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

[irishda]

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.

Even if you are right... so what?

Calling it CP isn't the auto win feature you seem to think it is.

It's not a good reason why this stuff is immoral or should be banned, just because it falls into a legal definition.

Because any sort of justification for having child pornography (even depictions) for the sake of sexual arousal is nonexistent?

 

[Zombiefish]

but this man clearly, at the very least, needs psychiatric care.

Are you saying he should be put into a mental institution or that he should get counseling?

I agree with the counseling.

 

[Zombiefish]

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.

Even if you are right... so what?

Calling it CP isn't the auto win feature you seem to think it is.

It's not a good reason why this stuff is immoral or should be banned, just because it falls into a legal definition.

Because any sort of justification for having child pornography (even depictions) for the sake of sexual arousal is nonexistent?

Heres a justification. It doesn't hurt anyone, There is no evidence that it leads to criminal acts and to some extent it can be a outlet for people who experience sexual arousal from kids.

 

[evilneko]

'scuse me while I uh.. expand my truecrypt volume.

I doubt a judge would understand the literary value of Kojika.

Oh snap, Fate/Prisma Ilya too...

Oh and maybe Saikano as well...

Fuck it I'll just encrypt everything!

 

[The Last Parade]

Can we just talk about what a **** his wife is? What's this? Hentai? Imma have to call the police on you... -.-

 

[GTwander]

Sexual arousal does not hurt anyone, nor does owning those drawings. It's not our job to justify having them it's your job to justify why they should be banned. And just labeling it child porn doesn't cut it. Especially when he was charged for obscenity and not for child porn possession.

Maybe someday we'll take a note from our hyperprudent friends down under and start banning braces, pigtails and small breasts in porn, because they are too reminiscent of youngins.

 

[irishda]

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.

Even if you are right... so what?

Calling it CP isn't the auto win feature you seem to think it is.

It's not a good reason why this stuff is immoral or should be banned, just because it falls into a legal definition.

Because any sort of justification for having child pornography (even depictions) for the sake of sexual arousal is nonexistent?

Sexual arousal does not hurt anyone, nor does owning those drawings. It's not our job to justify having them it's your job to justify why they should be banned. And just labeling it child porn doesn't cut it. Especially when he was charged for obscenity and not for child porn possession.

Heres a justification. It doesn't hurt anyone, There is no evidence that it leads to criminal acts and to some extent it can be a outlet for people who experience sexual arousal from kids.

Lump you guys in together since you both gave the same answer. It hurts the man watching it. At BEST, he's got a mental illness centering around an illicit fantasy that's horribly immoral. At worst, he's exhibiting warning signs for future activities that it would be in everyone's best interest for him not to carry out. Regardless of whether or not he's acting on his tendencies, that's still no reason to dismiss them.

 

[irishda]

Sexual arousal does not hurt anyone, nor does owning those drawings. It's not our job to justify having them it's your job to justify why they should be banned. And just labeling it child porn doesn't cut it. Especially when he was charged for obscenity and not for child porn possession.

Maybe someday we'll take a note from our hyperprudent friends down under and start banning braces, pigtails and small breasts in porn, because they are too reminiscent of youngins.

Because the parts of a whole are always representative of that whole when they're on their own.

 

[gravian]

Sexual arousal does not hurt anyone, nor does owning those drawings. It's not our job to justify having them it's your job to justify why they should be banned. And just labeling it child porn doesn't cut it. Especially when he was charged for obscenity and not for child porn possession.

The whole reason why CP is banned is because its socially unacceptable in any form (as Irishda has already argued), so really if you want to keep this stuff then you need to successfully justify to the public why you should, don't you agree?

I mean marriage at a young age and dueling, among many things, are only banned because the public sees them as wholly unacceptable acts that should not be condoned. No matter which way anyone tries to argue that "its not the same thing as ACTUAL images" or that banning it is illogical, no one is going to be persuaded.

And to be honest I can understand why the guy's wife reported him for it, especially if they had children. Yes, liking it doesn't mean he will do it or get interested in his own children, but finding out that the man who married, loved you and was turned on by you is now turned on instead by naked children...yeah. At the very least I feel that he'd have to go through serious therapy and treatment before she'd forgive him, if ever.

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

The definition of a pedophile is one who has sexual attraction towards children. The definition of a BDSM-er is not one who enjoys raping.

The vast majority of those in BDSM situations are enjoying a fake representation of an act that they would, in real life, not enjoy; the vast majority of those who watch child porn are enjoying a real representation of something they would, in real life, enjoy. If you disagree, then you are wrong. Sorry.

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?

I've stated time and time again that I don't support such things. Thanks for the strawman though.

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?

Because B has value to society at large, as I said before. Society should encourage taboo-breaking art that intelligently and thoughtfully examines cultural prejudices; it should not support drivel that is designed solely to appeal to the base interests of pedophiles.

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

If something has artistic merit, you're not masturbating to it in the first place.

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.

Condemning the sexual objectification and abuse of children is not enforcing sexual orthodoxy, it's standing up for human rights. I'm arguing that material reveling in or even condoning the sexual abuse of children should be treated like anti-Semitic hate speech or material advocating for the murder of LGBT people; whether or not it should be illegal, it's still undeniably not socially acceptable and it should be condemned.

 

[Zombiefish]

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.

Even if you are right... so what?

Calling it CP isn't the auto win feature you seem to think it is.

It's not a good reason why this stuff is immoral or should be banned, just because it falls into a legal definition.

Because any sort of justification for having child pornography (even depictions) for the sake of sexual arousal is nonexistent?

