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

13

Posts

  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Edit: Accidentally hit "Quote" instead of "Edit". Double post removed.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I am from the Netherlands. To my knowledge we do not have those laws.

    Also, reading child porn in a drawn format is not necessarily indulging in paedophilia. With indulging their urges I meant act them out in real life. Drawn child porn would presumably act as a sort of escape hatch, a harmless fantasy world in which they can live out some of their fantasies to a reasonable extent without ever actually hurting someone. I think that they'd look at their cartoon child porn, jack off and then look at some more of their cartoon child porn when the mood next strikes them. Most of these people aren't slavering maniacs who are constantly restraining themselves from going berserk and raping a million babies every day. They're people with a sexual deviancy that does affect their lives, yes, but usually not to the extent where it becomes the sole driving force behind their person. Really, any peadophile who'd indluge his fantasies in real life probably has a number of other emotional and mental problemsthat would make him a danger to society regardless of his fondness for child-fucking.

    You're following the same logic as those who claim pornography leads to rape.

    I am not familiar with any reliable studies that have shown that someone liking one type of porn leads to them trying to find increasingly hardcore material until all they can do to blow their load is watch snuff films. In fact, The very idea seems laughable and leads me to believe that you're basing your argument off terribly incorrect assumptions. I'd appreciate it if you could provide us with numbers that back up your claims because otherwise I just can't believe such outrageous theories.

    And there is the fact that all sorts of fictional works depict acts of glorified violence, yet these are all perfectly legal. It's a double standard. Only sexualized depictions of children are illegal. Gruesome disembowelment is fine. Rape between adults is A-OK. Murder porn is fine so long as it's fictional. But when you draw one toddler fucking an adult it's suddenly unacceptable, even though children in fiction CAN consent and shit because it's not even real and therefore not bound to what is possible in the real world. What if the kid's a super-genius? What if it's someone whose age has been reduced, magically? Who the fuck knows?

    It's retarded.

    Fiction doesn't encourage shit. It's not real.

    Spectre-x on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    So your stance is Virral, if an imaginary kid is having imaginary sex with an imaginary adults, but it's being done in text, it's a-ok. But if it's done in comics, it deserves being locked up for. How the hell do you draw a line like that?
    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.

    By this logic all porn ownership should be a felony.

    Scooter on
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    So your stance is Virral, if an imaginary kid is having imaginary sex with an imaginary adults, but it's being done in text, it's a-ok. But if it's done in comics, it deserves being locked up for. How the hell do you draw a line like that?
    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.

    By this logic all porn ownership should be a felony.

    No! It's best to execute anyone who's ever had an impure thought right now, as they're obviously future rapists!

    Spectre-x on
  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I read The Giver in middle school! I'm fucked!

    Furu on
  • Dorktron9000Dorktron9000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It's impossible to support this without feeling like a pederast

    Dorktron9000 on
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It's impossible to support this without feeling like a pederast

    feels good man

    Spectre-x on
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    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.

    In my own opinion? No. I personally would prefer such a work not exist. But I'd rather a lot of things didn't exist for one reason or another.

    But I feel people should have the right to create things I personally find distasteful or unsavory, so long as they're not hurting anybody.

    Recently, a man in Britain was arrested for writing a rape/snuff story revolving around the Brit girl pop band, Girls Aloud. Now, is the world better off with this man in jail? Maybe. But the minute we start applying this kind of logic to one person, we have to apply it to everyone equally.

    And that's a very frightening, dangerous thing to do.

    Munch on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Munch wrote: »
    Virral wrote: »
    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.

    In my own opinion? No. I personally would prefer such a work not exist. But I'd rather a lot of things didn't exist for one reason or another.

    But I feel people should have the right to create things I personally find distasteful or unsavory, so long as they're not hurting anybody.

    Recently, a man in Britain was arrested for writing a rape/snuff story revolving around the Brit girl pop band, Girls Aloud. Now, is the world better off with this man in jail? Maybe. But the minute we start applying this kind of logic to one person, we have to apply it to everyone equally.

    And that's a very frightening, dangerous thing to do.

    I agree with you on everything under the sun except child pornography. I believe that is something that deserves a line drawn in the sand. Anything else is fair game as far as I am concerned, but for that one topic I cannot be convinced otherwise.

