Possible 20 years in prison for owning manga? Support the CBLDF!

24

Posts

  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    While it's easy to talk about the morality of the situation, and the desire to think of the children, situations like this present a slippery slope. Anyone here own a copy of American Beauty? Congrats pedo, you have Thora Birch's seventeen year old titties on tape. Please alert the police immediately.

    It's illegal to own an actual snuff film, or video in which someone is raped. So everyone who owns a comic where someone is raped or murdered should probably go toss them out, just to be sure. Burn Identity and Infinite Crisis to be double-sure. Have a copy of Lost Girls? Get rid of it, fucking sicko. Fables? Yeah, Goldilocks fucking Bluebeard and talking about getting it from Baby Bear's probably iffy. Get rid of it. Irreversible had a 10+ minute long rape scene in it, and I saw that shit at my local video store. Hopefully no one sees it and gets impure thoughts. Ditto Hounddog, Descent, Blue Velvet, and countless other films.

    Anyone here a fan of the Song of Ice and Fire books? I only read two of them, and off hand I recall a teenager being gang-raped by three soldiers, marauding barbarians throwing a teenage girl face-first into a pile of corpses and raping her, incest between a brother and sister, and a few teenaged girls being sold into marriage, later forced to have sex with their new husbands.

    Let's not even touch on videogames. That shit's a gimme.

    See where I'm going with this?

    Munch on
  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited December 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    That's a slippery slope argument and you know it.

    This isn't the thin end of the wedge for the gubmint to censor our thoughts and lives. It is simply 110% wrong to ever think of an underage character in a sexual way.* Doesn't matter that 99% of reades won't go out and rape some kids. It's still promoting the idea that underage people can be though of sexually, which is deeply wrong.




    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    Then you're probably not the right person to be objective about this.

    kdrudy on
    tvsfrank.jpg
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Munch wrote: »
    While it's easy to talk about the morality of the situation, and the desire to think of the children, situations like this present a slippery slope. Anyone here own a copy of American Beauty? Congrats pedo, you have Thora Birch's seventeen year old titties on tape. Please alert the police immediately.

    It's illegal to own an actual snuff film, or video in which someone is raped. So everyone who owns a comic where someone is raped or murdered should probably go toss them out, just to be sure. Burn Identity and Infinite Crisis to be double-sure. Have a copy of Lost Girls? Get rid of it, fucking sicko. Fables? Yeah, Goldilocks fucking Bluebeard and talking about getting it from Baby Bear's probably iffy. Get rid of it. Irreversible had a 10+ minute long rape scene in it, and I saw that shit at my local video store. Hopefully no one sees it and gets impure thoughts. Ditto Hounddog, Descent, Blue Velvet, and countless other films.

    Anyone here a fan of the Song of Ice and Fire books? I only read two of them, and off hand I recall a teenager being gang-raped by three soldiers, marauding barbarians throwing a teenage girl face-first into a pile of corpses and raping her, incest between a brother and sister, and a few teenaged girls being sold into marriage, later forced to have sex with their new husbands.

    Let's not even touch on videogames. That shit's a gimme.

    See where I'm going with this?
    Also every guy that lost his virginity to an under-aged girl should probably go turn themselves in now. Those of you that only had sex when you and your girlfriend had already turned 18(not seventeen you pervs, I can't believe you'll get off on a technicality in some states) can continue this debate once we've gone.

    nightmarenny on
    Quire.jpg
  • GR_ZombieGR_Zombie Krillin It Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It's a shame this guy couldn't get treatment before this kind of thing happened. Guess the prospect of having to register as a sex offender and being despised by everyone around you when you've never actually done anything wasn't preferable to trying to hiding it and indulging any urges you have in harmless cartoons.

    GR_Zombie on
    04xkcuvaav19.png
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    That's a slippery slope argument and you know it.

    This isn't the thin end of the wedge for the gubmint to censor our thoughts and lives. It is simply 110% wrong to ever think of an underage character in a sexual way.* Doesn't matter that 99% of reades won't go out and rape some kids. It's still promoting the idea that underage people can be though of sexually, which is deeply wrong.




    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.
    Neuroses should never be used as a basis for law.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    That's a slippery slope argument and you know it.

    This isn't the thin end of the wedge for the gubmint to censor our thoughts and lives. It is simply 110% wrong to ever think of an underage character in a sexual way.* Doesn't matter that 99% of reades won't go out and rape some kids. It's still promoting the idea that underage people can be though of sexually, which is deeply wrong.




    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    Not everything that's "wrong" is illegal.

    For something to be illegal, actual harm must be done.

    Incidentally, I'm reading Towelhead right now, which is about a teenage girl who finds herself in a few sexually explicit situations. If the morality police ever bothered with novels, it could just as easily be me or anyone else who's read this bestseller on the chopping block.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • GR_ZombieGR_Zombie Krillin It Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    I gotta say, that sounds like seriously abnormal behavior to me.

