Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Under the name of laws designed to protect children, he is going to be jailed for doing something that did not harm a single child, for far longer than a mother who killed a child of her own(*). The only variable that stood between him and freedom, and between his life being completely ruined versus moderately ruined? A completely arbitrary court's decision of what is art and what is not.peruvianskys said:
If you don't think that's "suffering", then language truly has no meaning to you.
(*) this is a reference to the special charge of matricide (where applicable) and the demonstrable pro-female bias in criminal court, NOT to abortion.
Didn't they also say that games like DOOM "clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value?"
Fuck these people. Seriously.
Fuck these people. Seriously.
Alright, time to address this:
#1: Mr. Bee is an idiot. The bottom line here is that he cut a plea deal as opposed to fighting it, which sadly means this will help establish a degree of precedent. Don't misunderstand the case here, the courts never actually "beat him" instead he was intimidated into backing down.
The thing to understand here is that they are claiming this work "clearly had no redeeming value". There is a very specific process for determining such things, which is actually pretty time consuming, it's one of the reasons why so many porn movies get made that probably have no redeeming value (though many do something like make a "social statement" about sex in the dialogue to defend themselves if need be) because sheer volume makes them difficult to police.
When I took Criminal Justice many years ago, my instructor was the former head of the Connecticut State Police, and had sat on review panels for this kind of thing, and pointed out that proving a lack of redeeming merit, especially artistic merit, can be basically impossible if the work's creator decides to contest you.
Apparently they still need to prove this is indeed legal porn, which means Mr. Bee should have forced them to review each specific work properly, and then declare it obscene. Chances are at that point even if every one was obscene they couldn't nail him, because of this little bit about the law not being retroactively applied.
It's not my area of legal expertise, so some might be able to correct me here, but from where I'm sitting and what I learned (which goes beyond your typical "Internet Lawyer") it seems to me like if the guy didn't get talked into a plea bargain, they probably never would have gotten him.
If I'm correct (and I imagine I am, this is an educated analysis), one shouldn't so much be decrying the laws in question so much as the guy who made it easy for them.
2: I have very mixed opinions about this entire subject itself, to be honest I seriouly hate pedophilles having been a victim once myself. The problem with laws about suggestive portrayals of underage characters in cartoons and drawings is that it's too broad, assuming this law exists as described. I'd imagine that means that it's ultimatly impossible to enforce if the person on the receiving end wants to fight, but if somehow it ever DID become enforced as it's described it doesn't really do a good job of defining it's content. It raises questions about whether comics like the old "Marvel Swimsuit Issues" which showed well known teenage mutants in bikinis and provocative poses be considered "child porn" under this definition? Heck for that matter, what about like half the comics out there. That raises some questions about whether it should be okay for some teenage boy to fap to his favorite super heroine that is around his own age, but it somehow becomes criminal to have that comic once he becomes an adult?
The thing is that there are some illustrations of young children that probably do go too far. It's impossible to really make a law addressing that, that wouldn't also hit a lot of other very legitimate works. Not to mention that the line between "shock" material and "fap" material (so to speak) is one that has to be understood. In many cases, such as in horror, the image of a child in trouble/being raped/etc... is done because it's shocking and horrorific, not because the viewer is supposed to get hot over it. Sure some people might, but there are also people who apparently spank off to road kill. This should of course be covered in part of reviewing something for obscinity (as horror is an accepted genere, and a work of horror can be considered redeeming on it's own merits, though admittedly horror is always under fire).
My major concern about cases like this when I hear them is if one day I'm going to have to sit down and defend my comics collection or something. While not as huge as many people's collections, I have a decent pile of comics and graphic novels, including some adult ones. It makes me wonder if one day I'm going to be sitting there with a public defender preparing a case to avoid going to prison for 20 years because some comics I bought at Sarge's (local comics place) when I was in college invoked the ire or someone who spotted them on my shelf.
That said, as I said under point #1, it seems to me that the standard protection applies. Unless something this guy has was declared obscene previously, he should never have backed down.
Even in cases of things being declared obscene, I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if people want to go on these crusades, more effort should be taken to communicate obscinity rulings and what might be on the list. I also think the goverment should be required to reimburse people for legitimate purchuses that are later banned. Basically if I picked up some of Rebecca's "Housewives At Play" stuff from the local comics shoppe when it was more popular (or whatever floats your boat, it might be "Genus" for the furries out there or whatever), and the gubberment wants to ban it, they should be forced to refund the current market value. Some of this stuff increases in price, if they want a high quality book from me, they had best give me the current collector's rate, not that I sell myself, but fair is fair if it was a legitimate purchuse (and arguably an investment). It would be ironic if one day collectors suffer prison sentences for keeping old comics that are later banned in pristine, plastic-protected condition.