    About the British example you gave, I imagine the issue there is that due to the fact he was writing about real people he could theoretically have access to it was treated as a threat against those people. I would have thought that if his story had been about a fictional group then it would just have been distasteful but not actually grounds for arrest.

    Like, if I publish a manifesto saying I'm going to kill the man on the moon, I'm a whacko... if I publish a manifesto saying I'm going to kill George W. Bush I could find myself on a no fly list into the USA for being a potential security risk.

    I'd also say that a document such as that WOULD be very hurtful to the women of Girls Aloud, and your stance is people can do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. I really don't think it's a fair comparison to what we're talking about.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • GR_ZombieGR_Zombie Krillin It Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It's nice to see that at least Spectre-X knows that pedophile does not automatically equal child molester. It sounds like Virral's stance is that pedos just plain should not have those urges, whenever the thought pops in they should just shew it away, brain chemistry be damned.

    I think a link to this article is relevant to the discussion. We should all have at least some idea of what type of person we're talking about.

    GR_Zombie on
    04xkcuvaav19.png
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    To be honest I stopped reading what Spectre-X was writing, I just can't take someone seriously in this kind of discussion if they think calling something "retarded" makes a point. Happy to listen to his point of view if he can manage to get it across like an adult.

    My actual stance is that this sickness should not be encouraged through the provision of pornography regardless of the nature of that pornography. I'm not an idiot who thinks it's just a choice people make, but even if they can't help but feel that way I still don't agree that those urges should be given an outlet. Perhaps an argument could be made for using this kind of material for therapeutic purposes, to give people with these desires a outlet for their needs which is harmless, but I wouldn't even begin to know if such a thing was viable or even scientifically sound. It doesn't sound right to me though, I'll say that much.

    I have acknowledged that those are my own personal views, based on no scientific basis or evidence whatsoever. I have also acknowledged that the laws in place are very vague and there is plenty of material which would fall under those laws which I do not believe should be restricted. That all seems pretty reasonable to me, but I respect your right to disagree with me.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    If your personal views are based on no scientific basis or evidence whatsoever then you are an idiot because basing an opinion about something this important solely on how you feel is terrible. Especially if you'd like laws based on this opinion.

    And you don't really get to bring up the "scientifically sound" argument when you just admitted yourself that your own opinion has no factual basis AND you tried to argue that pornography leads to more vicious pornography ad infinitum which simply isn't true in any way.

    Spectre-x on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you provided journal papers and other evidence to back up how you feel on this topic. I have been talking in general terms, I don't believe I have claimed to be an authority on the topic and I don't think I have ever stated that my word is fact.

    Do you really think people aren't capable of forming opinions with scientific evidence to support it? Like... if I like a certain political party must I prove to you empirically that they are the best choice? If I was claiming to be some authority on this topic, or I was involved in the process of creating laws etc then sure I'd be reading up on the topic. But I'm not, and I don't want to read up on this topic, frankly it's gross and I don't want to spend any time searching on Google about it for obvious reasons.

    So instead I'm talking about how I feel on the topic, and to cover my ass I am making it crystal fucking clear I'm not claiming that my word is law or that I know any more about this than the next man. You on the other hand are calling me an idiot, calling the whole idea retarded and making bold statements about what's true and what is not.

    And for this one item you've latched onto, let's look at what I actually said.
    Virral wrote: »
    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.

    I believe there is evidence. If I had it, I would provide it. My understanding is that this is the case, but I am not infallible. Hell, chances are you can get scientific studies telling you both extremes are true, that's usually how this shit goes down. Do you understand the difference between stating what you believe to be true (what I did) and insisting that something IS true (what you just did)?

    So please, go ahead. Don't just talk... prove to me that you are correct.

    Edit: Oh and for the LOVE OF GOD! There are ALREADY LAWS about this, which I have said I think are too vague. Fuck me why don't you try reading once in a while.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You go first. You made the claim that there was evidence supporting this, you show me any you can find.

    And I know there's already laws about this. I just think they're preopsterous.

    Furthermore, while ir is certainly possible to hold opinions not based on science, you said that our views were based on on scientific basis or evidence whatsoever. I took that to mean "not based on science or any other evidence". If this was incorrect I apologize.

    I also apologize for calling you retarded if I did specifically call you that instead of your stance.

    But your opinion is still wrong.

    Spectre-x on
  • TalkcTalkc Registered User
    edited December 2008
    I've heard Patton Oswalt in fact insist that George W. Bush should have been assasinated.