    GR_Zombie on
    04xkcuvaav19.png
  • CrayonCrayon Sleeps in the wrong bed. TejasRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    That's a slippery slope argument and you know it.

    This isn't the thin end of the wedge for the gubmint to censor our thoughts and lives. It is simply 110% wrong to ever think of an underage character in a sexual way.* Doesn't matter that 99% of reades won't go out and rape some kids. It's still promoting the idea that underage people can be though of sexually, which is deeply wrong.




    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    No, it's not a slippery slope at all. We have American bands in the United States that talk about murdering, and raping, and digging up corpses and all other sorts of lewd acts but they are breaking no (rational) law. They are free to exchange ideas, messages, thoughts and words freely because the second you start putting up barriers stating that a mere drawing is bad you're creating a barrier stating that all things that fit under lewdness should be outlawed and punished.

    It's idiotic.

    The great thing is that it may be wrong, and maybe even in an absolutist world it will always be wrong, but it's not illegal to have thoughts of having sex with someone who is 16 or so. See, it's already been mentioned but you can't charge someone for a thought crime, that's ridiculous.

    If you find it wrong for him to have this in his possession we might as well scoop up all books, drawings and art that deal with what you define as "wrong." If it's wrong to possess a drawing of said act then it might as well be illegal to possess a book in which someone underage is molested or raped. Hell, let's just straight out ban talking about it if it breached that line. Damn, no more afternoon sensationalist talk shows!

    The fact of the matter is that you're defending the idea that just because someone has in their possession a work of art/song/etc that is illegal that the person is going to commit said crime. It's stupid. Just bottom line stupid.

    P.S You're also extremely closeted if you were serious with your "anecdote."

    Crayon on
  • psycojesterpsycojester Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Sars_Boy wrote: »
    i really do not feel great about giving my money to a guy who probably would fuck little kids if it was legal

    Come on now lets be fair, he'd probably only try to fuck Japanese children.
    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    Great moments on the internet 19432: Man unwittingly admits to having a wank to Prince Caspian

    psycojester on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    I am fully capable of recognising the difference between something I personally think is wrong and something that should be illegal. And I'm saying child porn, in any format, fits into the latter (and apparently US law agrees... I wonder what Australian law says on the topic, I honestly don't know).

    On this particular case, I geniunely believe they were right to arrest him based on the evidence available to them. Now it is 100% up to the courts to determine whether or not he is actually guilty of owning child porn. And I don't think he is, based on what I've read, but then I imagine I am more familiar with the context of the material than say your average Iowa police officer. I hope he is proven innocent, I really do.

    But speaking generally about the whole manga vs. child porn debate, I do think there are plenty of examples out there of objectional material that does sexualise young children. And there is no way a slippery slope argument is going to fly there, you might as well use flicking someone on the ear to try and justify genocide. It's wrong AND it's illegal, and should not be excused.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Crayon wrote: »
    ben0207 wrote: »
    That's a slippery slope argument and you know it.

    This isn't the thin end of the wedge for the gubmint to censor our thoughts and lives. It is simply 110% wrong to ever think of an underage character in a sexual way.* Doesn't matter that 99% of reades won't go out and rape some kids. It's still promoting the idea that underage people can be though of sexually, which is deeply wrong.




    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    The fact of the matter is that you're defending the idea that just because someone has in their possession a work of art/song/etc that is illegal that the person is going to commit said crime. It's stupid. Just bottom line stupid.

    Umm owning something illegal is actually a crime in it's own right. Just FYI.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • CrayonCrayon Sleeps in the wrong bed. TejasRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    Crayon wrote: »
    ben0207 wrote: »
    That's a slippery slope argument and you know it.

    This isn't the thin end of the wedge for the gubmint to censor our thoughts and lives. It is simply 110% wrong to ever think of an underage character in a sexual way.* Doesn't matter that 99% of reades won't go out and rape some kids. It's still promoting the idea that underage people can be though of sexually, which is deeply wrong.




    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    The fact of the matter is that you're defending the idea that just because someone has in their possession a work of art/song/etc that is illegal that the person is going to commit said crime. It's stupid. Just bottom line stupid.

    Umm owning something illegal is actually a crime in it's own right. Just FYI.

    No, I'm speaking on the topic of what they are singing about, drawing, or "rendering" is an illegal act. I'm not stating that what they hold in their possession is illegal, but that they hold in their possession something *legal* in which the act spoken (drawn, sung, etc) about is illegal. Sorry that I didn't word that better.

    I.e it's not illegal to own a song in which people are singing about smoking pot.

    Crayon on
  • TeaSpoonTeaSpoon Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Goddamnit, I got carried away there. I do not expect you to read all this.
    A few questions, if we are to erase all documentation, fiction or otherwise, of possible sexual conduct between underaged personages, male or female, from the face of the Earth so as not to proliferate the very idea that this sort of behavior is in any way condoned, how do we go about it? What criteria do we employ?

