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

[Ashadowpie]

i dont know what to think about this one either, actual pedo's (the ones who rape real children) should be removed from this society permanently in my opinion but cartoons? yah its a cartoon but everyones forgetting that sex is for some reason, addictive. yah you're feeding the monsters fake meat, but it'll just make them desire the real stuff more and with more intensity.

its like cake, yah eat cheap crappy cake all the time, knowing that theres better cake out there but your not allowed to have. yah jus want the good cake more and more n more and well, you finally buy it..and you LOVE it and cant go back to the crappy cakes. and well now, you have a cake addiction. congrats?

damnit now i want cake. . .

for everyone saying "violence in video games and cartoon child porn is the same" no it's not. violence isnt addictive, we've killed aplenty a game people and we're all good noting happens but entertainment. now go watch some porn, what happens? thought so

i feel that any kind of Stimulant for Any kind of Child porn or whatever should be removed and the people pick up their pride and get bloody help.

child porn, cartoon or real, is still CHILD PORN.

 

[LITE992]

Drawn stuff is art, and art can be interpreted in many ways. The obvious interpretation is that he's using drawn child porn as a subsitute for real child porn. Since it is an art, his interpretation could be different than what the law's was, but the law's is always right for some reason.

 

[Entitled]

for everyone saying "violence in video games and cartoon child porn is the same" no it's not. violence isnt addictive, we've killed aplenty a game people and we're all good noting happens but entertainment. now go watch some porn, what happens? thought so

You can very easily find anti-gaming activists who would disagree with your statement of violence not being addictive, but you would be very hard-pressed to find reliable scientific studies that prove either that either video game violence cause IRL violence addiction, or that porn causes IRL rape addiction.

In other words, you are talking out of your ass.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yes, let's send the guy who's hurt nobody and just has... Issues... To Prison rather than giving him mental help.

Yes, an attraction to children isn't healthy in the modern day and age, even if cartoon children. And sending people like this to prison isn't exactly helping.

 

[Batou667]

What the hell?

Who's to say whether a drawn depiction is child porn or not? To take it to its logical extreme like others have previously mentioned, what if I draw two stick-people having sex, and then write "(they're 7 yrs old btw lol)" in the margin, does that transform my childish scrawl into mind-bending kiddie porn?

Second: even if it was unambiguously underage sex being depicted: why should that be illegal? Videogames and Hollywood movies are proof that we can watch and even enact scenes of violence and murder but that doesn't desensitise us to actual violence, let alone "create a demand" for real-life murder.

To play devil's advocate, if this guy was harboring pedophilic thoughts, isn't it better that he look at pornography rather than actually molesting children, and isn't it better that his porno of choice is of the variety that didn't require actual children to be harmed in its making?

Even if he had been watching genuine child-porn - how does that create a demand for children to be abused, unless he had paid for the porn or filmed it himself? We have it rammed down our throats that pirated DVDs are "killing the film industry" - simply watching Hollywood movies doesn't stimulate the market, paying to watch movies does. By that logic, as long as this guy downloaded his child porn for free, he ought to be able to fap with as clean a conscience as is possible for a pedophile.

Thoughts?

 

[Eccentric Lich]

I would very much prefer that this guy look at cartoons of children doing obscene things than actually looking at child porn. One is victimless and the other is a horrible crime of exploitation and abuse. Shouldn't we, I dunno, maybe focus on the people who are actually exploiting children?

 

[AlphaLackey]

I'm wondering what percentage of people in the world are closet pedophiles.

I mean, it's really telling how almost no one speaks up against laws like this IRL, yet here, anonymously, so many people are protecting free speech and art from the thought police. There is some insanely strong cultural taboo against supporting pedophiles even indirectly, and even here, many fel that it's necessary to add "for the record" notes that they are otherwise disgusted by pedohilia.

Just think about how many would deny being attracted to teenagers, even though biologically it's not even a paraphilia, but a natural part of ordinary sexuality, even if we arbitarily categorized them as "underage".

Maybe something similar is going on with pedophilia. Even if it *is* a fetish and a paraphilia, maybe the number of people who share it is larger than we would think.

I can't speak for others; every argument I've made in this thread, I've made in the past in real life, but then again, I'm thorny and argumentative.

If anything, I'd chalk it up more to social conventions in real life being that much different. How often do people get together in real life, have a beverage of some kind, and debate things all night? Not so much anymore, but I can definitely remember doing it before the prevalence of the internet.

i feel that any kind of Stimulant for Any kind of Child porn or whatever should be removed and the people pick up their pride and get bloody help.

child porn, cartoon or real, is still CHILD PORN.