    And now, someone has thrown a shoe at the president.

    Putting these two together, I predict that this man accused of having child porn, will inevitably rape a small child.

    Because obviously indulging one's thoughts on a subject, even without victims, CREATES VICTIMS!!! See the proof?
    For the sake of the stars above if you took that seriously you are truly deranged.

    Talkc on
  • The Dude With HerpesThe Dude With Herpes Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I've heard that Osama Bin Ladin insists that America should be destroyed.

    And now, someone has flown planes into buildings and killed a lot of Americans.

    Putting these two together, I predict that someday, if someone has child porn, they may in turn commit a heinous act against a child.

    Because obviously indulging in one's thoughts on a subject can sometimes create victims. See what I did there?



    Yes, it is obviously bad to allow thought police and actively pursue legislation that prosecutes people based on "thought crimes".

    However thoughts in fact do sometimes lead to actions, often with terrible consequences and if they can be prevented they should.

    At the cost of freedoms and liberties? No.

    But at the cost of some dudes manga? Give me a break.

    The Dude With Herpes on
    Steam: Galedrid - XBL: Galedrid - PSN: Galedrid
    Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
    Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand

  • HtownHtown Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    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.

    Hi. Is this your first day on the Internet? Welcome!

    Htown on
    steam_sig.png
  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    They're not taking away his manga, they could put him in jail for 20 years and on a sex offenders list. And for the last fucking time, its not child porn. Child porn involves actual children.

    Prohass on
  • HtownHtown Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    No, child pornography is pornography depicting children, whether it's photographic or drawn. Unless you're going to argue that all that anime or hand drawn or manga porn that's out there isn't REALLY pornographic because there aren't actually any real people involved.

    You can't say that a drawing is porn when it depicts an adult, but magically NOT porn when it depicts a child UNLESS the child is an actual flesh and blood human somewhere.

    Htown on
    steam_sig.png
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    You go first. You made the claim that there was evidence supporting this, you show me any you can find.

    And I know there's already laws about this. I just think they're preopsterous.

    Furthermore, while ir is certainly possible to hold opinions not based on science, you said that our views were based on on scientific basis or evidence whatsoever. I took that to mean "not based on science or any other evidence". If this was incorrect I apologize.

    I also apologize for calling you retarded if I did specifically call you that instead of your stance.

    But your opinion is still wrong.

    Certainly, since you insist. From the Wiki Page on Pornography Addiciton, the 5 stages of addicition.
    Psychologists and Sex therapists like Dr.Kimberly Young, Dr.Victor Cline, both specializing in addiction therapy have indicate the following stages in pornography addiction,[5][6][7]

    1. Discovery — The thrill or arousal associated with the material is encountered during this stage. This can happen accidentally or through curiosity. This stage usually refers to initial exposure rather than exposure over a prolonged period of time. There can be a rush because the event represents entering an area that is taboo, forbidden, or simply sensually arousing.[5]
    2. Experimentation/Exploration — This stage is characterized by various cognitive distortions as the person rationalizes exploring or experimenting with the material: "it's just harmless fun" or "this isn't hurting anyone". Masturbation usually accompanies this stage, powerfully reinforcing the experience.[5][8]
    3. Desensitization — As exploration and experimentation continue, desensitization takes place. In this stage, what was once shocking or atrocious is now considered normal or even mundane, thus setting the stage for escalation.[5][9]
    4. Escalation — During this stage, the material becomes rougher, kinkier, or more bizarre in order for the person to achieve the same level of arousal or rush.[5][10]
    5. Performance — Frequent exposure to the material introduces many sexual behaviors which a person may want to act out. This stage is characterized by a person mimicking behavior he has seen depicted in the pornography. In some cases, he may attempt to experiment and act out these behaviors with his spouse, or he may seek a partner outside the marriage.[11]

    According to psychologists, these stages are not always sequential and it is possible that an individual can experience some of the stages and not others.[5]

    Serial killer Ted Bundy confessed that his pornography addiction went though stages. As a boy he saw Softcore Pornography, and later started viewing Hardcore Pornography and Violent Pornography which played an influencing role in his crimes.[12]

    Psychology is far from an exact science, but there is a quote, with references, saying that addiction to porn can lead to escalation and even acting out on these desires in real life. I feel that is very relevant to a concern that a milder form of child porn could lead to the user seeking out more harmful versions featuring real children and in some cases even act out to the point of harming an actual child themselves.

