Man Jailed For Cartoons Of Children

Originally posted by diakrite
ooh, that reminds me. Just read that in The Netherlands, bestiality is now officially forbidden by law.. Only a christian party could have cooked that one up. I would have never thought of sex with animals, let alone cobble up a law to prohibit it..

Actually, bestiality...aka soddomy, was forbidden by law until recently in the US.

Beastiality as in zoophilia is still legal in only 23 states. That means it is illegal in 27 states.

reply to post by zerbot565


Hmmm... I don't believe in book burning. My point is that a crime is committed when there's a victim. Characters in books don't qualify as victims, in my humble opinion.

reply to post by jeanvaljean


must have read that wrong somehow , i do agree that how can there be a crime if there is neither a victim nor foe

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You know what i find odd, there are many greek statues and roman ones that depict children. If someone spent months carving out a marble statue of children now, would they have to answer to this law? Or would the court decide it had merit as it was obviously art due to the amount of time spent making it?

That would be a very interesting test.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Good question.

Be forwarned though. there was, indeed, a time where genitals were considered inappropriate, so they cut off genitals from Greek masterpiece statues that [the church! Very important to state here] deemed "pornographic" Hence, A lot of Gods have had a d#ckless life for some time, until they were restored it in the 1900's. Just an example of what could happen.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by avatar01

 

*Yawn* Just another perfect example that if you don't stand for something you fall for anything.

That any of you can see anything right in child pornography astounds me.

Because that is what it is - artistic rendition, written word, or photo, it's still child porn.

Easy - If it's not child porn then what is it, and what is it used for?

It portrays sexual acts with children for the use of sexual gratification, child rape as the protagonist for the gratification...

What's that called? Child porn.

As to why this man can be jailed?

Because it's against the law.

peace

What is it then when these comics or tv/movies portray a murder, rape or other acts of violence? What is that called and what purpose are they used? By your logic those would be crimes just as well and people who make/use those should be jailed. You are drawing fantasy lines between imagination and reality based on your own personal beliefs and feelings. Your logic fails you on this issue.

[Edit to add] Twilight is a story about young girls choice between beastiality and necrofilia so that's a whole different can of worms

[edit on 14/2/2010 by PsykoOps]

This is a toughy, not because it solely relates to children but because in reality it doesn't exist, its a thought manifested on a piece of paper. That said I have two questions:

1. How do we know that they were cartoons of minors?
2. Why is this particular style of cartoon becoming so popular?

I think anything involving children is wrong, but in the eastern world don't the ladies dress up as school children in order to please a large amount of sexually frustrated businessman? I mean why should that be allowed and not cartoons of children.

I personally don't understand why any middle aged man would want to fantasize over children, let alone being dressed up as one and of course draw them? that said what is the difference between a thought and a manifested thought ? a couple of years in prison I suppose.

Erotic Fantasies of Japanese Men

High school girls in uniforms, pleated skirts hoisted up as high as possible without being indiscreet, thick white woollen socks drooped in multiple folds about the ankles. White shirts opened at the neck, hair dyed blonde, brunette, anything but black. These young Japanese girls are seen everywhere in Japan, at all times of the day and night, in groups of three or four, giggling and smiling, experimenting gently with their new-found sexuality. These japanese school girls seem to be aware of, and fascinated by, the effect they have on the opposite sex. They are sexy and they know it. They are the subject of many a Japanese man’s sexual fantasies. In fact high school girls are the number one sexual fantasy of Japanese men.

Edit to prove what I am trying to say, this is not pornographic its evidence to back up my writing.

Source of evidence

[edit on 14-2-2010 by franspeakfree]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


it might be argued by the court that the artist was obviously obsessed with children as sex objects as he spent months working on the said statue.

its time we re-introduced cloth covers on piano legs as they will definitely excite many men and encourage pornographic tendencies.

The law seems kind of silly and not consistent. I believe there is nothing worse on the planet than abuse to children, but if this man had a drawing of someone murdering a child would he be locked up for murdering a kid?


[edit on 14-2-2010 by zerotime]

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by diakrite
ooh, that reminds me. Just read that in The Netherlands, bestiality is now officially forbidden by law.. Only a christian party could have cooked that one up. I would have never thought of sex with animals, let alone cobble up a law to prohibit it..

Actually, bestiality...aka soddomy, was forbidden by law until recently in the US.

Beastiality as in zoophilia is still legal in only 23 states. That means it is illegal in 27 states.

Wow..never knew..

However, I meant it only as an illustration that it's very often the people that cobble up weird anti-sexuality laws that have a problem themselves. As stated, sex with animals hadn't even crossed my mind, until I read about it in some Dutch news-outlet named "nu.nl" or something. It is just odd to me to see those that are "against" so many things sexual, seem the most obsessed by it and (mentally, I might hope) explore the weirdest variations...

reply to post by silo13


If you're speaking about the general class of moral crimes, then substitution is fine. it's like substituting an artificial sweetener(I wouldn't if I were you, but that's beside the point)for normal sugar. It gives the necessary sweetness to the cake. Hot sauce is completely in another class- hot. Sweet can be substituted for sweet, despite other differences.

Same thing here. I COMPLETELY disagree with child porn and all that it means, but if you accept freedom of speech, then it's all or nothing, you must accept the good with the bad. and if you didn't have freedom of speech, would you be on here?

