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

[Batou667]

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.

Seriously?

I take it Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita is banned in Canada, then? Damn. I always assumed Canada was more liberal than the US on most censorship issues.

 

[Sunrider]

This whole case is ridiculous. I can't for the life of me understand why he is treated as if he's mentally unstable or has some sort of disease because of cartoons.

Hey, Thought Police. I have many a time thought about how glorious it would be to gather all the bullies from my time in primary education, and all the faculty who didn't do jack shit to stop it, into one small classroom and then burn the entire school down while watching.
I hope you have a nice padded cell ready for me. I'll be in your care.

 

[Edl01]

I love America because it's a free country and I can do whatever I want witho...wait...

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

I never stated that child porn, drawn or otherwise, is a gateway to actual abuse. I simply stated that you cannot placate someone who is determined to rape a child by giving them porn as a way to "let off steam." That's what I mean when I say that there is no evidence that child porn has a substitutive effect.

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.

If that is the case, then they are not interested in, for example, being raped; they are interested in the fantasy of pretending to be raped. What I am arguing is that most child porn is consumed by those who are not just interested in the fantasy of fucking a child, but who are sexually aroused by the idea of actually raping a child. There's a huge difference.

Anyway, I've said since the beginning that I don't think this should be illegal; I'm just arguing that the arguments being made on my side are often resting on willfully ignorant hyberbole or faux indignation.

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

Yeah, your statement was a strawman. Arguing that laws against drawing child porn are going to lead to stick-figure sex being a crime is the same silly slippery slope argument that Christians use when they say hate speech laws are going to prevent them from saying that they think homosexuality is wrong, for example.

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?

If you are a pedophile, then watching children get fucked, even if its animated, is not escapism, it's indulgence, much like a psychopath delighting in videos of animals being mutilated or a Nazi being super excited by Holocaust footage.

Unless you are arguing that the majority of people who watch child porn aren't pedophiles, which is absurd, you still have to admit that it is very, very different from a non-violent person enjoying an action movie.

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

Yeah, most don't. If someone is interested in raping someone, you can't stop them by supplying them with pornography. It doesn't work that way. I'm not saying that all pedophiles are going to rape children, but I am saying that whether or not they do is not determined in any way by their access to child porn.

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.

There are two big differences:

1. The child porn industry is far smaller, more underground, and more localized than the motion picture industry or music industry, and thus interaction with the market by providing a new audience is going to have a far larger effect per person than with larger, legitimate industries.

2. Even in larger industries, the non-paying audience has a huge influence on the dispensation and propagation of media. Do you think Justin Beiber is as popular as he is because his albums sell more than anyone else? No, he's popular because a lot of people came in contact with his music, liked it, shared it and enjoyed it. Child porn works the same way, and it's almost as bad.

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.

There is another possible objection, which is that IT WAS A DRAWING OF CHILDREN BEING INCESTUOUSLY FUCKED. Look, I'm all for free speech, and I've said before that I'm wary of banning things like this, but come on - stop acting incredulously that some people might think representations of child sexual exploitation might be in and of themselves shitty enough for a society to just say, "You know what? Nope. You're not going to do that."

 

[Doctor_Fruitbat]

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.

You're making big assumptions here, dude, and they really don't help the whole debate.

Violent media is vetted by society as a whole, meaning that actual, real violence can never be filmed, distributed and marketed legally, creating a very clear line between fictional violence and real life violence. People film and upload real violent acts, but they are generally forced underground. MMA and other violent sports are a bit thornier, but they still count as controlled, consensual violence, so they get a pass.

Some things, like paedophilia and underage sex, are seen as a no-go even in fictional depiction, with occasional exceptions like Taxi Driver or American Beauty, where the girl Kevin Spacey obsesses over was 15 at the time of filming. That means there is no clear dividing line between playing out a fantasy in a detached, safe context and those who are supplementing real life crimes, and no healthy public debate on drawing that line and creating the same filters on what is acceptable depiction and what is an acceptable response to it.