    Incontrovertible proof that I am right and you are wrong? Hell no. Your turn!

    I also wanted to say thank you for the apology, although you actually called my entire country retarded, I was just an idiot :lol:

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    I am from the Netherlands. To my knowledge we do not have those laws.

    Oh, on a side note, thought you might find this of interest.
    Netherlands

    On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470) which deemed "virtual child pornography" as illegal.[56] The laws appear to only outlaw "realistic images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct," and hence lolicon is not included.[57]

    Second Life (the US based virtual world) is currently being investigated by the public prosecutor. A number of Second Life users engage in sexual ageplay where their online avatars dress, act and look like underage children while engaging in virtual sexual acts. Although there is no Dutch law that legislates against under age depictions of sexual acts for computer generated images, the public prosecutor is investigating this on the basis that these virtual actions may incite child abuse in the real world.[58] So far this has not led to any successful prosecutions.

    In March 2008, a 52 year old male was convicted for owning lifelike computer animations of a child performing sexual acts. He has been convicted to a two-year suspended jail sentence, with a ten-year probation period. Prosecution claims that this animation could have been used to entice young children into sexual acts with grown-ups, due to the title and the contents of the animation. The CGI in the clip was life-like, thus falling under the 2002 legislation.[59]

    Apparently in the Netherlands it has to be a realistic depiction, but still doesn't need to be flesh and blood people in order to be illegal.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'm just going to say this. I disagree with Virral on a core fundamental level, and feel that I would much rather have fictional depictions of VERY VERY BAD THINGS in the world than start prosecuting for things in which no actual people were harmed. If the manga was made by tracing child porn photos, that's one thing. If the thing depicts actual, real-life people, that's one thing.

    But, to my knowledge, it is fictional characters who exist in no real-world form going at it like woodchucks. Beyond that, you have the issue that these characters have NO legal form of age whatsoever. Here, watch this.

    O<-<

    That figurine is fifteen years old.

    O<8-<

    That figurine is nineteen years old.
    O<8-<
     O<J<
    
    Have I just created child pornography and illegal things? I do not think so.

    yalborap on
  • Spectre-xSpectre-x Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Virral wrote: »
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    You go first. You made the claim that there was evidence supporting this, you show me any you can find.

    And I know there's already laws about this. I just think they're preopsterous.

    Furthermore, while ir is certainly possible to hold opinions not based on science, you said that our views were based on on scientific basis or evidence whatsoever. I took that to mean "not based on science or any other evidence". If this was incorrect I apologize.

    I also apologize for calling you retarded if I did specifically call you that instead of your stance.

    But your opinion is still wrong.

    Certainly, since you insist. From the Wiki Page on Pornography Addiciton, the 5 stages of addicition.
    Psychologists and Sex therapists like Dr.Kimberly Young, Dr.Victor Cline, both specializing in addiction therapy have indicate the following stages in pornography addiction,[5][6][7]

    1. Discovery — The thrill or arousal associated with the material is encountered during this stage. This can happen accidentally or through curiosity. This stage usually refers to initial exposure rather than exposure over a prolonged period of time. There can be a rush because the event represents entering an area that is taboo, forbidden, or simply sensually arousing.[5]
    2. Experimentation/Exploration — This stage is characterized by various cognitive distortions as the person rationalizes exploring or experimenting with the material: "it's just harmless fun" or "this isn't hurting anyone". Masturbation usually accompanies this stage, powerfully reinforcing the experience.[5][8]
    3. Desensitization — As exploration and experimentation continue, desensitization takes place. In this stage, what was once shocking or atrocious is now considered normal or even mundane, thus setting the stage for escalation.[5][9]
    4. Escalation — During this stage, the material becomes rougher, kinkier, or more bizarre in order for the person to achieve the same level of arousal or rush.[5][10]
    5. Performance — Frequent exposure to the material introduces many sexual behaviors which a person may want to act out. This stage is characterized by a person mimicking behavior he has seen depicted in the pornography. In some cases, he may attempt to experiment and act out these behaviors with his spouse, or he may seek a partner outside the marriage.[11]

    According to psychologists, these stages are not always sequential and it is possible that an individual can experience some of the stages and not others.[5]

    Serial killer Ted Bundy confessed that his pornography addiction went though stages. As a boy he saw Softcore Pornography, and later started viewing Hardcore Pornography and Violent Pornography which played an influencing role in his crimes.[12]

    Psychology is far from an exact science, but there is a quote, with references, saying that addiction to porn can lead to escalation and even acting out on these desires in real life. I feel that is very relevant to a concern that a milder form of child porn could lead to the user seeking out more harmful versions featuring real children and in some cases even act out to the point of harming an actual child themselves.