    If I may make some suggestions. I say we get rid of the Greeks.

    In ancient times, it was not uncommon for male Greeks to engage in sexual behavior with their juniors. First we'll need to destroy all official records of that period of time, including text books and academic papers. They're all tainted by association. We'll need to put to death all experts, amateur and professional, of that specific period. It might also be prudent to blow up any ruins that remain.

    No, no. It's not enough. We'll need to invade Greece to get to the motherload of ancient Greek ruins. And while we're there, we might as well take care of the descendants of this sort of immoral decadent behavior. Now that I think of it, we might have to erase the whole classic period. They weren't that different, the Romans.

    This is only the beginning. We'll work our way up history, modifying it to suit our purposes. Good targets include political marriages between important families in feudal times and times of social unrest when prostitution became a career choice. We must make it a special priority to eliminate such dirty pedophiles such as Shakespeare (Juliet Capulet was 14).

    We'll have our work cut out for us once we reached the era of the printing press. It was a mistake to allow the masses to spread their filthy sinful ideas. We'll have to form a committee that goes through every scrap of paper with words on it that survives to this day. Not only words, we'll also have to get rid of such things as engravings, carvings, paintings, statues, suggestive landscaping, and any other sort of imagery. Some sort of door to door search will be necessary. And then we'll reset the internet, take everything back to square one.

    4chan we'll nuke from orbit.

    Of course, we'll have to limit public publication until the job is done, so as to keep the backlog from growing. It might be sensible to suspend public education until such a time that we can deem all documentation to be absolutely safe. It'll be a tough job, but projections show that we can be finished by 2204.

    Once we've done all this, we could implement a strong indoctrination policy far beyond anything the Bush administration might have suggested. Hormonal therapy is recommended at all, to delay sexual maturation before the age of 18. When science has progressed far enough, we might even encode modifications in the human genome that makes regular treatment uncessary.

    If we go far enough, we might delete the very notion of underage sex!

    There is one problem, though... The other nations. They'll never agree to implement our policies. They just don't understand that it's for the better good, to keep men from molesting our children! Before this is over, we might have to take some... unfortunate actions.

    TeaSpoon on
  • wirehead26wirehead26 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Anyone here read Kodomo No Jikan? I wonder if that fits the PROTECT criteria.

    wirehead26 on
    I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
  • GR_ZombieGR_Zombie Krillin It Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    TeaSpoon wrote: »
    Goddamnit, I got carried away there. I do not expect you to read all this.
    A few questions, if we are to erase all documentation, fiction or otherwise, of possible sexual conduct between underaged personages, male or female, from the face of the Earth so as not to proliferate the very idea that this sort of behavior is in any way condoned, how do we go about it? What criteria do we employ?

    If I may make some suggestions. I say we get rid of the Greeks.

    In ancient times, it was not uncommon for male Greeks to engage in sexual behavior with their juniors. First we'll need to destroy all official records of that period of time, including text books and academic papers. They're all tainted by association. We'll need to put to death all experts, amateur and professional, of that specific period. It might also be prudent to blow up any ruins that remain.

    No, no. It's not enough. We'll need to invade Greece to get to the motherload of ancient Greek ruins. And while we're there, we might as well take care of the descendants of this sort of immoral decadent behavior. Now that I think of it, we might have to erase the whole classic period. They weren't that different, the Romans.

    This is only the beginning. We'll work our way up history, modifying it to suit our purposes. Good targets include political marriages between important families in feudal times and times of social unrest when prostitution became a career choice. We must make it a special priority to eliminate such dirty pedophiles such as Shakespeare (Juliet Capulet was 14).

    We'll have our work cut out for us once we reached the era of the printing press. It was a mistake to allow the masses to spread their filthy sinful ideas. We'll have to form a committee that goes through every scrap of paper with words on it that survives to this day. Not only words, we'll also have to get rid of such things as engravings, carvings, paintings, statues, suggestive landscaping, and any other sort of imagery. Some sort of door to door search will be necessary. And then we'll reset the internet, take everything back to square one.

    4chan we'll nuke from orbit.

    Of course, we'll have to limit public publication until the job is done, so as to keep the backlog from growing. It might be sensible to suspend public education until such a time that we can deem all documentation to be absolutely safe. It'll be a tough job, but projections show that we can be finished by 2204.

    Once we've done all this, we could implement a strong indoctrination policy far beyond anything the Bush administration might have suggested. Hormonal therapy is recommended at all, to delay sexual maturation before the age of 18. When science has progressed far enough, we might even encode modifications in the human genome that makes regular treatment uncessary.

    If we go far enough, we might delete the very notion of underage sex!

    There is one problem, though... The other nations. They'll never agree to implement our policies. They just don't understand that it's for the better good, to keep men from molesting our children! Before this is over, we might have to take some... unfortunate actions.