And as so many have pointed out, what society considers acceptable changes all the time. A mature and healthy democracy has to allow some wiggle room even for taboo concepts to be explored and played out, or what hope is there for progress and change? And if you're thinking that this sounds like an excuse to justify something clearly immoral, I'd ask you think back on those who supported segregation, apartheid, animal blood sports, the death penalty for gays, no rights for women... The list goes on. If real life depiction is a no-no, then fiction is the only place left, and there HAS to be a place. A medium where no actual person is harmed sounds perfect to me.

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

Except that is EXACTLY why we create violent media, or horror films, or erotic novels, or anything else. It appeals to us on a base level; civilisation may have suppressed it enormously, but if we didn't have these feelings and didn't need an outlet for them we wouldn't create these things in the first place. What appeals to a person is not the deciding factor, or humanity would be truly damned; what matters is how you respond to it and how you choose to explore it, and that is true of everything - even paedophilia.

 

[AlphaLackey]

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.

Seriously?

I take it Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita is banned in Canada, then? Damn. I always assumed Canada was more liberal than the US on most censorship issues.

There exist possible exemptions for "artistic merit" and/or "public good". I suspect Lolita fits into the former easily enough. But until an exemption is proved, even a written description is illegal. Sexually explicit chat logs with another party, even if you make no attempt to discern if they really are a child, fall under CP. Even writing a page describing an underage child and an adult having sex is CP and the burden is on you to prove an exemption. Yes, this includes completely fictional characters, so god knows how many sex offenders the Harry Potter fanfic craze has created.

And this is the problem I have with the laws. "Artistic merit" is a much uglier guideline to try to enforce than "was someone harmed in the production thereof". Going to a much more black-and-white definition gives justification for much more vigorous prosecution. If letting someone who never has or never will harm a child masturbate to loli is the price to pay to throwing the book at someone with a thousand images of actual children actually being harmed, I'm all in favor of that. Instead, the laws have to decide why cybersex is unacceptable but "Lolita" is, or why japanese comics are forbidden art but someone painting a nude picture of a child is not.

 

[hcig]

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.

Since youre engaging in logical fallacies, ill join right on in!

YOU HEARD IT HERE FOLKS, ESCAPIST MEMBER SAYS JAPAN IS A NATION OF PEDOS, CHRIS HANSEN REACTS!

At least four of my friends have...entertained themselves with loli hentai, now that could mean any number of things, I dont know the specifics, I just know they have them. This means a few things:
1. Out of all the friends I have whos pornography habits ive seen, this would mean that FOUR in FIVE people is a pedo, and should be put in jail before they start raping children.
2. My friends have made it from 19 (youngest of them) to 28 (eldest) years without raping anyone. (give them a round of applause people,apparently thats a big deal)
3. (and this is the most important thing) If they are all secret pedos, then not only do I not know them as well as I think, but THEY dont know themselves as well as they think.

Did you ever stop to think like, maybe they just arent raping kids? maybe they dont want to? or maybe even (and heres a fun one)
maybe they arent fantasizing about being the man
A very close friend of mine is "bi-sexual" but is more like "ill have sex with a women is he offers, I guess" Other than that, hes pretty much sexually obsessed with the male member...what kind of porn does he like most? Well, gay porn, but thats not really my point. My point is he is a fan of loli hentai, hes also a fan of Domination...you can see how this would work for him. The fantasy is being the "helpless" and "innocent" female victim (whether its actually a female, or just a cross-dressing male) dominated by the large, lustful male force. It has nothing to do with him wanting to seek out little girls to violate, quite opposite, actually.

