Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn

[Helmholtz Watson]

But how can it be child pornography when there is no child involved?

Quite simple, it is a cartoon picture that mimics the real thing.

Yes it mimics it which means it's not the real thing.

Doesn't matter, its still a form of CP.

But how can it be child pornography when there is no child involved?

Quite simple, it is a cartoon picture that mimics the real thing.

So apparently if you have ever played grand theft auto you are also a murderer.

Or if you have ever played Modern Warfare 2 or Command and Conquer you are a terrorist.

See my previous comment [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.391561.15769371], its not illegal to own picture of war so there is no reason why it would be illegal to play those games.

Snip

Also, did you like my Midna image? I hope it answered a few questions for you.

I didn't see the pic, which post is it? Better yet just include it in your reply.

 

[Epona]

The comparison doesn't hold up, because unlike real pictures of CP, its not illegal to posses real pictures of vehicular violence so playing GTA wouldn't make you a criminal.

I actually had to pause my music to try and wrap my head around this.

Let me see if I have this straight. In your mind...;
Child pornography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide = Bad.
Something that mimics a bad thing is also bad.
Cartoon ponography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide in a game = Good.

...

...and don't forget, you are enjoying yourself as you play GTA. Isn't that the same as the guy enjoying himself with drawings of fake kids?

 

[Loop Stricken]

I didn't see the pic, which post is it? Better yet just include it in your reply.

He asked...

Spoiler: Also Midna, for your benefit.

OH MY GOD, LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THOSE TITS! SHE'S CLEARLY A CHILD! YOU HAVING THIS IMAGE ON YOUR COMPUTER HAS CLEARLY MADE YOU AN ACCESSORY TO A CRIME!

Spoiler: I also posted a Creeper, from Minecraft.

OH GODS NO, THE BREASTS ARE FLAT, YOU MUST... ACQUIT.
SHUT UP AND REPORT TO YOUR LOCAL POLICE STATION FOR MANDATORY CHEMICAL CASTRATION, YOU COLOSSAL PERVERT, YOU!

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

But if simple having images like that on your computer is enough to get you in trouble then you should probably watch out yourself, because looking back at this thread I'm guessing you've already got a thing or two in your browser cache that might just land you in a tight spot if you let anyone see it.

If it wasn't already obvious, I don't have those kinds of images on my computer.

Catch a Predator is really stretching the whole deal, though. They're chasing people who are actually out there looking for minors. Comparing the topic story to the people in that show is like comparing a person with an affection for really violent games with someone who's actually considering shooting another person. Crazy comparison, but it is a comparison. It's an unwanted activity committed by a group actively vilified by modern society, but what's really so wrong with just letting them sate their curious interest in a way that doesn't harm anyone and doesn't even have to concern anyone but them?

The comparison holds up because they people in that show were arrested for merely showing interest in something and not for actually committing any sexual acts.

Because we think it's wrong and that's final, no discussion whatsoever in the whole history of everything?

Discussion? About looking at CP? No, just don't look at it.

Let me see if I have this straight. In your mind...;
Child pornography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide = Bad.
Something that mimics a bad thing is also bad.
Cartoon ponography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide in a game = Good.

That's a nice strawman you have there. I never condoned vehicular homicide, I just said that it wasn't against the law to own pictures of it. Just because something isn't against the law, doesn't mean I approve and like it.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Let me see if I have this straight. In your mind...;
Child pornography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide = Bad.
Something that mimics a bad thing is also bad.
Cartoon ponography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide in a game = Good.

That's a nice strawman you have there. I never condoned vehicular homicide, I just said that it wasn't against the law to own pictures of it. Just because something isn't against the law, doesn't mean I approve and like it.

Strawman my arse, this is what you have said.

I'm not talking about owning images of vehicular homicide; I'm talking about actively participating in a mimicked version of it.
Given that running people down with a car is a crime, how are you more accepting of this? More to the point, how are you not even more outraged at it, given the interactive nature of a video game?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Okay, you can't say this . . .

its still CP.

and then go on to say this . . .

Quite simple, it is a cartoon picture that mimics the real thing.

You've just contradicted yourself here.

You can't say something is something, and then say that it mimics something. Because those are contradictory statements.

If you look at my other post, I said that the cartoon is a variation of the real thing.

He asked...

and I regret doing so immediately.

The comparison doesn't hold up, because unlike real pictures of CP, its not illegal to posses real pictures of vehicular violence so playing GTA wouldn't make you a criminal.

The comparison absolutely holds up.

You're the one that keeps throwing around the word 'mimic'. And GTA allows people to mimic the act of murder, which is illegal.

No it doesn't. Its not illegal to own pictures of murder(assuming you are not the one who committed the act to take said picture). CP on the other hand is illegal to own, so the cops are just arresting people who posses a variation of CP.

 

[Epona]

Let me see if I have this straight. In your mind...;
Child pornography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide = Bad.
Something that mimics a bad thing is also bad.
Cartoon ponography = Bad.
Vehicular homicide in a game = Good.

That's a nice strawman you have there. I never condoned vehicular homicide, I just said that it wasn't against the law to own pictures of it. Just because something isn't against the law, doesn't mean I approve and like it.

Strawman my arse, this is what you have said.

I'm not talking about owning images of vehicular homicide; I'm talking about actively participating in a mimicked version of it.
Given that running people down with a car is a crime, how are you more accepting of this? More to the point, how are you not even more outraged at it, given the interactive nature of a video game?

