sent home. His creation was destroyed.
I believe it would have won a prize in Japan! Of course the girls in the 10th grade all acted like they had just been debauched when they saw what he had made on the sly. Americans freak, and Japanese women pay homage to the phallus as a fertility symbol at a famous shrine. Go figure.

If the man in the case here, drew his pictures for his own use, and amusement...that is no one's business. If he was going to post them online, or sell them here in the USA, then he should have known nothing but a firestorm of trouble would hit him. Americans are sexual clucks...and can't handle anything "Avant Garde Risque"

Has anyone here ever watched an Anime cartoon purchased from a Japanese video store? Not the "censored stuff" they sell here...

Has anyone ever seen some of the NAUGHTY deck of cards GI's brought home from France in WW2? WHOA NELLY!

I was in Korea in 1987, and in the outskirts of OSAN, I was hit on all the time in back alley ways by women who were selling young girls, for $15 US. It really angered me when I found out that one of my guys took one of these gals for a full week end. I turned him in to the Base Commander. The girl was 11, and my own daughter was 11 at that time. Legal or not over there, that is not acceptable behavior from American Military Personnel. He was busted and sent home, and faced legal actions here. Rightly so.

Child prostitution is evil, and robs a child's soul of all happiness. So does child pornography.

I think some of the obtuse hard liners who would instantly condemn an artist for his "Right" to create and express, need to wise up to what is going on in the rest of world. Actual child porn is not excused, of course. Nor should it be.

But just as two teen kids in one their rooms out from under the watchful eyes of parents, will exercise their friends with benefits relationship, you must not be so prudish to think that "minors" aren't doing things they shouldn't be. Hell, they're getting more sex than the adults!

If this man was trying to skirt the law by drawing filthy and illegal imagery of children, then he should be held accountable. The court has to prove his intent. I'll be willing to bet, they do, and he is jailed and fined.

I have seen some vivid examples here in the USA of Artists pushing to extremes the ANIME character. I saw some really raunchy stuff in the late 90's of the Sailor Moon characters that was for sale. It was being turned out by the graphic artists who worked within the silk screen print industry, and one famous California fiberglass sculpture studio. No one was jailed.

In 1966 I saw a poster that was for sale in a San Bernardino Head Shop of all Disney characters involved in a gang sex depiction with Snow White...it was $35.00.
A lot of cash for something like that then. Somebody drew it, painted it, had it printed and distributed...somewhere out there, copies still exist. Poor Snow White.

Artists are a wild bunch and hard to pull reigns on...I know, I was a working graphic artist for 30 years.

But, it should never be "anything goes" in art. Drawing Kiddie Porn is not acceptable, if that is what it was.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Is it okay for a grown man to have a movie depicting rape or murder?
Yes it is currently o.k. to make these movies etc. When are you people going to actually acknowledge that this issue is about what we TOLERATE.

We tolerate a great deal in the interest of free speech. So yes, it is o.k. to make movies about rape and murder etc. Because people tolerate it even though they disagree with it.

When it comes to images of children in sexual acts, sexual abuse and bestiality, there is zero tolerance.

You people just don't get it. You want to equate this material with all other material.
This material is not covered by free speech. It is that simple. Get that through your thick heads.
Free speech is limited.
It is not an absolute.
It is a principle.

The original law was changed in 2002 so as to not infringe on other forms of media and images and industries like Hollywood. So all the fools here that have claimed that more rights and expression of free speech are at risk, you are wrong.

So, in 2002 the USC had acted in the exact opposite manner to which the OP and others have inferred or suggested in relation to the loss of further rights or a threat to material that depicts crimes etc.
I can only feel that this is an attempt to incite fear and paranoia via Dis-info so as to veil a personal preference or support of these images.
Is this a conspiracy to gather support for child porn O.P?

Serious questions need to be asked of those that are trying to argue for these images. Especially when they will use fear and paranoia to coerce others into supporting such material by falsely siting restrictions on freedom of speech.


If you demand the censorship of cartoons do you also demand the censorship of movies that depict crimes?
You can, but will that happen?

Yes, you can demand that people censor movies that depict crime.
We already do that. We have censors in place to classify material. But it is not illegal to make or possess movies that depict other crimes.
But asking to make them illegal and a crime is another matter. These are covered by the first amendment.
Images of children is sex acts are not. They are not covered or tolerated. Just like we don't tolerate racism or hate speech.

The question is, will a move to make movies illegal and punishable by imprisonment be tolerated by society.
The answer is no. A move to make movies that depict other crimes illegal would not be tolerated.

Because we tolerate a lot of things.
But images of children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality are not tolerated.

If this conflicts with your principles relating to free speech, do something about it. Simple.
People have challenged the laws in a number of cases. This is what helped refine the laws and how the Protect act of 2003 was formed so as to be more specific.

Go on.
Don't sit there shaking your head.
Fight the cause to promote the tolerance of these images. I am cool with these laws, I have no problem with this material being illegal.
So this is the OP's fight and all those that claim "its only a cartoon".

Get off your arses and stand up for the right to view children in sex acts, sexual abuse and bestiality or simply STFU.

It is that simple.





posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 





Yes it is currently o.k. to make these movies etc. When are you people going to actually acknowledge that this issue is about what we TOLERATE.

We tolerate a great deal in the interest of free speech. So yes, it is o.k. to make movies about rape and murder etc. Because people tolerate it even though they disagree with it.


It seems you tolerate what you are told to tolerate. You support the depiction of rape and murder...



You people just don't get it. You want to equate this material with all other material. This material is not covered by free speech. It is that simple. Get that through your thick heads.


I still need some help getting it through my thick head. Where in the first amendment is there a limitation on cartoons? The first amendment is only limited when it infringes on others rights. How does a drawing infringe on someone's rights? And what right in specific does it infringe on.




The original law was changed in 2002 so as to not infringe on other forms of media and images and industries like Hollywood. So all the fools here that have claimed that more rights and expression of free speech are at risk, you are wrong.


I don' think you understand the concept of legal precedent. Do you understand the precedent being set?




Is this a conspiracy to gather support for child porn O.P?

Serious questions need to be asked of those that are trying to argue for these images. Especially when they will use fear and paranoia to coerce others into supporting such material by falsely siting restrictions on freedom of speech.


Here we go... When we can't convince others to agree with us then we will attack them and make false accusations. This lame strategy is used all over these boards i.e. those who are against the war must be terrorist, those who are against "health care reform" must be racist, those who support gun ownership must support school shootings. This tactic is lame and never works and your attempt to bully people in to submission is weak.

You support the "right" to depict rape and murder in movies, does that mean you are a rapist or murderer?




Yes, you can demand that people censor movies that depict crime.


Actually no I can't and neither can you. It is protected. And I would argue against any attack on the first amendment regardless of what guise it comes in.




But asking to make them illegal and a crime is another matter. These are covered by the first amendment.


Why? Why is one form of media protected but another isn't. What is you logic here?



Just like we don't tolerate racism or hate speech.


A great example of how precedent justifies further infringements on the first amendment.




The answer is no. A move to make movies that depict other crimes illegal would not be tolerated.


Sure it would. Just as you have illustrated, the majority of people in this Country tolerate what they are told to tolerate. You would be on these boards accusing those who argue against such infringements as being for rape. The rest of your simplistic argument could be applied perfectly for further infringements.




[edit on 1-3-2010 by harvib]





new topics
 
38
<< 19  20  21   >>

log in

join