And where does this end? If youre a vore fetishist do you really want to be eaten alive for sexual pleasure? I think that might be hard to do more than once...kinda ruin the point...Or what about the other side? Maybe they want to eat other people alive for sexual pleasure...ignoring how thats gonna work, where are all the cases of sexualized cannibalism?
Do you think all the bronies that masturbate to ponies then go out and start having sex with horses? where is the sharp increase in bestiality reports since that show aired? (protip: those ponies are about as accurate to real horses as loli is to real human children)

I mean, you could argue im being ridiculous, but youre just being outrageous, there is no proof to back up your claims, you clearly dont understand a thing about sexuality and youre suggesting that people cant tell the difference between what is real and what is not. Your accusations are insulting to plenty of well adjusted and non-rapey people and well, just not true.


tl;dr
dont try to play like you know how this works, you are certainly not a psychologist,and you sound more like a self righteous nutjob trying to force your square morals into a round society. Take your damn focus off innocent people and worry about the ACTUAL child pornographers, wont you?

 

[peruvianskys]

And as so many have pointed out, what society considers acceptable changes all the time. A mature and healthy democracy has to allow some wiggle room even for taboo concepts to be explored and played out, or what hope is there for progress and change?

I'm all for honestly and openly discussing and exploring the issues of pedophilia and child sexuality; some of my favorite pieces of art include Lolita, American Beauty, and The End of Alice. The problem is that just drawing an old man fucking a child is hardly the exploration we need. Saying that hand-drawn depictions of child sexual abuse created for the sole purpose of sexual gratification counts as "exploring and playing out" the issue is like saying, "We need to have a mature and open discussion of the Holocaust and its effect on the larger world community, which is why I want to let this old angry white guy burn a hook-nosed Jew effigy in the middle of Time Square."

I'm not interested in government determining where the line is between thoughtful exploration of a taboo topic and blatant exploration and base indulgence, but I'm still more than comfortable with pointing out when something falls so incredibly far to one side that any shred of value is clearly just not there.

And I'm interested in exactly what kind of social progress you're interested in fostering here. Are you implying that somehow we're going to come to a revelation that fucking children is actually great if we just talk about it enough? Or are we just going to continue to realize, like all sane human beings have, that it's not a good idea to enter into a sexual relationship with a ten year-old? You bring up things like segregation and apartheid or the death penalty for homosexuals, but unless you're really willing to make the argument that dividing society across racial lines is somehow equally as bad as saying that you can't rape a child, then I'm not sure what those are except red herrings.

snerp

I don't even know what you're talking about. My comments were clearly in response to a discussion with the person I quoted about real, honest to goodness child porn; although I am proud to disapprove of drawn depictions of child sexual abuse, I'm not saying that everyone who consumes such a product is a rapist, and I don't think you can accurately find that assumption in what I wrote.

And fuck that, saying I'm trying to force my morals on society. If saying that it's not good to jerk yourself off to depictions of child rape counts as "trying to fit my square morality into a round society" or whatever bollocks you're peddling there, then I'll happily take the title of grand inquisitor. Child rape is bad, and it's shitty to depict it for no other reason than sexual arousal - sorry if that makes me some terrible puritan.

 

[Drizzitdude]

Wow what the hell is up with some people. Won't someone please think of the fictional children?! All the abuse they have to deal with being drawn into these scenarios? How do you think these non-sentient 2d figures feel?

 

[AlphaLackey]

If that is the case, then they are not interested in, for example, being raped; they are interested in the fantasy of pretending to be raped. What I am arguing is that most child porn is consumed by those who are not just interested in the fantasy of fucking a child, but who are sexually aroused by the idea of actually raping a child. There's a huge difference.

Yes, but that is a difference of whether the person knows right from wrong. The reason why they can justify only being interested in the fantasy of being raped is because they know right from wrong; they know what they are masturbating to is unacceptable to do in real life, and would be unacceptable to have happen to them in real life.

What is the difference between:

A) an adult that knows right from wrong, who never harms anyone despite masturbating about raping or abusing people during sex, and
B) an adult that knows right from wrong, who never harms anyone despite masturbating about having sex with children?

Moreover, what is the difference between said lucid adults having consenting sex in a "break-in-and-attack" scenario, versus a scenario where one party wears a Catholic schoolgirl dress and pigtails?

In both cases, the adult who knows right from wrong knows that what they are masturbating to is a fantasy, that must never be acted out outside of the fantasy setting.