On some levels it might be darkly amusing though:
"We the people submit that Irving Snotchpockets is a pedophille. While helping him move one of the members of the moving crew discovered this... a compilation of the banned work "Secret Wars" in which there is a sub plot involving an adult (Colossus) who has improper feelings for an underage girl (Kitty Pride). The girl of whom is presented sexually, in form fitting attire, through hundreds of other banned books connected to this same series. The fact that Mr. Snotchpockets purchused this comic when he was 15 and had no idea it was illegal in no way should influance the desicians of the jury, after all ignorance of the law is no excuse"
#1: Mr. Bee is an idiot. The bottom line here is that he cut a plea deal as opposed to fighting it, which sadly means this will help establish a degree of precedent. Don't misunderstand the case here, the courts never actually "beat him" instead he was intimidated into backing down.
The thing to understand here is that they are claiming this work "clearly had no redeeming value". There is a very specific process for determining such things, which is actually pretty time consuming, it's one of the reasons why so many porn movies get made that probably have no redeeming value (though many do something like make a "social statement" about sex in the dialogue to defend themselves if need be) because sheer volume makes them difficult to police.
When I took Criminal Justice many years ago, my instructor was the former head of the Connecticut State Police, and had sat on review panels for this kind of thing, and pointed out that proving a lack of redeeming merit, especially artistic merit, can be basically impossible if the work's creator decides to contest you.
Apparently they still need to prove this is indeed legal porn, which means Mr. Bee should have forced them to review each specific work properly, and then declare it obscene. Chances are at that point even if every one was obscene they couldn't nail him, because of this little bit about the law not being retroactively applied.
It's not my area of legal expertise, so some might be able to correct me here, but from where I'm sitting and what I learned (which goes beyond your typical "Internet Lawyer") it seems to me like if the guy didn't get talked into a plea bargain, they probably never would have gotten him.
If I'm correct (and I imagine I am, this is an educated analysis), one shouldn't so much be decrying the laws in question so much as the guy who made it easy for them.
2: I have very mixed opinions about this entire subject itself, to be honest I seriouly hate pedophilles having been a victim once myself. The problem with laws about suggestive portrayals of underage characters in cartoons and drawings is that it's too broad, assuming this law exists as described. I'd imagine that means that it's ultimatly impossible to enforce if the person on the receiving end wants to fight, but if somehow it ever DID become enforced as it's described it doesn't really do a good job of defining it's content. It raises questions about whether comics like the old "Marvel Swimsuit Issues" which showed well known teenage mutants in bikinis and provocative poses be considered "child porn" under this definition? Heck for that matter, what about like half the comics out there. That raises some questions about whether it should be okay for some teenage boy to fap to his favorite super heroine that is around his own age, but it somehow becomes criminal to have that comic once he becomes an adult?
The thing is that there are some illustrations of young children that probably do go too far. It's impossible to really make a law addressing that, that wouldn't also hit a lot of other very legitimate works. Not to mention that the line between "shock" material and "fap" material (so to speak) is one that has to be understood. In many cases, such as in horror, the image of a child in trouble/being raped/etc... is done because it's shocking and horrorific, not because the viewer is supposed to get hot over it. Sure some people might, but there are also people who apparently spank off to road kill. This should of course be covered in part of reviewing something for obscinity (as horror is an accepted genere, and a work of horror can be considered redeeming on it's own merits, though admittedly horror is always under fire).
My major concern about cases like this when I hear them is if one day I'm going to have to sit down and defend my comics collection or something. While not as huge as many people's collections, I have a decent pile of comics and graphic novels, including some adult ones. It makes me wonder if one day I'm going to be sitting there with a public defender preparing a case to avoid going to prison for 20 years because some comics I bought at Sarge's (local comics place) when I was in college invoked the ire or someone who spotted them on my shelf.
That said, as I said under point #1, it seems to me that the standard protection applies. Unless something this guy has was declared obscene previously, he should never have backed down.
Even in cases of things being declared obscene, I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if people want to go on these crusades, more effort should be taken to communicate obscinity rulings and what might be on the list. I also think the goverment should be required to reimburse people for legitimate purchuses that are later banned. Basically if I picked up some of Rebecca's "Housewives At Play" stuff from the local comics shoppe when it was more popular (or whatever floats your boat, it might be "Genus" for the furries out there or whatever), and the gubberment wants to ban it, they should be forced to refund the current market value. Some of this stuff increases in price, if they want a high quality book from me, they had best give me the current collector's rate, not that I sell myself, but fair is fair if it was a legitimate purchuse (and arguably an investment). It would be ironic if one day collectors suffer prison sentences for keeping old comics that are later banned in pristine, plastic-protected condition.
On some levels it might be darkly amusing though:
"We the people submit that Irving Snotchpockets is a pedophille. While helping him move one of the members of the moving crew discovered this... a compilation of the banned work "Secret Wars" in which there is a sub plot involving an adult (Colossus) who has improper feelings for an underage girl (Kitty Pride). The girl of whom is presented sexually, in form fitting attire, through hundreds of other banned books connected to this same series. The fact that Mr. Snotchpockets purchused this comic when he was 15 and had no idea it was illegal in no way should influance the desicians of the jury, after all ignorance of the law is no excuse"
Thank Christ that the US has more sense than Sweden when it comes to such disgusting filth such as this. I have to question the people who feel that its ok for this grown adult to "enjoy" himself to such horrible cartoons.
EVERYBODY, CHILL THE FUCK OUT!
