Born Ellen Philpotts-Page
February 21, 1987 (1987-02-21) (age 21)
You're in the clear, Servo. Wank away.
Edit; didn't realize that was from a few pages back. Still catching up on the back and forth on the matter.
Interesting stuff.
In brief; child porn (virtual or otherwise) is bad, but prosecuting on thought crimes is also bad, so picking a side to sit with is kind of difficult at this point.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The whole concept of "thought crime" is really a poor distinction though. The overwhelming majority of things that are called "crimes" (at least under US law) depend completely on the mental state of the actor. In fact, we explicitly talk about the "mens rea" element of a given crime. This refers to intent, negligence, etc.
An enormous amount of crimes instantly cease to be crimes when you lack the appropriate mental state. For example, killing someone without intent is generally never murder (this is the basic distinction between murder and manslaughter, generally).
The question of how much action needs to accompany that mental state is extremely variable, and has no clear answer. In the case of this discussion, the action is the possession of certain materials.
The only really question here is whether simulated child sex is ever/always child pornography, and thus whether possession of manga depicting child sex in illustration-form is child pornography. I haven't seen anything here that makes this about a "thought" crime.
Because the problem with child porn, when it's seperated from the act of making of actual porn with actual children, is that it's basically a criminal act to think about children sexually if you put pen to paper about it.
Scooter on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
So what happens if before all the sexing starts, the artist has a segue where we get a closeup of them showing their IDs at a bar, showing that they're all over 21, but just have Gary Coleman's disease and only look like children?
So what happens if before all the sexing starts, the artist has a segue where we get a closeup of them showing their IDs at a bar, showing that they're all over 21, but just have Gary Coleman's disease and only look like children?
"I swear, your honor, I thought I was drawing an 18 year old."
Wasn't there a panel in a Punisher MAX issue where the villain Barracuda shoots a baby? As rare as it is, I can't see how we overlook horrific violence against cartoon children.
Rufio got stabbed through the heart in the movie Hook! How is that tolerated?
Because the problem with child porn, when it's seperated from the act of making of actual porn with actual children, is that it's basically a criminal act to think about children sexually if you put pen to paper about it.
Well, it's not really that simple. I know it's tempting to be reductionist in this way, but it's not appropriate.
As I mentioned above, the primary distinction (in US law) between actual child pornography and virtual child pornography is, as you suggest, whether actual minors were involved in the production of pornography. The use of children in such pornography is per se child abuse and sexual abuse of a minor, and so by the logic that child porn can only be produced through crime, possession of that material itself constitutes a crime.
There is an additional aspect: it's considered a necessary government interest to dry up the flow of child pornography, i.e. to eliminate the demand for child pornography.
Our past two (before Mukasey) Attorneys General have attempted to have virtual child porn - porn produced either by photoshop'ing actual photos of actual children (e.g. putting a child's head from a normal photo into a photo of explicit sexual activity) or through the use of non-minors to create the illusion of child pornography (e.g. dressing a young-looking 18 year old to look 14). So far, they have failed in the courts. At every step, they have pushed aggressively on the 'demand' issue, i.e. that virtual child pornography sustains the child pornography consumer, which preserves the demand for the actual product (i.e. that everyone wants the real thing, even if imitations satisfy temporarily). As noted, this has failed so far as the sole justification for a law.
Now, drawings of child pornography present an interesting problem: they cannot be confused for being actual photos, obviously. However, it presents a question of whether they used actual images of child pornography to generate the illustrations, e.g. as inspiration/reference.
I'm not saying that's a great argument, but rather that it's a valid argument for discussion and debate amongst law makers and citizens.
Now as an additional line of thought: we already acknowledge that persons with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and society can be 'detained' indefinitely until they are deemed no longer such a danger. Typically, this is limited to pure violent offenders, e.g. sociopaths. This does not require that they have committed actual successful acts of violence in the past, i.e. attempts are enough (along with the other bases for diagnosis). Following this reason, should consumers of child pornography - even virtual child pornography - be similarly detained? Is this the 'thought crime' you're speaking of being punished? If so, how do you distinguish the thought crime of consuming virtual child porn with the thought crimes involved in sociopathy?
It looked like a real baby in that one panel. It was implied by Barracuda it was a real baby. The reader, open-mouthed and horrified, assumed it was a baby because of that.
This sounds like a stretch but really the judge reviewing all this is making an assumption about the ages of characters depicted. It's not like the judge can interview a drawing and ask one-on-one for an age. "I swear, your honor, I thought I was drawing an 18 year old."
People seem to be ignoring a very big issue here: images aren't pornography if they have significant enough speech value (i.e. they aren't just designed to appeal to prurient interests).
To take the Punisher example, it wasn't as if that was pointless violence: it was violence as a legitimate part of the story, intended to have expressive value.
...violence as a legitimate part of the story, intended to have expressive value.
A couple years ago on HBO, I saw a segment on Real Sex where this small town banned stripping. The strippers skirted the ban (pun not intended) by adding some 'culture' to their act by performing Shakespeare in the nude. The audience still got to see naked ladies, nothing changed in the small town. Does clumsily tossing in some Sartre or Anais Nin quotes into the dialog give some expressive value to the manga in question?