    Incontrovertible proof that I am right and you are wrong? Hell no. Your turn!

    I also wanted to say thank you for the apology, although you actually called my entire country retarded, I was just an idiot :lol:

    That only goes for porn addiction and therefore doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who use porn. And even in the case that someone is addicted to porn, the study says nothing about it leading to rape or anything except in the case of a serial killer. And even then it only influenced the way in which he committed his crimes as opposed to actually causing them.

    So my point still stands. And that's just using your info.

    Also I did not know that about the Netherlands. I still think that is silly.

    Spectre-x on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited December 2008
    I provided evidence supporting exactly what you asked me to support, which was that people addicted to porn will tend to seek out more hardcore material. You have stated multiple times that this is flat out false and challenged me to provide evidence... which took slightly under 10 minutes on Google.
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    I am not familiar with any reliable studies that have shown that someone liking one type of porn leads to them trying to find increasingly hardcore material until all they can do to blow their load is watch snuff films. In fact, The very idea seems laughable and leads me to believe that you're basing your argument off terribly incorrect assumptions. I'd appreciate it if you could provide us with numbers that back up your claims because otherwise I just can't believe such outrageous theories.
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    And you don't really get to bring up the "scientifically sound" argument when you just admitted yourself that your own opinion has no factual basis AND you tried to argue that pornography leads to more vicious pornography ad infinitum which simply isn't true in any way.

    So, I've provided evidence which contradicts what you've been stating as hard fact. I'm waiting for you to provide any evidence to support your own claims.
    Spectre-x wrote: »
    That only goes for porn addiction and therefore doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who use porn. And even in the case that someone is addicted to porn, the study says nothing about it leading to rape or anything except in the case of a serial killer. And even then it only influenced the way in which he committed his crimes as opposed to actually causing them.

    Noone is saying this is going to affect the vast majority of porn users. But are saying you consider a small number of pedophiles are acceptable? My limit is less than one.

    The evidence I have provided suggests that a legal form of child pornography could lead to a demand for more hardcore illegal material featuring real children being exploited and abused, depending on the individual. And in very rare and extreme cases it may be that this addiction could lead to a need to act out these desires in real life.

    My feeling is that if just one child suffers as a result of that chain, it is one too many. Nuff said I think, there is nothing else I have to say on this topic that hasn't already been said.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited December 2008
    You'd prosecute based on thoughts, and that's all it comes down to and why it shouldn't happen.

    kdrudy on
    tvsfrank.jpg
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Man, one child is harmed, minimum, when I buy from fucking Nike.

    This is the least sensible place to insert yourself into the chain, if you want to protect kids.


    Sure as hell makes a lot of sense if you want to punish deviants and feel superior, though.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • Canada_jezusCanada_jezus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Anyone ever think "Man i'd like to kick that guy in the nuts,"

    congrats you're guilty of assault, enjoy prison

    Canada_jezus on
    You know who I fucking hate? Pony.

    I don't know why, I just felt the need to say that.
  • Dorktron9000Dorktron9000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    We can't pick what we wank to.

    We can only wank.

    Dorktron9000 on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I've heard that Osama Bin Ladin insists that America should be destroyed.

    And now, someone has flown planes into buildings and killed a lot of Americans.

    Putting these two together, I predict that someday, if someone has child porn, they may in turn commit a heinous act against a child.

    Because obviously indulging in one's thoughts on a subject can sometimes create victims. See what I did there?



    Yes, it is obviously bad to allow thought police and actively pursue legislation that prosecutes people based on "thought crimes".

    However thoughts in fact do sometimes lead to actions, often with terrible consequences and if they can be prevented they should.

    At the cost of freedoms and liberties? No.

    But at the cost of some dudes manga? Give me a break.


    Being able to draw cartoons of what you like is a freedom. Freedom of Speech.

    And if the only punishment was taking his manga away, I doubt we'd have this thread.