The difference is, paedophiles that do know right from wrong don't make the news, so the thought of one who DOES know right from wrong is alien. This is why the media almost universally uses the phrase "convicted paedophile" when of course that is not something one can be convicted of.

I'm all for honestly and openly discussing and exploring the issues of pedophilia and child sexuality; some of my favorite pieces of art include Lolita, American Beauty, and The End of Alice. The problem is that just drawing an old man fucking a child is hardly the exploration we need. Saying that hand-drawn depictions of child sexual abuse created for the sole purpose of sexual gratification counts as "exploring and playing out" the issue is like saying, "We need to have a mature and open discussion of the Holocaust and its effect on the larger world community, which is why I want to let this old angry white guy burn a hook-nosed Jew effigy in the middle of Time Square."

Irrespective of whether or not loli should be considered more than just the sex scenes, there are certainly going to be paedophiles who masturbate to Lolita, American Beauty, and The End of Alice. The artist's intent isn't what's causing the paradox, it's the consumer's use. Why is it more problematic for a paedophile to masturbate to Lolita than it is for them to masturbate to a poorly written one-page "Harry X Hermoine" fanfic?

Did you know, in the "Extreme Pornography" laws in the UK (theoretically enacted to protect women in the exact same way that child pornography laws are enacted to protect children), it would be illegal to simply have a video clip of the scene in Alfred Hitchcock's "Frenzy" where Barbara Leigh-Hunt is strangled with a necktie, but it would be legal to own a copy of the complete film? This is your "artistic merit" argument taken to its (il)logical conclusion.

And I'm interested in exactly what kind of social progress you're interested in fostering here. Are you implying that somehow we're going to come to a revelation that fucking children is actually great if we just talk about it enough? Or are we just going to continue to realize, like all sane human beings have, that it's not a good idea to enter into a sexual relationship with a ten year-old? You bring up things like segregation and apartheid or the death penalty for homosexuals, but unless you're really willing to make the argument that dividing society across racial lines is somehow equally as bad as saying that you can't rape a child, then I'm not sure what those are except red herrings.

I can't speak for others, but the social progress I'm interested in is where we do not judge people by their sexual urges, only by what harm they may or may not commit in an effort to sate those urges.

Child rape is bad, and it's shitty to depict it for no other reason than sexual arousal - sorry if that makes me some terrible puritan.

I'm pretty sure we both agree rape and violence are both bad, does that mean it's shitty to depict it for no other reason than sexual arousal? BDSM is easily the single most common family of fetishes out there, indulged in by millions of people around the world in a safe and sane manner.

 

[peruvianskys]

Yes, but that is a difference of whether the person knows right from wrong. The reason why they can justify only being interested in the fantasy of being raped is because they know right from wrong; they know what they are masturbating to is unacceptable to do in real life, and would be unacceptable to have happen to them in real life.

What is the difference between:

A) an adult that knows right from wrong, who never harms anyone despite masturbating about raping or abusing people during sex, and
B) an adult that knows right from wrong, who never harms anyone despite masturbating about having sex with children?

If I am aroused by pretending to rape someone, it does not necessarily follow that I am aroused by rape itself. However, if I am aroused by thinking about fucking a child, then it does necessarily follow that I am aroused by the thought of raping a child itself.

I would have no problem if someone jerked off to actors of legal age who were pretending to be teenagers or even children because then they're masturbating to people PRETENDING to do something that is of course terrible in real life, versus just masturbating to a recounting of a terrible act. Is that difference really not clear to you?

The difference is, paedophiles that do know right from wrong don't make the news, so the thought of one who DOES know right from wrong is alien. This is why the media almost universally uses the phrase "convicted paedophile" when of course that is not something one can be convicted of.

I agree that many pedophiles know right from wrong, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily good for them to masturbate to the thought of abusing a child, nor does it mean that creating visual depictions of such actions is necessarily something that society has to tolerate.

Irrespective of whether or not loli should be considered more than just the sex scenes, there are certainly going to be paedophiles who masturbate to Lolita, American Beauty, and The End of Alice. The artist's intent isn't what's causing the paradox, it's the consumer's use. Why is it more problematic for a paedophile to masturbate to Lolita than it is for them to masturbate to a poorly written one-page "Harry X Hermoine" fanfic?

