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

[Madgamer13]

Greets!

You know, this kinda reminds me of the whole "To catch a predator" thing, only less dangerous to the 'decoy'

I think persecution based on such staged evidence or arguable evidence that doesn't actually hurt anyone specifically, is a great system for individuals to volentarily get themselves into Jail. Imagine for a moment, a soldier who has done a tour in Iraq, who has seen the worst of the worst and genuinely does not wish to deploy again for another tour, but doesn't have the heart to face his unit or commanding officers.

All they'd have to do seek out a program like this "to catch a predator" or download some loli images from google's cache and he can argue semantics all the way to the local jail and out of a mine infested warzone with too many crazy people with guns.

I like it, we should do this thought police thing more.

 

[Loop Stricken]

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.

Bricks can be ground into dust.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Funny man.

I have my moments.

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?

Nope, as I have repeated again and again, it is not illegal to have pictures of things like General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing Nguyen Van Lém, so there is no reason for GTA to be illegal. However, it is illegal to own picts of CP so the police arrest people who own variations of CP.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Funny man.

I have my moments.

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?

Nope, as I have repeated again and again, it is not illegal to have pictures of things like General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing Nguyen Van Lém, so there is no reason for GTA to be illegal. However, it is illegal to own picts of CP so the police arrest people who own variations of CP.

I fear you're just deliberately being dense now, so as not to admit defeat.

 

[Folji]

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.

Of course they'd tell differently! That speaks for itself, but I think you're halfway missing my point in there. People have been arrested for showing interest in material that can only be considered relatable at best as it's not actually real, and arresting people for possessing such material is just pissing up the back of genuine cases of paedophilia. Disregard the social norms and view around the topic and it's like jailing someone under the charges of "potential killer" for possessing something that involves people getting killed. See what I'm getting at here?

 

[Azeal]

Lolis everywhere delete their internet history.

Sucks to be you guys. Tits have to actually be there to be enjoyed, imo. But meh

OT: At least the translator is getting off okay. "That looks like a child (even if it's not), therefore it is the devil. ROT IN PRISON YOU FILTHY SCUM"
I'm a conservative, but shit like this is retarded; people (most of em) watch teh pr0n, get over it. And it's not hurting any children, so how is it worse than regular porn........

 

[gbemery]

Okay so if you can get prison for this then why can't Hentai get people arrested for rape or any violent cartoon get people arrested for murder? Riddle me that justice system...hint they aren't real. Is not murder and rape obscene?

 

[Folji]

Okay so if you can get prison for this then why can't Hentai get people arrested for rape or any violent cartoon get people arrested for murder? Riddle me that justice system...hint they aren't real. Is not murder and rape obscene?

Because THINK OF THE CHILDREN, that's why!

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

I see you didn't see my previous comments, so I repost my previous response to the assumption that I automatically like something because its the law.....

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.

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

"Judge" in the sense that my words would have real weight on the mans sentencing? Your absolutely right. Now if you mean "judge" in the sense of whether I should be able to form an opinion on this story? I have just as much of a right to judge it and agree with the prison sentence as you have the right to judge the story and condemn the prison sentence.

But you don't know that though.

Have you seen said images?

As I said previously, my comments are all based on the assumption that the pictures would be found criminal. If they are not found to meet the standard of qualifying for CP, please disregard my comments as they would no longer be relevant to this story.

You didn't read anything I bloody said did you...

I'm not talking about owning pictures of murder. I'm talking about virtually committing the act of murder, despite the fact that the murder being committed is not real.

You want people condemned for something that's equally as virtual, and equally as 'not real'.

I read it but my answer didn't change, nor does it now. Possessing downloaded footage of the Vietnam War that were shown on tv during the time is not illegal. In the same sense, playing a violent video game is not illegal. I can't think of any produce that has tried, but I would be willing to bet that owning a video game where CM happens would be illegal.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I fear you're just deliberately being dense now, so as not to admit defeat.

And I see for the second time you are telling me that you are done communicating with me.

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.

Of course they'd tell differently! That speaks for itself, but I think you're halfway missing my point in there. People have been arrested for showing interest in material that can only be considered relatable at best as it's not actually real, and arresting people for possessing such material is just pissing up the back of genuine cases of paedophilia. Disregard the social norms and view around the topic and it's like jailing someone under the charges of "potential killer" for possessing something that involves people getting killed. See what I'm getting at here?