Given how vastly varied the stimulants for sexual desires are, you are pretty much going to have to eradicate each picture of anyone under the age of 18. Even underage children modelling full-length parkas in a Sears catalog are triggering someone's Eskimo fetish somewhere.

As I asked earlier: are the laws designed to protect children, or are they designed to enforce sexual orthodoxy?

The answer is the former, and as such, the only feasible justification for banning cartoons would be if there was a demonstrable "gateway" between cartoon CP and actual harming of children. There is not. We, as video gamers, hear the exact same arguments about cartoon violence in video games (even very graphic ones) acting as a gateway. We know the arguments don't hold water.

As ultimate proof of the absurdity of the law in this case: the entire difference between guilt and innocence hinges not on whether a child was harmed, but on whether a group of people from another generation believe something is or is not art.

 

[TakerFoxx]

You know, there's something about this whole debate that's been bugging me. I mean, you've got the people saying that he wasn't hurting anyone and shouldn't be prosecuted, you've got the people saying that lolicon is still child porn and he should be prosecuted, and then you have the people saying that he shouldn't be prosecuted but that he and other pedophiles/lolicons need to come out of the closet and get help.

And it's that last one that bothers me, because is there any treatment for this that's been shown to have any sort of dependable success rate? Because if there isn't, if pedophilia is like homosexuality (except of course that unlike homosexuals, their orientation is geared towards someone they cannot and should not legally and morally have relations with) in that it's an alternate sexual orientation that's different from the norm and the people who have it don't have a choice of what they're attracted to, what good will come from trying to "cure" them? Trying to cure homosexuality has been proven to be a load of bollocks, and given the social stigma against pedophiles, whether or not they've actually done anything, just by coming out they're pretty much signing up to become social reject: ostracized by their family and friends, losing their jobs, tarnishing their reputation, and living out the rest of their lives with the brand of "child molester" on their forehead, even if they would never do such a thing.

So, uh, if there is no cure, and coming out will essentially ruin their lives, why in the hell should non-active pedophiles and lolicons "come out and seek help" when there's none to be found?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Not to mention that japan has successfully been fighting paedophilia by allowing possible molesters take it out to a drawn comics.

I don't mean to imply that you're a liar. I am just interested in whether or not this is verifiably true. Where did you get this from?

You know, there's something about this whole debate that's been bugging me. I mean, you've got the people saying that he wasn't hurting anyone and shouldn't be prosecuted, you've got the people saying that lolicon is still child porn and he should be prosecuted, and then you have the people saying that he shouldn't be prosecuted but that he and other pedophiles/lolicons need to come out of the closet and get help.

And it's that last one that bothers me, because is there any treatment for this that's been shown to have any sort of dependable success rate? Because if there isn't, if pedophilia is like homosexuality (except of course that unlike homosexuals, their orientation is geared towards someone they cannot and should not legally and morally have relations with) in that it's an alternate sexual orientation that's different from the norm and the people who have it don't have a choice of what they're attracted to, what good will come from trying to "cure" them? Trying to cure homosexuality has been proven to be a load of bollocks, and given the social stigma against pedophiles, whether or not they've actually done anything, just by coming out they're pretty much signing up to become social reject: ostracized by their family and friends, losing their jobs, tarnishing their reputation, and living out the rest of their lives with the brand of "child molester" on their forehead, even if they would never do such a thing.

So, uh, if there is no cure, and coming out will essentially ruin their lives, why in the hell should non-active pedophiles and lolicons "come out and seek help" when there's none to be found?

I was wondering about this too. It seems unlikely that anyone would be willing to surrender their credibility and the lives they've built for ostracism and no chance of a cure...doesn't add up.

Personally, I don't believe that there is anything other than self-delusion and denial happening at those Christian make-you-not-gay camps. Sexuality just doesn't seem to work that way.

 

[Strazdas]

Not to mention that japan has successfully been fighting paedophilia by allowing possible molesters take it out to a drawn comics.

I don't mean to imply that you're a liar. I am just interested in whether or not this is verifiably true. Where did you get this from?