    See that sounds great but we need change NOW! I propose we we start a fund to colonize Mars with only legal adults, where all children under the age of 18 are isolated from each other so as not to arouse any inappropriate ideas from forming in their minds! God-the-almighty-who-we-owe-our-very-existence-to forbid they should ever be attracted to each other before they're 18!

    GR_Zombie on
    04xkcuvaav19.png
  • TeaSpoonTeaSpoon Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    GR_Zombie wrote: »
    TeaSpoon wrote: »
    Goddamnit, I got carried away there. I do not expect you to read all this.
    A few questions, if we are to erase all documentation, fiction or otherwise, of possible sexual conduct between underaged personages, male or female, from the face of the Earth so as not to proliferate the very idea that this sort of behavior is in any way condoned, how do we go about it? What criteria do we employ?

    If I may make some suggestions. I say we get rid of the Greeks.

    In ancient times, it was not uncommon for male Greeks to engage in sexual behavior with their juniors. First we'll need to destroy all official records of that period of time, including text books and academic papers. They're all tainted by association. We'll need to put to death all experts, amateur and professional, of that specific period. It might also be prudent to blow up any ruins that remain.

    No, no. It's not enough. We'll need to invade Greece to get to the motherload of ancient Greek ruins. And while we're there, we might as well take care of the descendants of this sort of immoral decadent behavior. Now that I think of it, we might have to erase the whole classic period. They weren't that different, the Romans.

    This is only the beginning. We'll work our way up history, modifying it to suit our purposes. Good targets include political marriages between important families in feudal times and times of social unrest when prostitution became a career choice. We must make it a special priority to eliminate such dirty pedophiles such as Shakespeare (Juliet Capulet was 14).

    We'll have our work cut out for us once we reached the era of the printing press. It was a mistake to allow the masses to spread their filthy sinful ideas. We'll have to form a committee that goes through every scrap of paper with words on it that survives to this day. Not only words, we'll also have to get rid of such things as engravings, carvings, paintings, statues, suggestive landscaping, and any other sort of imagery. Some sort of door to door search will be necessary. And then we'll reset the internet, take everything back to square one.

    4chan we'll nuke from orbit.

    Of course, we'll have to limit public publication until the job is done, so as to keep the backlog from growing. It might be sensible to suspend public education until such a time that we can deem all documentation to be absolutely safe. It'll be a tough job, but projections show that we can be finished by 2204.

    Once we've done all this, we could implement a strong indoctrination policy far beyond anything the Bush administration might have suggested. Hormonal therapy is recommended at all, to delay sexual maturation before the age of 18. When science has progressed far enough, we might even encode modifications in the human genome that makes regular treatment uncessary.

    If we go far enough, we might delete the very notion of underage sex!

    There is one problem, though... The other nations. They'll never agree to implement our policies. They just don't understand that it's for the better good, to keep men from molesting our children! Before this is over, we might have to take some... unfortunate actions.

    See that sounds great but we need change NOW! I propose we we start a fund to colonize Mars with only legal adults, where all children under the age of 18 are isolated from each other so as not to arouse any inappropriate ideas from forming in their minds! God-the-almighty-who-we-owe-our-very-existence-to forbid they should ever be attracted to each other before they're 18!

    It's a good idea.

    However, I don't think isolation is the solution. You see, our kids need to grew free and strong! It's the predators that's the problem. I suggest we implant bombs in the skulls of every male over the age of 18. The wireless detonators we will implant in our children, male and female. When any adult male gets within 15 feet of a child, we'll have prevented potential abuse and cleaned the gene pool at the same time.

    As for underage sex... Bombs might be going too far. I mean, there's a different between a 17 year, 11 months, and 30 days old kid and a fully grown 18 year old adult. Until their 18th birthday, they're still innocent cherubs of joy and happiness, skipping in meadows full of flowers and playing with small woodland creatures. Eighteen, that's the age when sin sets in, when the lust for children starts to grow.

    No, for kids, a sharp electric shock will be enough to separate them.

    TeaSpoon on
  • GR_ZombieGR_Zombie Krillin It Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    TeaSpoon wrote: »
    GR_Zombie wrote: »
    TeaSpoon wrote: »
    Goddamnit, I got carried away there. I do not expect you to read all this.
    A few questions, if we are to erase all documentation, fiction or otherwise, of possible sexual conduct between underaged personages, male or female, from the face of the Earth so as not to proliferate the very idea that this sort of behavior is in any way condoned, how do we go about it? What criteria do we employ?

    If I may make some suggestions. I say we get rid of the Greeks.

    In ancient times, it was not uncommon for male Greeks to engage in sexual behavior with their juniors. First we'll need to destroy all official records of that period of time, including text books and academic papers. They're all tainted by association. We'll need to put to death all experts, amateur and professional, of that specific period. It might also be prudent to blow up any ruins that remain.