I see where your going, but the thing is I don't think its going to far because they didn't arrest him for having thoughts, they arrested him for having a form of the real thing, and the variation he had presumably looks very similar to the real thing.

If the guy was just being arrested for having thoughts, I could agree with you, but that's not the case in this story.

 

[Zombiefish]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore :\

How can a law system be this fucked up? REALLY? its a fucking CARTOON.

Watching cartoons of rape do not make you a rapist. Watching cartoons of murder do not make you go out and commit a murderer. Watching cartoons of pedophilia do not make you a pedophile offender.

How idiotic must people be to not realize this? It is just unbelievable.

 

[gbemery]

Okay so if you can get prison for this then why can't Hentai get people arrested for rape or any violent cartoon get people arrested for murder? Riddle me that justice system...hint they aren't real. Is not murder and rape obscene?

Because THINK OF THE CHILDREN, that's why!

But what of the graphic murder of pixelated children? :O

So when they say THINK OF THE CHILDREN they only think of children being molested not murdered say like in skyrim mods or the myriad of drawings out there on the web...I see where their minds are...me thinks some people are persecuting others because they don't want to admit they have secret desires...case solved


such as the captcha

"It's Super Delicious"

What are you trying to insinuate captcha

 

[Radoh]

If someone is going to get arrested and tried for having images of drawn CP, then should it not also be feasible that anyone who owns drawings of violent stuff be tried for intent to murder?

I don't fully understand the leap in logic here.

 

[Folji]

I see where your going, but the thing is I don't think its going to far because they didn't arrest him for having thoughts, they arrested him for having a form of the real thing, and the variation he had presumably looks very similar to the real thing.

If the guy was just being arrested for having thoughts, I could agree with you, but that's not the case in this story.

Let's just look away from the whole thought policing thing and focus on the idea of why the possession is a wrong thing. It's hard to call this a "form of the real thing" and claim someone should be criminalized for possession of it without considering a parallel to similar situations. Now you said yourself earlier on that the stuff at hand is directly comparable to the real thing because it mimics the real thing, but if you're going to directly compare drawn material to real material over something like that then one could just as easily conclude that playing a Grand Theft Auto game should be a punishable offence because it mimics numerous criminal offences.

It's like there's a big, logical black hole in this entire scenario. If someone's going to criminalize something because it mimics something that is a crime, such as here saying that possession of fictitious child pornography is a crime because the real stuff is, then one could just as well also conclude that engaging in activities that mimic theft and murder should be a crime because real theft and murder is a crime.

The morality behind the action makes sense, but the logic around it is just absolute shambles.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Helmholtz,

how does your logic deal with the similarly problematic UK "Extreme Pornography" laws? To give you the difference in a nutshell, that is a case where acts that ARE legal to do with consenting adults are illegal to possess media of consenting adults doing -- even specifically theatric recreations of, even specifically ones involving no actual real living beings. The penalties are right up there with child pornography, 3 years minimum. The justification is the exact same (it's a gateway to acts of real abuse). The only change of any significance is now the act itself is legal while the media remains illegal.

Does your "it's illegal so it's unacceptable and it's unacceptable so it's illegal" logic still hold, even though the gulf between morality and legality is now even wider?

 

[Zyst]

You guys are completely fucking unreasonable, think of all those cartoon kids who will never be the same way again.

Jokes aside that's bullshit.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I see where your going, but the thing is I don't think its going to far because they didn't arrest him for having thoughts, they arrested him for having a form of the real thing, and the variation he had presumably looks very similar to the real thing.

If the guy was just being arrested for having thoughts, I could agree with you, but that's not the case in this story.

Let's just look away from the whole thought policing thing and focus on the idea of why the possession is a wrong thing. It's hard to call this a "form of the real thing" and claim someone should be criminalized for possession of it without considering a parallel to similar situations. Now you said yourself earlier on that the stuff at hand is directly comparable to the real thing because it mimics the real thing, but if you're going to directly compare drawn material to real material over something like that then one could just as easily conclude that playing a Grand Theft Auto game should be a punishable offence because it mimics numerous criminal offences.

Wrong, the only thing GTA mimics is pictures and videos of real life violence. The fact that said videos are not illegal to own means that playing GTA isn't a crime either. If it was illegal to own picture or videos of violence, then I would agree that GTA is illegal to own.