No need to worry, as long as the cartoon females have d-cups, your fine
No need to worry, as long as the cartoon females have d-cups, your fine
So you would have a person's life be ruined because they committed a crime against imaginary people?Helmholtz Watson said:
Thank Christ that the US has more sense than Sweden when it comes to such disgusting filth such as this. I have to question the people who feel that its ok for this grown adult to "enjoy" himself to such horrible cartoons.
As long as your collecion doesn't include Lost Girls, you will probably be fine.Therumancer said:
The problem with obscenity laws, is that they rely on "common sense", in other words, mainstream opinions.
Marvel swimsuits characters are mainstream, well-known, so they are "obviously" not porn.
The one who have to be afraid are the ones who have weird Japanese things, or obscure indie projects, that, without their proper context, "obviously" look like irredeemable porn.
For example, even on this very forum, I've spent hours debating that Katawa Shoujo, a visual novel (eroge) made by some people who started working on it in a 4chan thread, and that's protagonists are physically disabled teenagers, is not actually cripple fetishist porn, but a touching, well-written, long, and complex literary romance story, that also happens to include graphic sex scenes due to traditions of it's medium.
Few believed, because come on, a Japanese dating sim made by 4chan where you fuck cripples? It must "obviously" be offensive! Who needs to know anything more than that about it?
The ones who eventually believed, and the ones who eventually tried to read it, showed a 100% overlap, but whatever.
They chose to ruin their own life when they took an interest and collected cartoons that mimic real CP.Loop Stricken said:
Hey, when you stop lying I will stop calling you on it. You asked us to check what science had to say, we did, and we called you on your lies. Don't get upset when you get called a liar for lying.SnakeoilSage said:
1. You still have given no evidence at all that pedophilia necessarily leads to an obsessive condition which will be acted upon given the chance, which you have claimed over and over again. Because the one source you cited disagrees with you on this point*, I must conclude that you have never seen any real evidence. This can only be because you never actually researched the issue or there is no such evidence. That makes you a liar.
*The estimated rate of pedophilia in the United States is stated as being between 3% and 9%. Comparing that number to the number of sex offenders per capita (0.4% for the states with the worst record, around 0.2% on average) shows that even if we assume all sex offenders are pedophiles then only around 10% of them act on it. When we start applying real world statistics, that number drops drastically.
2. You have given no evidence that viewing drawn child pornography will increase the probability of an individual seeking out real child pornography or acting on their fantasy. This is another point you have harped on over and over. Because the one source you cited says nothing on this point and because you are already a proven liar, I am going to assume you are also lying about this point until you provide me with evidence. And please, if you have any real evidence, show it to me.
3. Your posts purpose is to express your hatred of these people and persuade others to this point of view. (I will give you the chance to deny this, but you are really going to have to back that up.)
We have established that you have told at minimum 2 lies with the intent of spreading hatred. You are a liar and a hate monger. These are facts.
So why is that a problem? Because you are not helping solve the problem of children being sexually abused. In fact, you are actively working against strategies that may help solve the problem because you find them personally offensive. You claim viewing cartoon child pornography will lead to real life acts of pedophilia, but there is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, there is no evidence either way, I have looked. This is because people like you are blocking any such study from taking place. No one has even tried. For all we know it may work. What if even 5% of pedophiles who would have committed a crime could control themselves using techniques based around satisfying such urges in a safe and controlled environment instead of repressing them? That would be a huge achievement. Thousands of children would be spared sexual abuse, but you are unwilling to even look at the possibility.
I actually want to solve the problem, and I am willing to investigate every potential solution.
I don't condone such things, but this is going way overboard... He was not even looking at real child porn which would then be more understandable, but freaken drawings aka hentai and I know many people look at that shit and don't go out raping children or condone such actions in reality...
This is like saying if you like shooters, then you are prone to violence and will go shoot up a place... Most people that play games would never do such acts and that goes to people that read pictures of drawing doing the nasty... You know what we should banned all the religious text that have children being in relationships with older people as well if we are going to ban fantasy porn drawings...
This is like saying if you like shooters, then you are prone to violence and will go shoot up a place... Most people that play games would never do such acts and that goes to people that read pictures of drawing doing the nasty... You know what we should banned all the religious text that have children being in relationships with older people as well if we are going to ban fantasy porn drawings...
What a load of toss.Helmholtz Watson said:
I watch anime. If I find a nice image on Danbooru, I save it. TO YOUR DISGUST, some of those images are of teenage girls who do NOT have tits the size of Godzilla's bollocks.
Have I chosen to ruin my life by doing this? Should the urge overtake me to rub one out to pictures of Midna in her imp form, should I instead cut off my filthy hands and turn myself in to the police?
Nobody is harmed before, during, or after the act of downloading cartoon porn, regardless of the perceived age of the subject.
Because the subjects are not fucking real.
Do you not find anything confusing to your sententious morality in that this person got a harsher sentence for having a cartoon (in which no one was harmed in the production of) than some people would for actually harming an actual child?Helmholtz Watson said:
I'm of the opinion that victimless crimes shouldn't even be considered crimes. So he owns pornographic drawings - what's it matter? No actual child is getting hurt, and that's what should be important.