    No, no. It's not enough. We'll need to invade Greece to get to the motherload of ancient Greek ruins. And while we're there, we might as well take care of the descendants of this sort of immoral decadent behavior. Now that I think of it, we might have to erase the whole classic period. They weren't that different, the Romans.

    This is only the beginning. We'll work our way up history, modifying it to suit our purposes. Good targets include political marriages between important families in feudal times and times of social unrest when prostitution became a career choice. We must make it a special priority to eliminate such dirty pedophiles such as Shakespeare (Juliet Capulet was 14).

    We'll have our work cut out for us once we reached the era of the printing press. It was a mistake to allow the masses to spread their filthy sinful ideas. We'll have to form a committee that goes through every scrap of paper with words on it that survives to this day. Not only words, we'll also have to get rid of such things as engravings, carvings, paintings, statues, suggestive landscaping, and any other sort of imagery. Some sort of door to door search will be necessary. And then we'll reset the internet, take everything back to square one.

    4chan we'll nuke from orbit.

    Of course, we'll have to limit public publication until the job is done, so as to keep the backlog from growing. It might be sensible to suspend public education until such a time that we can deem all documentation to be absolutely safe. It'll be a tough job, but projections show that we can be finished by 2204.

    Once we've done all this, we could implement a strong indoctrination policy far beyond anything the Bush administration might have suggested. Hormonal therapy is recommended at all, to delay sexual maturation before the age of 18. When science has progressed far enough, we might even encode modifications in the human genome that makes regular treatment uncessary.

    If we go far enough, we might delete the very notion of underage sex!

    There is one problem, though... The other nations. They'll never agree to implement our policies. They just don't understand that it's for the better good, to keep men from molesting our children! Before this is over, we might have to take some... unfortunate actions.

    See that sounds great but we need change NOW! I propose we we start a fund to colonize Mars with only legal adults, where all children under the age of 18 are isolated from each other so as not to arouse any inappropriate ideas from forming in their minds! God-the-almighty-who-we-owe-our-very-existence-to forbid they should ever be attracted to each other before they're 18!

    It's a good idea.

    However, I don't think isolation is the solution. You see, our kids need to grew free and strong! It's the predators that's the problem. I suggest we implant bombs in the skulls of every male over the age of 18. The wireless detonators we will implant in our children, male and female. When any adult male gets within 15 feet of a child, we'll have prevented potential abuse and cleaned the gene pool at the same time.

    As for underage sex... Bombs might be going too far. I mean, there's a different between a 17 year, 11 months, and 30 days old kid and a fully grown 18 year old adult. Until their 18th birthday, they're still innocent cherubs of joy and happiness, skipping in meadows full of flowers and playing with small woodland creatures. Eighteen, that's the age when sin sets in, when the lust for children starts to grow.

    No, for kids, a sharp electric shock will be enough to separate them.

    Brilliant!
    HighFive.jpg
    All those cars? Full of potential child molesters.

    GR_Zombie on
    04xkcuvaav19.png
  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I can no longer tell who in this thread is being serious and who is not.

    But I essentially agree with everything Munch said (oh god did I just type that)

    And all the "HURR HURR MANGA READER" jokes are spectacularly funny and original.

    Furu on
  • GR_ZombieGR_Zombie Krillin It Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Oh I'm serious, undead serious!

    GR_Zombie on
    04xkcuvaav19.png
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Crayon wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    Crayon wrote: »
    ben0207 wrote: »
    That's a slippery slope argument and you know it.

    This isn't the thin end of the wedge for the gubmint to censor our thoughts and lives. It is simply 110% wrong to ever think of an underage character in a sexual way.* Doesn't matter that 99% of reades won't go out and rape some kids. It's still promoting the idea that underage people can be though of sexually, which is deeply wrong.




    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    The fact of the matter is that you're defending the idea that just because someone has in their possession a work of art/song/etc that is illegal that the person is going to commit said crime. It's stupid. Just bottom line stupid.

    Umm owning something illegal is actually a crime in it's own right. Just FYI.

    No, I'm speaking on the topic of what they are singing about, drawing, or "rendering" is an illegal act. I'm not stating that what they hold in their possession is illegal, but that they hold in their possession something *legal* in which the act spoken (drawn, sung, etc) about is illegal. Sorry that I didn't word that better.

    I.e it's not illegal to own a song in which people are singing about smoking pot.

    Then say what you mean if you expect people to take you seriously in a discussion.

    That to one side, it is illegal to own material rendering this particular act. In other words, owning the depiction of child sex is illegal, whereas owning a depiction of smoking pot is not. Whether or not this particular individual has broken the law is up to debate, but the fact is that this type of material is illegal in and of itself.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Define child.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Define child.

    Are you seriously asking this?

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA
    edited December 2008
    *Funny anecdote: While watching Prince Caspian on DVD I had to pause it and check the age of the actress who played Susan. Taht's how seriously I take this.

    Great moments on the internet 19432: Man unwittingly admits to having a wank to Prince Caspian

    haha seriously, what the hell?