A lot of novels and movies depict children in sexual encounters. Every year there is an American Pie movie or a coming of age sex drama and as far as literature is concerned - well.. You get my point.
Maybe this is the whole problem. The general population has been so desensitized to child sexual exploitation in fiction and film (in spite of the fact that the actors/ actresses are over 18) that kids seem to think that this is the way to behave. We'll never get rid of promiscuity or stop kids from experimenting but I believe we can reduced and confine the problem if filmmakers, artist, and writers stop portraying children in an exploitative manner. Of course where there's money to be earned...
maybe I'm a prude but I got 3 daughters and a son and I do my best to raise a very conservative household where education and personal achievement is above everything else and so far so good.

The only reason child porn or any sexual abuse of children is illegal and wrong is because it hurts children.

Drawing pictures does not hurt anyone at all, a drawing of children having sex is only wrong because we say it is as a society, but logically it really isnt wrong or illegal or anything close to that, basically there is logically nothing wrong with it. You could even say it's natural that people end up drawing such things, since our imagination is limitless, and it's to be expected from people.

Our fear of "real" children getting hurt clouds our judgment on this topic, but it is simply a fantasy drawing, and it's freedom of thought and art.

I'd also say that anime style art is quite well unique and unrealistic art form, they may aswell be aliens.

I'd bet that many of the people who enjoy it fantasize because of the art style, and over the top cute looking characters and would never think about doing anything with a real life person, it probably disgusts them as much as anyone else, because well first of all they look nothing like manga characters lol.

But in the end what I think of the subject, well "meh" "blah" comes to mind.

Peace.


[edit on 14-2-2010 by _Phoenix_]

I got to page 3 and decided to post. If someone has already posted something along these lines I apologize. It was against the law and he was punished. I personally believe he was deserving of punishment. It was stated in the article that he was a collector. He obviously knew he was breaking the law. What motive he had I can't speculate on. He may have thought that 10 years from now those particular books would be worth quite a bit because of their content being banned here or he might have thought they would be worth a lot because of their age if the ban was ever lifted. I don't think he should have deliberately imported them. If he had actually authored the books himself he should have received a stricter punishment. The creation of a material object that offends the sensibilities of society and its laws is a thought crime because it took willful volition on the part of the author. The author might have those desires he depicts in the works but should keep them in his own mind if it may offend others. Especially if he is looking to financially benefit from them.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


This is absurd. We're talking about fictional characters who I assume have no resemblance to specific people let alone, this was manga, meaning the characters likely bore little resemblance to human beings at all (Japanese animation isn't known for its photorealism, half the characters have blue hair )

I think if it depicts a specific real minor or is photo-realistically drawn it should be illegal but as long as its a cartoon depiction of a fictional cartoon character there's really no reason to ban it IMO and definitely no reason for this person to be imprisoned or branded a sex offender.

If we're gonna ban anything I say let's ban Barbie Dolls, Hannah Montana and every PG-13 movie involving sex because those are far more culturally dangerous and far more damaging and dangerous to children.

Any excuse to make you slave labor in there prison factory's!

It's sick, but the thing is, if this man has some wierd child pornography fetish thing going on, I think it's so much better that if he has to do it, for it to be unreal manga/anime style. I mean the idea is really sick, but it dosn't harm a single person, and if no one ever found out about these pictues, NOBODY on the planet would be affected and would still live their lives normally day-to-day. So in the end, majorly sick, but no harm done to children, and children don't have to know about this.

I see it being similar to GTA, the game. I mean the idea of being able to go round killing whoever you want however you want is sick, but isn't it much better being done on a game?

ok so i have a son, i have of piture of him getting his first bath... in which he is naked, at a mear couple of days old? should i also be tried for child pornography? does it hurt children everywhere? am i exploiting him? its one of the cutest pictures ever...

Do i View this as something sexual? (H#LL NO)

Can you give your child a bath and not be called a child moelster beacuse you have to clean them throughly, or will cases like this where people having an illustration of a character that only exists on paper, will be charged in a court of statutes...

ITS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION... The man is being charged with a thought crime, no an actual crime. if he is charged, who will be charged next and for what, like having pitures of their own kids playing in the tub...

So technically we can be charged, with having any images of children who are naked, and under megan's law will will be considered pedophiles (if i have that correct) and will be protrayed as such with fliers and go door to door staing who we are and what we were charged with....

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


You can find me on many threads calling for the torturous death of child molesters and rapists. However, i agree with you here. As disgusting as it is, they are drawings. I believe if those with such perversions are able to direct their energies to fake images, and it keeps them from going after real children, then it's none of my business. The moment they harm a real child, they should be fed their own entrails.

I say it's harmless. There is no victim at all. To the person that said it harms children everywhere, can you demonstrate how this is the case? I mean I agree that it's nasty, but would you rather have someone who has a fetish for children pleasure himself in the privacy of his own home, or actually act on his inhibitions and find a real child? If that is illegal, then it must also be illegal to make cartoons depicting other crimes in them like murder, theft, etc. Afterall that harms people everywhere, RIGHT? If you are in support of this guy going to jail, then you must be in support of sending anybody who's ever drawn an illegal act to jail. The bottom line is that it is both FAKE and victimless. If you watch a rape scene in a movie and pleasure yourself to it, should you be jailed? After all it depicts women as sex objects and promotes rape.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Barcs]

reply to post by nvprose1


You bring up an excellent point in regard to ridiculous child porn laws_the naked baby picture.

Is there a real reason you need a picture of a naked baby?

So this guy who had cartoon porn gets six months, while millions of parents get a pass for ACTUAL CHILD NUDITY PICTURES.