    Scooter on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Seriously, it's 20 fucking years in jail for the same shit your weeaboo girlfriend goes "squeee" over at conventions and the average person makes jokes about. The fact that he's a creepy dude notwithstanding "destruction of your life" is not really the appropriate punishment for "possessing crude images of fake people not doing real things."

    I mean good lord, should every Harry Potter slashfic writer get 20 years? Every reader? Or only the ones we think look creepy in person?

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Every HP fanfic writer should get 20 years, period.

    Wildcat on
  • HtownHtown Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Seriously, it's 20 fucking years in jail for the same shit your weeaboo girlfriend goes "squeee" over at conventions and the average person makes jokes about. The fact that he's a creepy dude notwithstanding "destruction of your life" is not really the appropriate punishment for "possessing crude images of fake people not doing real things."

    I mean good lord, should every Harry Potter slashfic writer get 20 years? Every reader? Or only the ones we think look creepy in person?

    20 years is probably too much in this case, but I have no problem with the stuff being illegal. Besides he's not likely to get the full 20 years anyway, even if he is convicted.

    What's the minimum penalty for someone convicted of this, by the way?

    Htown on
    steam_sig.png
  • Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    yalborap wrote: »
    I'm just going to say this. I disagree with Virral on a core fundamental level, and feel that I would much rather have fictional depictions of VERY VERY BAD THINGS in the world than start prosecuting for things in which no actual people were harmed. If the manga was made by tracing child porn photos, that's one thing. If the thing depicts actual, real-life people, that's one thing.

    But, to my knowledge, it is fictional characters who exist in no real-world form going at it like woodchucks. Beyond that, you have the issue that these characters have NO legal form of age whatsoever. Here, watch this.

    O<-<

    That figurine is fifteen years old.

    O<8-<

    That figurine is nineteen years old.
    O<8-<
     O<J<
    
    Have I just created child pornography and illegal things? I do not think so.

    This is a good point. I know a lot of anime stuff, when ported to America, goes through an 'age change' where even the youngest girl is made to be 18. So if they were originally meant to be 15, but in the USA their age is listed as 18, is it child porn?

    Also,
    Wildcat wrote: »
    Every HP fanfic writer should get 20 years, period.

    Thats legislation I can support.

    Mr Pink on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Htown wrote: »
    Seriously, it's 20 fucking years in jail for the same shit your weeaboo girlfriend goes "squeee" over at conventions and the average person makes jokes about. The fact that he's a creepy dude notwithstanding "destruction of your life" is not really the appropriate punishment for "possessing crude images of fake people not doing real things."

    I mean good lord, should every Harry Potter slashfic writer get 20 years? Every reader? Or only the ones we think look creepy in person?

    20 years is probably too much in this case, but I have no problem with the stuff being illegal.

    This is pretty much the same as letting groups like the KKK exist. Sure, they might disgust most people every time they open their mouths. No one here has to like them. And if you take the things they say to their logical extremes, it can result in violence and harm. But you can't make it illegal for them to say the things they say.


    Edit: I'm also more than a little curious at the coincidence that the one time this comes up, the porn is also the kind for gay homofags. There's metric asstons of this stuff coming from Japan, and this is the one that gets pulled out?

    Scooter on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    FYI, having researched this matter for an article submission to my legal journal in law school but having not updated my research in the last two years or so:

    1. American law currently recognizes the distinction between simulated child pornography (acts that would qualify otherwise as pornography and that depict minors without the actual use of minors) and actual child pornography (same as above, but actually using minors). This distinction is why US law (I believe 18 USC 2257 if I remember correctly) requires all makers of pornography (and arguably all sexually explicit material, even while non-pornographic) to keep records and proof of the ages of participants.

    2. There have been extensive efforts by the past three attorney generals to alter this, pushing for criminalization of faked child pornography. So far, all efforts have failed in the courts (generally getting up to SCOTUS). All criminalization of child pornography under US law is based on the protection of minors directly, and thus far has not been successfully applied under the theory of "child porn encourages child molesters" but rather the "child porn necessarily involves the abuse of children in its creation".

    3. There are no conclusive studies on the effect of child pornography as opposed to regular pornography on healthy observers. The distinction between addicts and healthy observers of any material - violence, sex, drugs, etc. - is well established in psychological studies.