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Define child.

    Are you seriously asking this?
    I know you read my post, you quoted it, so the answer should be self-evident.

    Look, Ben is so hung up on this that apprently, he had to go double-check that Anna Popplewell was over 18 so he could say, 'man, she's hot,' without then having to scourge himself for being a pedo. So the mere appearance of being underage is enough to raise concern. Where exactly does this line stop?

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA
    edited December 2008
    i hope not at ellen page

    me-yow

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • GR_ZombieGR_Zombie Krillin It Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Define child.

    Are you seriously asking this?

    It's a valid line of discussion, the definition of a child is pretty subjective. Is one no longer a child once they are physically mature? Or once they reach an arbitrary legally chosen age?
    Take, as an extreme example, Traci Lords. Sure she was underage when she made those pornos, but would you really call her a child at the time? Not that any of that really matters since they're talking about goddamned cartoon porn.

    GR_Zombie on
    04xkcuvaav19.png
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    I am fully capable of recognising the difference between something I personally think is wrong and something that should be illegal. And I'm saying child porn, in any format, fits into the latter (and apparently US law agrees... I wonder what Australian law says on the topic, I honestly don't know).

    On this particular case, I geniunely believe they were right to arrest him based on the evidence available to them. Now it is 100% up to the courts to determine whether or not he is actually guilty of owning child porn. And I don't think he is, based on what I've read, but then I imagine I am more familiar with the context of the material than say your average Iowa police officer. I hope he is proven innocent, I really do.

    But speaking generally about the whole manga vs. child porn debate, I do think there are plenty of examples out there of objectional material that does sexualise young children. And there is no way a slippery slope argument is going to fly there, you might as well use flicking someone on the ear to try and justify genocide. It's wrong AND it's illegal, and should not be excused.

    That's absolutely preposterous. Drawn depictions of sex acts, no matter what sex acts, do not actually hurt anyone. Ever. Unless you get a fucking papercut or something.

    No child was exploited during the making of it. And so long as whoever reads them doesn't act on their impulses (which they might not even have, there are plenty of people who like reaing comics about things but find those things repulsive to even contemplate in real life) they should be prosecuted.

    Of course, there IS a law against this, so they should, technically, be prosecuted, but it's a completely absurd law.

    Whoops it's suddenly illegal to own Greek pottery!

    Spectre-x on
  • FaynorFaynor Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I hope Incredible Herc doesn't get much more in depth with this eromenos thing. I don't want to have to throw that out, too :(

    Faynor on
    do you wanna see me eat a hotdog
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Snow Crash is one of my favorite books, and one of the main characters is a 15 year old girl who has sex outside her age limit. Do I need to shred it?


    Also, I'll admit to checking in on the Rule34 site from time to time, and even if you ignore the tons of manga/hentai/anime stuff (as I do because I dislike the art style) there's still plenty there to apparently get me locked up for a gajillion years and a labeled a sex offender.

    Scooter on
  • Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I guess I can't own that copy of The Color Purple anymore, because, you know, it's rapetastic.

    Mr Pink on
  • GoatmonGoatmon Property of Amara_P Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    Whether or not you agree with it, there is a law in the US saying it's not ok to have drawings of kids having sex. And he appeared to have that type of content, therefore he was arrested under that law.

    And speaking personally, I don't draw the distinction that some people clearly do between comics of children having sex and other types of child porn. I completely agree that it should be illegal, along with text stories and animation etc. To me it comes down to indulging some very sick and very wrong fantasies which should never be encouraged or indulged in any way, and while a manga format may be "victimless" I (without any scientific backing) worry that this may lead to an increased desire to indulged these fantasies in less "innocent" ways.

    Who's to say that refusing to indulge in mind fantasies won't lead to a repressed personality with even greater problems?

    There's too many variables about what could potentially go wrong with a person one way or the other based on how they handle their own problems and how society regards them.

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    It's always possible I suppose. Given the choice between the two extremes though I'm still leaning towards not indulging fantasies of pedophilia. That's just how I roll.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    It's always possible I suppose. Given the choice between the two extremes though I'm still leaning towards not indulging fantasies of pedophilia. That's just how I roll.

    To the point of putting someone in prison for 20 years, then slapping a label on them that'll prevent them from ever getting a decent job or living in a decent neighborhood for the rest of their life? For looking at some cartoons?

    I don't think cartoon porn of imaginary characters should be illegal, but even if it was, it's mindboggling to me that it would have a punishment any harsher than, say, a $200 fine. This is like arresting a guy for attempted murder, for dressing up as Jason on Halloween and jumping out at people. It's an imaginary crime with imaginary victims.

    Scooter on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    It's always possible I suppose. Given the choice between the two extremes though I'm still leaning towards not indulging fantasies of pedophilia. That's just how I roll.

    To the point of putting someone in prison for 20 years, then slapping a label on them that'll prevent them from ever getting a decent job or living in a decent neighborhood for the rest of their life? For looking at some cartoons?