Japanese has one of the lowest paedophilia rates in the world and the lost among the "civilized" countries.
They "claim" it is due to the fact that theri culture prodices an outlet for such people, so they dont have to go after the real deal, namely children pornography and incest anime and games. The verification of this is hard, because it would mean finding paedofiles that have not been acting like paedofiles and asking them. but there are similar studies that offer similar results. gamers that play games in which they are criminals are lessl ikely to be real criminals because their "rob a bank" fantasies are fulfileld within a game. dont have a study at hand, but escapist linked to one a few motnhs back, got quite a lot of comments.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Snippage

Except that's a treatment for people who have actually molested children. I'm talking about the ones that have not, never will, and may not even have a stash of loli-porn, in response to those who say that these people need to come out and seek help regardless.

 

[peruvianskys]

Who's to say whether a drawn depiction is child porn or not? To take it to its logical extreme like others have previously mentioned, what if I draw two stick-people having sex, and then write "(they're 7 yrs old btw lol)" in the margin, does that transform my childish scrawl into mind-bending kiddie porn?

This is a fallacious strawman.

Second: even if it was unambiguously underage sex being depicted: why should that be illegal? Videogames and Hollywood movies are proof that we can watch and even enact scenes of violence and murder but that doesn't desensitise us to actual violence, let alone "create a demand" for real-life murder.

The difference is that video games are designed for those who do not actually enjoy murder in real life, whereas child pornography is designed solely for those who enjoy sex with children in real life. If a company produced videogames designed for paranoid schizophrenics or other violence-prone individuals, it would also be a very bad thing.

To play devil's advocate, if this guy was harboring pedophilic thoughts, isn't it better that he look at pornography rather than actually molesting children, and isn't it better that his porno of choice is of the variety that didn't require actual children to be harmed in its making?

There's no reason to believe that pedophiles use child porn, drawn or otherwise, as a substitute for real-life interaction.

Even if he had been watching genuine child-porn - how does that create a demand for children to be abused, unless he had paid for the porn or filmed it himself?

Do you think people pluck child porn from the child porn tree? Do you think it just appears? Obviously, monstrous people sexually exploit children and put it online themselves, and they do it because there is a community of these people who mutually support, encourage, and feed off each other. The consumption of child porn directly supports the industry of child sexual abuse, whether you pay or not.

 

[Zombiefish]

While I do not agree with any form of pedophilia, I am furious that this guy got sent to jail for looking at cartoons.

Do the law courts not understand the nature of pedophilia at all? And exactly what act has been committed? Lacking artistic merit? Who gets to decide what does and doesn't contain artistic merit.

These people are born attracted to kids. It is in their nature they cannot change it. No amount of medical treatment can stop anyone fancying kids. What medical treatment CAN do is discourage people to act on their attractions and help them cope with their situation in a legal way which does not harm anyone. Throwing people in jail who have not committed an act will not help anyone at all.

This was a cartoon for Christ sake. NO child was harmed and they guy in question was viewing it discreetly. No one was harmed by this at all. In fact it shows the guy in question had a clear understanding of how his sexual orientation was morally wrong and knew it was wrong to act on it. Therefore he chose to view cartoons rather than harm a child by watching real videos.

In cases like this the logical thing to do would be to psychologically profile the guy to view if there was any chance of him acting on his desires and offer his medical assistance to help cope. But no we throw him in jail instead because that solves everything right?

For the people arguing that watching cartoons leads to child abuse, is there any studies at all that show a significant link between the two? I occasionally enjoy reading 'furry' manga. Where males have cat ears and tails. Does this mean therefore I will progress to fucking cats? No. And anyone who assumes I would is a idiot.

I also enjoy murdering entire cities of innocent people in skyrim. Does this mean I will then go and buy a sword and chop off the heads of everyone in my neighborhood. No.

I think simply because this guy likes children people automatically assume he is incapable of ration thought and does not understand what is right and wrong. This is not the case. it only holds true for a small proportion of people.

Until a scientific study can prove that pedophiles that watch cartoons are likely to progress to pedophilia acts then this law should not exist at all.

 

[AlphaLackey]

There's no reason to believe that pedophiles use child porn, drawn or otherwise, as a substitute for real-life interaction.

As quoted earlier in the thread, the vast disparity in paedophilia rates (6-9%) and child abuse rates (0.2-0.4%) would be a pretty strong reason. But that doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on those who apply laws designed to protect children from harm to cartoons in which no child was harmed, to demonstrate that "gateway link" that you are taking for granted.

The difference is that video games are designed for those who do not actually enjoy murder in real life, whereas child pornography is designed solely for those who enjoy sex with children in real life. If a company produced videogames designed for paranoid schizophrenics or other violence-prone individuals, it would also be a very bad thing.