...violence as a legitimate part of the story, intended to have expressive value.
A couple years ago on HBO, I saw a segment on Real Sex where this small town banned stripping. The strippers skirted the ban (pun not intended) by adding some 'culture' to their act by performing Shakespeare in the nude. The audience still got to see naked ladies, nothing changed in the small town. Does clumsily tossing in some Sartre or Anais Nin quotes into the dialog give some expressive value to the manga in question?
That's not what he's saying about Punisher. The apparent death was supposed to be an easy plot lead. The implication is, Frank's infant daughter, whom he just found out existed, is dead and he's about to go apeshit. This wasn't just a LOOK FUCK BABIES moment, this was an actual part of the plot.
Also no that does not work when it's apparently underage characters fucking, because color me biased but uh I don't see a whole lot of expressive value being added to a story about you know kids fucking.
Basically my point is this: That shit's fucked up and wrong but I'd also rather not have it end up with prosecuting thought-crimes so uh I don't know I guess
Posts
Thanks Captain Obvious
Major Disaster: Being rad as hell constantly
Captain Obvious: Sucking dick
I win
You're in the clear, Servo. Wank away.
Edit; didn't realize that was from a few pages back. Still catching up on the back and forth on the matter.
Interesting stuff.
In brief; child porn (virtual or otherwise) is bad, but prosecuting on thought crimes is also bad, so picking a side to sit with is kind of difficult at this point.
An enormous amount of crimes instantly cease to be crimes when you lack the appropriate mental state. For example, killing someone without intent is generally never murder (this is the basic distinction between murder and manslaughter, generally).
The question of how much action needs to accompany that mental state is extremely variable, and has no clear answer. In the case of this discussion, the action is the possession of certain materials.
The only really question here is whether simulated child sex is ever/always child pornography, and thus whether possession of manga depicting child sex in illustration-form is child pornography. I haven't seen anything here that makes this about a "thought" crime.
"I swear, your honor, I thought I was drawing an 18 year old."
Rufio got stabbed through the heart in the movie Hook! How is that tolerated?
Well, it's not really that simple. I know it's tempting to be reductionist in this way, but it's not appropriate.
As I mentioned above, the primary distinction (in US law) between actual child pornography and virtual child pornography is, as you suggest, whether actual minors were involved in the production of pornography. The use of children in such pornography is per se child abuse and sexual abuse of a minor, and so by the logic that child porn can only be produced through crime, possession of that material itself constitutes a crime.
There is an additional aspect: it's considered a necessary government interest to dry up the flow of child pornography, i.e. to eliminate the demand for child pornography.
Our past two (before Mukasey) Attorneys General have attempted to have virtual child porn - porn produced either by photoshop'ing actual photos of actual children (e.g. putting a child's head from a normal photo into a photo of explicit sexual activity) or through the use of non-minors to create the illusion of child pornography (e.g. dressing a young-looking 18 year old to look 14). So far, they have failed in the courts. At every step, they have pushed aggressively on the 'demand' issue, i.e. that virtual child pornography sustains the child pornography consumer, which preserves the demand for the actual product (i.e. that everyone wants the real thing, even if imitations satisfy temporarily). As noted, this has failed so far as the sole justification for a law.
Now, drawings of child pornography present an interesting problem: they cannot be confused for being actual photos, obviously. However, it presents a question of whether they used actual images of child pornography to generate the illustrations, e.g. as inspiration/reference.
I'm not saying that's a great argument, but rather that it's a valid argument for discussion and debate amongst law makers and citizens.
Now as an additional line of thought: we already acknowledge that persons with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and society can be 'detained' indefinitely until they are deemed no longer such a danger. Typically, this is limited to pure violent offenders, e.g. sociopaths. This does not require that they have committed actual successful acts of violence in the past, i.e. attempts are enough (along with the other bases for diagnosis). Following this reason, should consumers of child pornography - even virtual child pornography - be similarly detained? Is this the 'thought crime' you're speaking of being punished? If so, how do you distinguish the thought crime of consuming virtual child porn with the thought crimes involved in sociopathy?
It looked like a real baby in that one panel. It was implied by Barracuda it was a real baby. The reader, open-mouthed and horrified, assumed it was a baby because of that.
This sounds like a stretch but really the judge reviewing all this is making an assumption about the ages of characters depicted. It's not like the judge can interview a drawing and ask one-on-one for an age. "I swear, your honor, I thought I was drawing an 18 year old."
To take the Punisher example, it wasn't as if that was pointless violence: it was violence as a legitimate part of the story, intended to have expressive value.
Is it a crime to write "He cut her throat" just because some people get off on snuff films?
A couple years ago on HBO, I saw a segment on Real Sex where this small town banned stripping. The strippers skirted the ban (pun not intended) by adding some 'culture' to their act by performing Shakespeare in the nude. The audience still got to see naked ladies, nothing changed in the small town. Does clumsily tossing in some Sartre or Anais Nin quotes into the dialog give some expressive value to the manga in question?
That is fantastic.
Also no that does not work when it's apparently underage characters fucking, because color me biased but uh I don't see a whole lot of expressive value being added to a story about you know kids fucking.
Oh god; DISTURBING