    I don't think cartoon porn of imaginary characters should be illegal, but even if it was, it's mindboggling to me that it would have a punishment any harsher than, say, a $200 fine. This is like arresting a guy for attempted murder, for dressing up as Jason on Halloween and jumping out at people. It's an imaginary crime with imaginary victims.

    Ok, I've already said I don't think this particular person deserves what he's getting, based on the information provided. I can understand why he was arrested, but I don't believe he is guilty. I also don't believe I've said anything about what sort of punishment, if any, would be appropriate. Can you understand that I'm talking about the general concept not this specific example?

    All I said was (and I am having difficulty understanding why this is a controversial viewpoint, I really am) I don't think fantasies of sex with underaged children should be indulged or encouraged. That is my own personal viewpoint, and I am not the sort of person who believes I know better than the general population, quite the opposite really. It just so happens that there are laws agreeing with me, and I'll freely admit that I'm happy about that.

    I also want to make it clear that much like I believe there is a difference between a violent film and a snuff flick, I believe there is a big difference between a fictional work that portrays child abuse in a realistic fashion and child porn. I understand that's a very grey area and I wouldn't want to be the person to try and come up with a meaningful and concise definition for the purpose of law distinguishing the two, but I do believe that distinction exists. I imagine it boils down to whether or not the work in question is glorifying sex with minors.

    Out of interest, according to wiki there is an Australian equivalent law.
    Australia

    All sexualised depictions of children under the age of 18 (or who appear to be under that age) are illegal in Australia, and there is a 'zero-tolerance' policy in place, which covers purely fictional children as well as real children.[42]

    In August 2007, an Australian was sentenced to pay an AUD $9,000 fine for attempting to import eight DVDs of Japanese anime found to contain pornographic depictions of children and 14 found to contain depictions of sexual violence. No images of real children were involved. "Customs National Manager Investigations, Richard Janeczko, said that it was important to understand that even cartoons or drawings such as those depicted in anime were prohibited if they contained offensive sexual content."[43]

    Also, in December 2008, a New South Wales Supreme Court judge, Justice Michael Adams, ruled to uphold a magistrate's decision that a pornographic cartoon parodying characters on The Simpsons (Bart & Lisa) was child pornography, because "t follows that a fictional cartoon character, even one which departs from recognizable human forms in some significant respects, may nevertheless be the depiction of a person within the meaning of the Act."[44][45] The plaintiff Alan John McEwan was fined $3000 Aus ($2000 US), which was a leniency as under the law, a maximum penalty of 10 years can be applied for possession of this form of cartoon pornography. Judge Adams explained the law was appropriate because cartoons could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children". A BBC reporter summarized the judge's decision: "he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people".[46]

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    But actual child porn and drawn child porn are two completely different things. One involves the exploitation and abuse of children, the other does not involve the abuse and exploitation of anyone or anything.

    And Australia is balls-out retarded in this respect. It's just a form of bullshit censorship with no rational reason behind it. It's just a knee-jerk emotional response going "RAUGH PEDOPHILES ARE VILE INHUMAN THINGS RAUGH" even though they have a mental illness that most of them try their hardest not to indulge in. PLUS their law is ESPECIALLY retarded in that it says that cartoonish representations of people are people too. That's stupid.

    This basically boils down to arresting and prosecuting people because they like to think about, but not necessarily do, things that society considers taboo.

    It's wrong. It's that simple.

    Spectre-x on
  • ManonvonSuperockManonvonSuperock Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Is that why comics are so expensive in Australia? -because they have cartoon depictions of assault, B&E, murder, larceny, rape, etc.? -therefore owning them is consider committing those crimes?

    ManonvonSuperock on
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    According to Australian law they are!

    Not really though, which is why this thing is a retarded double standard.

    Spectre-x on
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    All I said was (and I am having difficulty understanding why this is a controversial viewpoint, I really am) I don't think fantasies of sex with underaged children should be indulged or encouraged. That is my own personal viewpoint, and I am not the sort of person who believes I know better than the general population, quite the opposite really. It just so happens that there are laws agreeing with me, and I'll freely admit that I'm happy about that.

    I also want to make it clear that much like I believe there is a difference between a violent film and a snuff flick, I believe there is a big difference between a fictional work that portrays child abuse in a realistic fashion and child porn. I understand that's a very grey area and I wouldn't want to be the person to try and come up with a meaningful and concise definition for the purpose of law distinguishing the two, but I do believe that distinction exists. I imagine it boils down to whether or not the work in question is glorifying sex with minors.

    The problem is that our society, media, and art encourage and glorify a lot of potentially harmful or illegal shit; violence, drugs, gangsta culture, casual high-risk sex, murder, etc. I have several boxes of comics that promote and glorify vigilantism. But we, as a society, accept and recognize that there is a line drawn between reality and works of fiction.