Because one has value for society at large while the other clearly doesn't.

Did you know, in the "Extreme Pornography" laws in the UK (theoretically enacted to protect women in the exact same way that child pornography laws are enacted to protect children), it would be illegal to simply have a video clip of the scene in Alfred Hitchcock's "Frenzy" where Barbara Leigh-Hunt is strangled with a necktie, but it would be legal to own a copy of the complete film? This is your "artistic merit" argument taken to its (il)logical conclusion.

I obviously disagree with such laws but I do not agree at all that they are the logical conclusion of saying that you shouldn't draw a child being raped incestuously.

I can't speak for others, but the social progress I'm interested in is where we do not judge people by their sexual urges, only by what harm they may or may not commit in an effort to sate those urges.

Fair enough; I'm not trying to demonize pedophiles who are very likely the victims of nature. I'm confused about how you think drawing child rape and distributing it to them is going to help that goal along.

I'm pretty sure we both agree rape and violence are both bad, does that mean it's shitty to depict it for no other reason than sexual arousal? BDSM is easily the single most common family of fetishes out there, indulged in by millions of people around the world in a safe and sane manner.

Okay, this is what you don't get. BDSM is not depicting rape.

BDSM is depicting a fantasy and the vast majority of those who are engaged in it do not actually find rape attractive or arousing. People who enjoy rape fantasy play are not doing so because it helps the overcome their real urge to rape.

Contrast this with child porn, which is not simply a fantasy for most consumers, but a real and accurate depiction of their sexual urges(I'm not even including loli or whatever, as it is admittedly an area of human sexuality I don't know much about). The vast majority of those who view child porn, drawn or not, are doing so because they actually want to rape children - even if they are morally upright enough to never do so.

Do you not see the huge, fundamental difference there?

 

[AlphaLackey]

If I am aroused by pretending to rape someone, it does not necessarily follow that I am aroused by rape itself. However, if I am aroused by thinking about fucking a child, then it does necessarily follow that I am aroused by the thought of raping a child itself.

I would have no problem if someone jerked off to actors of legal age who were pretending to be teenagers or even children because then they're masturbating to people PRETENDING to do something that is of course terrible in real life, versus just masturbating to a recounting of a terrible act. Is that difference really not clear to you?

What's clear to me is that "actors of legal age acting out a rape fantasy" harms just as many real people (zero) as an anime comic, and both are fictional media representation of a horrible crime, designed for the soul purpose of sexual gratification.

It is not clear, however, that we are attributing the person with rape fantasy the idea that they do not want to really commit rape, but not attributing the paedophile with the idea that they do not really want to have sex with a child.

Inside the fantasy setting, the rape fantasizer wants to commit rape and the paedophile wants to have sex with a child; outside the fantasy setting, neither wants to commit their act. Looks like an equivalence to me.

I agree that many pedophiles know right from wrong, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily good for them to masturbate to the thought of abusing a child, nor does it mean that creating visual depictions of such actions is necessarily something that society has to tolerate.

Society has a mandate, however, to allow personal freedoms when it does not harm others. If you suddenly say that mandate is less important than enforcing sexual orthodoxy in this case, then where do you draw the line? Do you be like Britain, and turn a good hundred-thousand law-abiding (yet kinky) citizens into being just as bad as child pornographers in just one stroke?

Irrespective of whether or not loli should be considered more than just the sex scenes, there are certainly going to be paedophiles who masturbate to Lolita, American Beauty, and The End of Alice. The artist's intent isn't what's causing the paradox, it's the consumer's use. Why is it more problematic for a paedophile to masturbate to Lolita than it is for them to masturbate to a poorly written one-page "Harry X Hermoine" fanfic?