Many people are aroused by many acts which would be illegal if acted out; one can be sexually aroused by something that they would never do (or let be done to them) in real life. There are a non-trivial number of women who fantasize about being raped, yet would never want it to happen to them in real life. There are a non-trivial number of men and women who fantasize about hitting, striking, choking, and all-around abuse during sex -- done to them and/or done by them -- who would never want that to happen anywhere but the controlled setting of sexual congress with a partner they intimately trust.

Of course, the reason why porn of THAT description is not illegal in the civilized world (yes, parse this as a dig at the UK, not as my ignorance that they are a first-world country) is because it can be enacted by adults who are legally able to consent to do so. Horribly obviously, children cannot consent to do so, both by law and by complete common sense.

However, when you are dealing with cartoon drawings or other media that do not involve an actual child, that is no longer a concern. The only concern should be whether there is a gateway effect, and as said above, the proof of burden is on you, since you are applying laws designed to protect children from harm to a case where no child was harmed.

Adults are capable of fantasizing about things they would never do in real life, or things they would never want done to them in any context outside of a fantasy setting -- be that fantasy sexual or otherwise.

 

[hcig]

What trips me out is that his wife ratted him out for some racy comic strips.

This was also odd to me too...the hell did she think he was gonna do if she confronted him about it first?

I'd draw a crude image of one stick figure plowing another, then ask people if they think it's funny, or just stupid. Then I'd rant "Well, she's only 16! All you sick fuckers are guilty as sin!".

You could also draw one stick figure crotch-ramming a smaller one, then when they try to arrest you for child pornography: "HAH! JOKES ON YOU, ITS A MIDGET!"
This whole story is bunk. I wonder if they have any other pornography laws like this, would be amusing to find out that looking up furry porn is breaking bestiality laws or something.

An interesting thought occurs...If you can be jailed for possessing artwork of a supposed minor engaging in sex acts that never occurred...how long before killing hookers in GTA means youre a murderous psychopath and can incur real world penalties? Dont want to engage in slippery slope here but christ, its about as believable as whats actually happened. Weve already got the lawmakers thinking games CREATE violent, dissociative, gun-trained children, how much time do we really have before they try to stop it?

 

[Batou667]

This is a fallacious strawman.

No, no: stickman.

Seriously though, care to qualify your statement in some way?

The difference is that video games are designed for those who do not actually enjoy murder in real life, whereas child pornography is designed solely for those who enjoy sex with children in real life. If a company produced videogames designed for paranoid schizophrenics or other violence-prone individuals, it would also be a very bad thing.

But presumably if we were all repulsed and offended by scenes of violence and bloodshed, Hollywood and the gaming industry would go bust. We're all able to enjoy violent movies even though we might be completely pacifistic people in real life - it's escapism. Who's to say that for a pedophile, loli hentai isn't a harmless form of escapism?

There's no reason to believe that pedophiles use child porn, drawn or otherwise, as a substitute for real-life interaction.

Why not? Are you implying that the rest of the population doesn't use porn as a substitute for real sex?

Do you think people pluck child porn from the child porn tree? Do you think it just appears? Obviously, monstrous people sexually exploit children and put it online themselves, and they do it because there is a community of these people who mutually support, encourage, and feed off each other. The consumption of child porn directly supports the industry of child sexual abuse, whether you pay or not.

Really? How? If I went on one of those highly naughty p2p programs and downloaded a music album or a DVD release, I wouldn't be supporting the music or film industry. If I downloaded a mainstream porno, I wouldn't be supporting the porn industry. And if that porno was child pornography, I wouldn't be supporting the creation of more child porn.

If it was some kind of webring of abusers uploading their own content, then I'd agree with you. But I'd wager that this counts for a minority of total child porn downloaded. And to bring us back to the point, this guy was busted for having DRAWN porn. No child was harmed in its production; no child was harmed in its consumption. The only objection people could possibly have to it is the belief that it encourages real-life child abuse, and nobody's shown that to be the case yet.

 

[AlphaLackey]

This is a fallacious strawman.

No, no: stickman.

Seriously though, care to qualify your statement in some way?

I can only speak for Canadian CP laws, but here, the scenario you described WITHOUT the stickman pictures (but just the description) would be 100% illegal, so I don't see how adding the stickmen acting it out could suddenly make it okay. Hardly a strawman if it's actually the case in reality.