I think it's getting harder for him to justify his witchhunt.

 

[Loop Stricken]

And GTA allows people to mimic the act of murder, which is illegal.

No it doesn't.

Yes it bloody well does. How many missions DON'T involve murder?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Strawman my arse, this is what you have said.

I'm not talking about owning images of vehicular homicide; I'm talking about actively participating in a mimicked version of it.

Doesn't change anything. Once again its not illegal to posses videos of such acts, so playing a video game that mimics it isn't a crime.

Given that running people down with a car is a crime, how are you more accepting of this? More to the point, how are you not even more outraged at it, given the interactive nature of a video game?

Did you not read my previous comment at all? Here, let me quote myself....

I never condoned vehicular homicide, I just said that it wasn't against the law to own pictures of it. Just because something isn't against the law, doesn't mean I approve and like it.

I put the important parts in bold this time, just in case you missed it.

 

[Nurb]

Obscenity laws don't apply to drawings because they have artistic value by default regardless

But how can it be child pornography when there is no child involved?

Quite simple, it is a cartoon picture that mimics the real thing.

Are you kidding me? You really suggest someone can draw themselves into prison?

-What if they're stick figures representing the same thing?
-What level of detail does there need to be?
-What fictional age should the fictional character need to be to make the fictional act acceptable?
-What if it were incest stories of the same content? They represent the same things the cartoons do.
-What about a drawing of a child being murdered? Is it ok as long as she's clothed?
-What about cartoon bestiality? That mimics the real thing too.
-What about sex with an underage alien? Does your idea of cartoon crime include non-human species that also do not exist?

This is the arbitrary bullshit that people have to consider when they want to apply real laws to things that don't exist, not to mention the hypocricy of saying one fictional act of crime is different from another fictional act of crime.

 

[Folji]

The comparison holds up because they people in that show were arrested for merely showing interest in something and not for actually committing any sexual acts.

Interest with the intent of committing the actual act, hence why the people on the show were caught meeting with "minors" they met online. They were the ones actively reaching after the bait put out for them, not sitting there minding their own business until someone decided to bust in and show the world what they were keeping on their system. That's a pretty nice comparison failure right there, seeing as how those situations are complete opposites and all that. But I get where this is going, though. You're just too stubborn to look into anything beyond the one view you've already got. No shame in that!

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Are you kidding me? You really suggest someone can draw themselves into prison?

-What if they're stick figures representing the same thing?
-What level of detail does there need to be?
-What fictional age should the fictional character need to be to make the fictional act acceptable?
-What if it were incest stories of the same content? They represent the same things the cartoons do.
-What about a drawing of a child being murdered? Is it ok as long as she's clothed?
-What about cartoon bestiality? That mimics the real thing too.
-What about sex with an underage alien? Does your idea of cartoon crime include non-human species that also do not exist?

All good questions, but seeing as I am neither a police officer, judge, lawyer or politician, I am the wrong person to ask about said details to the law. I would advise you to direct your questions to the Missouri police department or the Department of Justice.

 

[Schmoopy]

uh-oh... gotta go get some of my affairs in order...

 

[Loop Stricken]

I put the important parts in bold this time, just in case you missed it.

Funny man.

Murder is illegal, yes?
According to you, a mimicked act is as bad as the real thing.
Ergo, simulated murder is just as bad as murder.

Correct?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

The comparison holds up because they people in that show were arrested for merely showing interest in something and not for actually committing any sexual acts.

Interest with the intent of committing the actual act, hence why the people on the show were caught meeting with "minors" they met online. They were the ones actively reaching after the bait put out for them, not sitting there minding their own business until someone decided to bust in and show the world what they were keeping on their system. That's a pretty nice comparison failure right there, seeing as how those situations are complete opposites and all that.

If you were to listen to the people who were arrested, they would tell you different, but your missing the point, which is that people are already arrested for merely showing interest.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Obscenity is such bullshit.

And the idea that CARTOONS should be illegal is bullshit too

Should people have sex with kids? fuck no.
Do I understand the fascination with underage folks? no
But you can't punish people for CARTOONS

 

[kuolonen]

sniphet

I think it's getting harder for him to justify his witchhunt.

I am actually starting to see his way of thinking.

See, he does not think for himself, for him what is wrong and what is right is defined by law. Because depictions mimicking of CP is illegal it is wrong. Because depiction of murder, or actually committing VR murder is not illegal, it a-okay.

Which is kind of makes you the fools trying to reason with a brick. Still, thanks for drawing that information out of him and saving me the embarrassment.

Although he is bit of his track since federal law makes realistic depictions illegal.

Spoiler

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or

depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

 

[Nurb]

Are you kidding me? You really suggest someone can draw themselves into prison?

-What if they're stick figures representing the same thing?
-What level of detail does there need to be?
-What fictional age should the fictional character need to be to make the fictional act acceptable?
-What if it were incest stories of the same content? They represent the same things the cartoons do.
-What about a drawing of a child being murdered? Is it ok as long as she's clothed?
-What about cartoon bestiality? That mimics the real thing too.
-What about sex with an underage alien? Does your idea of cartoon crime include non-human species that also do not exist?

All good questions, but seeing as I am neither a police officer, judge, lawyer or politician, I am the wrong person to ask about said details to the law. I would advise you to direct your questions to the Missouri police department or the Department of Justice.

Then you are obviously in no position to judge cartoons as the equal to child pornography.

Suggesting a cartoon is CP makes a joke out of real victims of abuse.