Because one has value for society at large while the other clearly doesn't.[/quote]

Society at large isn't the problem, it's the paedophile. The same person is doing the same masturbation with the same type of material to satisfy the same fetish. Either the content depicts underage children having sex, or it does not. The fact that you cannot make this the criteria of the law (you have to add an outside cultural perspective) only highlights how flawed the law is in this case.

Paedophile A is masturbating to American Beauty; Paedophile B is masturbating to schlocky fanfiction. Why is B less of a problem than A?

Did you know, in the "Extreme Pornography" laws in the UK (theoretically enacted to protect women in the exact same way that child pornography laws are enacted to protect children), it would be illegal to simply have a video clip of the scene in Alfred Hitchcock's "Frenzy" where Barbara Leigh-Hunt is strangled with a necktie, but it would be legal to own a copy of the complete film? This is your "artistic merit" argument taken to its (il)logical conclusion.

I obviously disagree with such laws but I do not agree at all that they are the logical conclusion of saying that you shouldn't draw a child being raped incestuously.

That IS, however, the logical conclusion of empowering "artistic merit" to be what determines whether it's acceptable or not to masturbate to something.

Fair enough; I'm not trying to demonize pedophiles who are very likely the victims of nature. I'm confused about how you think drawing child rape and distributing it to them is going to help that goal along.

Aside from fairly strong evidence of cathartic effect (compare Japan's staggeringly low per-capita rape rate), it "helps" by reinforcing that personal freedoms that do not harm others are more important than enforcing sexual orthodoxy. Or, more succinctly, it "helps" by not making us step on a slippery slope. And, as I pointed out elsewhere, having the laws be much more objective and much less about "why fanfic sucks" gives a moral imprimatur to prosecute the worst offenders FAR more fervently.

I'm pretty sure we both agree rape and violence are both bad, does that mean it's shitty to depict it for no other reason than sexual arousal? BDSM is easily the single most common family of fetishes out there, indulged in by millions of people around the world in a safe and sane manner.

Okay, this is what you don't get. BDSM is not depicting rape.

BDSM is depicting a fantasy and the vast majority of those who are engaged in it do not actually find rape attractive or arousing. People who enjoy rape fantasy play are not doing so because it helps the overcome their real urge to rape.

Contrast this with child porn, which is not simply a fantasy for most consumers, but a real and accurate depiction of their sexual urges(I'm not even including loli or whatever, as it is admittedly an area of human sexuality I don't know much about). The vast majority of those who view child porn, drawn or not, are doing so because they actually want to rape children - even if they are morally upright enough to never do so.

Do you not see the huge, fundamental difference there?

I do see what you're claiming, I don't agree with it. In fact, said UK laws were enacted precisely on the morality that people with such fetishes DO find "really acting it out" arousing. They were implemented based on one case where someone with a demonstrable asphyxiation fetish strangled a woman to death and was (as he admitted) sexually aroused when doing so.

 

[irishda]

I'm not following the comparison of "Cartoon cp is to actual child molestation as violent video games are to actual murder" that a lot of people are throwing out there.

For one, the two are inherently different in terms of value to society, thus meaning that one will always be more socially acceptable (albeit similarly illegal in some cases) than the other. Violence comes in many forms, and some are deemed as necessary in order to survive, even righteous at times, while others are seen as evil. However, child molestation is in no form socially acceptable, therefore almost impossible to justify depictions of it, as you would depictions of violence.

Similarly, the argument of "it's not hurting anyone" is true, but besides the point. No minors are being hurt in the depiction of sexual assault, but it still speaks to the mindset of the type of person that would be aroused by such a depiction. I've seen this compared to the category of hardcore/rough sex pornography; that someone who watches and is aroused by that is unlikely to commit such acts, just like someone watching cartoon child porn. But once again, there's a difference between consensual adults acting out a fantasy, and someone being aroused by such a gratuitously immoral act (no matter how it's generated) that even the criminal element of society views them as despicable.

No matter how you slice it, the simple fact of the matter is that someone was watching depictions of child sex abuse for the purpose of their own arousal. Whether or not that warrants jail time is certainly a debate to be had, but this man clearly, at the very least, needs psychiatric care.