 

[Atlas13]

I see where your going, but the thing is I don't think its going to far because they didn't arrest him for having thoughts, they arrested him for having a form of the real thing, and the variation he had presumably looks very similar to the real thing.

If the guy was just being arrested for having thoughts, I could agree with you, but that's not the case in this story.

Let's just look away from the whole thought policing thing and focus on the idea of why the possession is a wrong thing. It's hard to call this a "form of the real thing" and claim someone should be criminalized for possession of it without considering a parallel to similar situations. Now you said yourself earlier on that the stuff at hand is directly comparable to the real thing because it mimics the real thing, but if you're going to directly compare drawn material to real material over something like that then one could just as easily conclude that playing a Grand Theft Auto game should be a punishable offence because it mimics numerous criminal offences.

Wrong, the only thing GTA mimics is pictures and videos of real life violence. The fact that said videos are not illegal to own means that playing GTA isn't a crime either. If it was illegal to own picture or videos of violence, then I would agree that GTA is illegal to own.

There's a reason behind the use of "Treachery of Images" in the news post. The act of molestation is a crime, as is the act of possessing a photograph or video involving a child getting molested. However, a drawing is not a photograph, nor is an cartoon animation a real video. Child pornography is not protected by the first amendment, however, other pornography, such as drawn pornography IS.

The reason this guy got three years was because he gave up. And he's been charged with possession of "obscenity" Child pornography is irrelevant to his sentencing, and had he been charged with it, the case would have been thrown out due to lack of evidence. He took a plea bargain because he was scared.

Basically, the police arrested him for a crime he didn't commit, then during police interrogation, lied to him and coerced him to take three years. That's the reasoning behind police interrogations, to get a conviction without a court case.

 

[DrOswald]

I see where your going, but the thing is I don't think its going to far because they didn't arrest him for having thoughts, they arrested him for having a form of the real thing, and the variation he had presumably looks very similar to the real thing.

If the guy was just being arrested for having thoughts, I could agree with you, but that's not the case in this story.

Let's just look away from the whole thought policing thing and focus on the idea of why the possession is a wrong thing. It's hard to call this a "form of the real thing" and claim someone should be criminalized for possession of it without considering a parallel to similar situations. Now you said yourself earlier on that the stuff at hand is directly comparable to the real thing because it mimics the real thing, but if you're going to directly compare drawn material to real material over something like that then one could just as easily conclude that playing a Grand Theft Auto game should be a punishable offence because it mimics numerous criminal offences.

Wrong, the only thing GTA mimics is pictures and videos of real life violence. The fact that said videos are not illegal to own means that playing GTA isn't a crime either. If it was illegal to own picture or videos of violence, then I would agree that GTA is illegal to own.

The disconnect here is simple. You believe that preventing child molestation is so important that free speech should be suspended and even having a facsimile of an act that constitutes child molestation is perfectly rational grounds for years imprisonment. We all disagree.

Would you say that accurately represents your views?

P.S. Are you really arguing that in playing GTA one does not mimic acts of violence? Really? I mean, I just don't know what to say about this. You are objectively wrong on this one. Mimic, verb: to be an imitation of; simulate; resemble closely. In playing GTA, one imitates acts of violence. GTA is a simulation of acts of violence. In playing GTA, one mimics violence.

 

[theultimateend]

Man, a TRIPLE post. That's pretty weird. Please ignore!

I want to...but your avatar is staring at me.

@OP If this guy is guilty of a crime, everyone who plays COD or Grand Theft Auto should be imprisoned.

Killing people or peddling drugs is illegal in all 50 states.

Wrong, the only thing GTA mimics is pictures and videos of real life violence. The fact that said videos are not illegal to own means that playing GTA isn't a crime either. If it was illegal to own picture or videos of violence, then I would agree that GTA is illegal to own.

Just switch the words "real life violence" with "real life child porn" and you literally just argued against yourself <.<

Child pornography is illegal because a child had to be harmed to make it. So IF it is not illegal to have videos of fake violence, then it is not illegal to have videos of fake child porn.

OR it is illegal to have both, this cannot be a pick and choose situation.

I'm not sure why the fella had it, but he was utterly harmless in doing so, just like I'm utterly harmless when I stab a fake human in the face on a variety of games.

It's only different in the US because we idolize violence (via military worship) and prudishly lament sexuality (easily seen in what gets you an R rating, versus what gets you say teen).