    4. There is an important difference between sexual explicit material, obscene material, and pornography. These standards are annoyingly vague, but generally sexually explicit material is that which depicts sexual activity (including nudity), and can include masked nudity in some cases; obscenity is prurient material which is offensive to the general public, and is devoid of intellectual, artistic, political or otherwise constitutionally respected speech; and pornography is generally sexually explicit material which is intended to appeal to prurient interest but isn't necessarily obscene (though it often is). I'd be happy to pull the legal definitions if people are interested.

    (EDIT TO ADD THE SECTIONS BELOW)

    5. While it has essentially always been held that the state cannot penalize you for private ownership of pornographic of any sort only depicting adults, it has just as always been held that the state can restrict distribution of those materials, including the receipt of those materials (i.e. receiving them from mail, messenger, etc.).

    6. Child pornography is not covered by 5, i.e. private possession of actual child pornography is not protected.

    mattharvest on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Scooter wrote: »
    Htown wrote: »
    Seriously, it's 20 fucking years in jail for the same shit your weeaboo girlfriend goes "squeee" over at conventions and the average person makes jokes about. The fact that he's a creepy dude notwithstanding "destruction of your life" is not really the appropriate punishment for "possessing crude images of fake people not doing real things."

    I mean good lord, should every Harry Potter slashfic writer get 20 years? Every reader? Or only the ones we think look creepy in person?

    20 years is probably too much in this case, but I have no problem with the stuff being illegal.

    This is pretty much the same as letting groups like the KKK exist. Sure, they might disgust most people every time they open their mouths. No one here has to like them. And if you take the things they say to their logical extremes, it can result in violence and harm. But you can't make it illegal for them to say the things they say.


    Edit: I'm also more than a little curious at the coincidence that the one time this comes up, the porn is also the kind for gay homofags. There's metric asstons of this stuff coming from Japan, and this is the one that gets pulled out?

    Just as a legal clarification: you're mistaken, as while you cannot outright ban most speech, (a) some speech can be banned absolutely (e.g. treasonous revealing of secrets) while (b) most speech can be restricted in so-called time-place-manner formats.

    While the full discussion is complicated, you can generally restrict the time, place and manner of speech so long as you're doing so for a non-discriminatory, "legitimate" government purpose. Usually this means things like prohibiting protests within a government building or park, limiting door-to-door solicitations, etc.

    Moreover, any and all speech may be restricted or criminalized if it satisfies "strict scrutiny", i.e. it is the least restrictive means of accomplishing a necessary government interest. Examples of this include most notably treason (it's always criminal to reveal secrets in a treasonous manner, e.g. revealing troop movements during wartime). This is an extremely difficult burden for the government to meet, and it's almost never succeeded. That's why, most of the time, the government sticks to time-place-manner restrictions.

    mattharvest on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    None of which apply to viewing a comic book in the privacy of one's own home.

    Scooter on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Actually, all of those points apply to this discussion. It's been a large talk about the nature of porn, child porn, their legality, etc.

    If you're viewing a comic in your home, it's very important whether it's (a) original artwork or photoreferenced (photoreferenced might constitute "actual" porn the same way photoshopped pictures of real children might be), (b) whether it is pornography or not (i.e. whether there is artistic merit), etc.

    mattharvest on
  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Htown wrote: »
    Seriously, it's 20 fucking years in jail for the same shit your weeaboo girlfriend goes "squeee" over at conventions and the average person makes jokes about. The fact that he's a creepy dude notwithstanding "destruction of your life" is not really the appropriate punishment for "possessing crude images of fake people not doing real things."

    I mean good lord, should every Harry Potter slashfic writer get 20 years? Every reader? Or only the ones we think look creepy in person?

    20 years is probably too much in this case, but I have no problem with the stuff being illegal. Besides he's not likely to get the full 20 years anyway, even if he is convicted.

    What's the minimum penalty for someone convicted of this, by the way?

    Jail time would be the least of his worries.

    Do you know how this whole "sex offender" thing works?

    His life would pretty much be over.

    Furu on
  • Dorktron9000Dorktron9000 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thats the crux of this. Some squeeky nerd might do hard time amongst real criminals for looking at pictures that really aren't harmful.

    Anyone advocating this guy be punished has not experienced the trappings of our judicial system. Being in jail sucks. Atop that, the sex offender thing would follow him everywhere for years. It's not like that information is hard to come across nor is it specific. He will be lumped in with REAL sex offenders.

    Dorktron9000 on
Sign In or Register to comment.