    And would it be better if the cartoon child porn didn't glorify the act? If, instead of being a yaoi book showing a loving sexual relationship between two androgynous teenage boys, it featured a hairy, grizzly pedophile abducting and raping a boy, with the moral of the story being, "Hey! Don't be rapin' people!" Would that really be better?

    Munch on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    But actual child porn and drawn child porn are two completely different things. One involves the exploitation and abuse of children, the other does not involve the abuse and exploitation of anyone or anything.

    And Australia is balls-out retarded in this respect. It's just a form of bullshit censorship with no rational reason behind it. It's just a knee-jerk emotional response going "RAUGH PEDOPHILES ARE VILE INHUMAN THINGS RAUGH" even though they have a mental illness that most of them try their hardest not to indulge in. PLUS their law is ESPECIALLY retarded in that it says that cartoonish representations of people are people too. That's stupid.

    This basically boils down to arresting and prosecuting people because they like to think about, but not necessarily do, things that society considers taboo.

    It's wrong. It's that simple.

    Australia also bans video games that are considered too mature for 15 year olds, iirc. They really are nuts.

    Scooter on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    I cannot believe I am being forced to defend a stance that kiddy porn is bad. It's one thing when people are giving examples like Snow Crash and The Colour Purple which could possibly violate the law but really shouldn't, but now people are just flat out saying a form of child porn should be OK and that is fucking nuts.
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    But actual child porn and drawn child porn are two completely different things. One involves the exploitation and abuse of children, the other does not involve the abuse and exploitation of anyone or anything.

    Both promote the sexualisation of children, and the fear is that even this "harmless" porn will lead people to seek material that does exploit children. I believe there is evidence to suggest that people heavily invested in porn tend to seek more and more hardcore material to satisfy their needs, in this case that would be completely and utterly unacceptable.
    And Australia is balls-out retarded in this respect. It's just a form of bullshit censorship with no rational reason behind it. It's just a knee-jerk emotional response going "RAUGH PEDOPHILES ARE VILE INHUMAN THINGS RAUGH" even though they have a mental illness that most of them try their hardest not to indulge in. PLUS their law is ESPECIALLY retarded in that it says that cartoonish representations of people are people too. That's stupid.

    Ok one, this is just funny because you have the same laws. With harsher penalties from the sound of it. Also, so they are fighting not to indulge in it and you want to provide them with material to indulge in it with? o_O

    I guess you think people will read their cartoon child porn, jack off and never think about it again? Yeah, sure.
    This basically boils down to arresting and prosecuting people because they like to think about, but not necessarily do, things that society considers taboo.

    It's wrong. It's that simple.

    This boils down to society attempting to protect children from abuse and exploitation. I also think dismissing pedeofilia as something that society considers taboo is completely fucked up.
    Munch wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    All I said was (and I am having difficulty understanding why this is a controversial viewpoint, I really am) I don't think fantasies of sex with underaged children should be indulged or encouraged. That is my own personal viewpoint, and I am not the sort of person who believes I know better than the general population, quite the opposite really. It just so happens that there are laws agreeing with me, and I'll freely admit that I'm happy about that.

    I also want to make it clear that much like I believe there is a difference between a violent film and a snuff flick, I believe there is a big difference between a fictional work that portrays child abuse in a realistic fashion and child porn. I understand that's a very grey area and I wouldn't want to be the person to try and come up with a meaningful and concise definition for the purpose of law distinguishing the two, but I do believe that distinction exists. I imagine it boils down to whether or not the work in question is glorifying sex with minors.

    The problem is that our society, media, and art encourage and glorify a lot of potentially harmful or illegal shit; violence, drugs, gangsta culture, casual high-risk sex, murder, etc. I have several boxes of comics that promote and glorify vigilantism. But we, as a society, accept and recognize that there is a line drawn between reality and works of fiction.

    And would it be better if the cartoon child porn didn't glorify the act? If, instead of being a yaoi book showing a loving sexual relationship between two androgynous teenage boys, it featured a hairy, grizzly pedophile abducting and raping a boy, with the moral of the story being, "Hey! Don't be rapin' people!" Would that really be better?

    I really do agree in general, but child abuse in particular is one area where society would rather ban it entirely than risk encouraging it in any way. I am not aware of any other topic dealt with in this way, so it is hard to draw comparisons.

    As I said, I know it's a very grey area. But after doing a bit of research on wiki, what do you think about this?
    The manga work But I'm Your Teacher by Yoshino Somei has a short story where a convicted pedophile photographer picks up a young foreign boy in order to use him as the subject of his work. Throughout the story, the boy is raped by a man brought in by the photographer, and later instigates consensual sex with the photographer himself.

    So in that example, we have kidnapping children and raping them. But it's OK right, because later the boy wants to have sex with his kidnapper. Happy endings all round! That is the sort of shit I'm talking about, not the sort of yaoi stuff this dude has gotten arrested for.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.