Sexual arousal does not hurt anyone, nor does owning those drawings. It's not our job to justify having them it's your job to justify why they should be banned. And just labeling it child porn doesn't cut it. Especially when he was charged for obscenity and not for child porn possession.

Heres a justification. It doesn't hurt anyone, There is no evidence that it leads to criminal acts and to some extent it can be a outlet for people who experience sexual arousal from kids.

Lump you guys in together since you both gave the same answer. It hurts the man watching it. At BEST, he's got a mental illness centering around an illicit fantasy that's horribly immoral. At worst, he's exhibiting warning signs for future activities that it would be in everyone's best interest for him not to carry out. Regardless of whether or not he's acting on his tendencies, that's still no reason to dismiss them.

How does this hurt the guy? He is releasing his sexual desires in a non harmful way. If anything this is better for him than suppressing them forever. I wouldn't say simply being attracted to kids is a mental illness, the same way homosexuality is not a mental illness. I would say it is an abnormality and yes it is immoral but so are rape fantasies, murder fantasies and many others. As long as they are kept private, and not acted upon another who could be harmed by them, then I simply don't see the problem.

 

[Zombiefish]

The whole reason why CP is banned is because its socially unacceptable in any form (as Irishda has already argued), so really if you want to keep this stuff then you need to successfully justify to the public why you should, don't you agree?

I mean marriage at a young age and dueling, among many things, are only banned because the public sees them as wholly unacceptable acts that should not be condoned. No matter which way anyone tries to argue that "its not the same thing as ACTUAL images" or that banning it is illogical, no one is going to be persuaded.

And to be honest I can understand why the guy's wife reported him for it, especially if they had children. Yes, liking it doesn't mean he will do it or get interested in his own children, but finding out that the man who married, loved you and was turned on by you is now turned on instead by naked children...yeah. At the very least I feel that he'd have to go through serious therapy and treatment before she'd forgive him, if ever.

Underage marriage and dueling are banned because individuals can be harmed from them. In underage marriage, the younger person is generally not mature enough to understand the commitment they are taking. There could be mental suffering caused due to premature decisions.

With regards to dueling there is a very real risk someone will suffer physical harm, intentional or not.

With cartoon images there is no risk of harm to anyone. No children will suffer mentally or physically from the image. As long as it is kept private no-one in society other the the man who views it would be affected at all. I find this a sufficient justification.

Acts are generally socially unacceptable because they cause harm to another in some form or other. Like I said this causes no harm and there is currently no proof that it will lead to harm being done.

 

[AlphaLackey]

The definition of a pedophile is one who has sexual attraction towards children. The definition of a BDSM-er is not one who enjoys raping.

Okay, in this case, I am talking specifically about people who have rape fetish. You seem to have replaced "all people with a BDSM fetish" for where I said "rape fetish", simply because I consider the latter is a subset of the former.

So, specifically, the definition of a rape fetishist is one who fantasizes about committing the act of rape (or of having it committed to them) as a form of sexual gratification. A tiny subset of these fetishists will be sociopaths who act out on them. The vast majority of them have a sense of right and wrong and that overrides any conscious sexual desire.

The vast majority of those in BDSM situations are enjoying a fake representation of an act that they would, in real life, not enjoy;

Absolutely untrue. Many of those in BDSM situations actually DO act them out in real life... in the controlled setting of a sexual fantasy with a consenting partner, but they ACTUALLY are cutting or striking or choking or burning each other. They ACTUALLY are going to sleep while their partner sneaks in at night and attacks them in their sleep, so that they might overpower them physically to have sex with them. How can you possibly claim that this is a MORE ephemeral manifestation of a fetish than someone who reads a comic, rubs one out and goes out for Taco Bell?

... the vast majority of those who watch child porn are enjoying a real representation of something they would, in real life, enjoy. If you disagree, then you are wrong. Sorry.

That is awfully presumptuous on your part. If you're going to state this on authority, I'd at least like a survey of admitted paedophiles versus a survey of admitted rape fetishists.

I've stated time and time again that I don't support such things. Thanks for the strawman though.

If you support "A", and I demonstrate logically that "A implies B", you don't get to say "I support A, I don't support B, thanks for the strawman though". I am demonstrating that your arguments are mutually and internally inconsistent. You admit to supporting the "artistic merit" criteria as the sole determiner of whether something otherwise classified as (artistic, not real) child pornography is acceptable to possess. This exact same criteria results in laws where you can own a whole work but not a scene of the work where the scene is determined to arouse sexual gratification over an illegal act.

You certainly can be hypocritical on the subject, I can't stop you. But this is a flaw in your argument, not mine.

Because B has value to society at large, as I said before. Society should encourage taboo-breaking art that intelligently and thoughtfully examines cultural prejudices; it should not support drivel that is designed solely to appeal to the base interests of pedophiles.

.. and if a paedophile masturbates to it on a nightly basis, it doesn't matter. It only matters what (essentially) a group of xenophobic old white men from a past generation say on it.

You don't care how many paedophiles would masturbate to Lolita, that's fine. But if taboo-breaking art should be encouraged in the name of culture irrespective of how many paedophiles masturbate to it, then is it that much of a stretch to allow people to write sexy Harry Potter fanfic in the name of freedom, irrespective of how many paedophiles masturbate to it?

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

If something has artistic merit, you're not masturbating to it in the first place.

My example from Frenzy completely disproves this claim by counterpoint. Fetishists of all stripes have LONG collected partial samples of works that otherwise have artistic merit, and used those samples solely for sexual gratification.

I invite you to revisit my argument with this understanding.

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.

Condemning the sexual objectification and abuse of children is not enforcing sexual orthodoxy, it's standing up for human rights.

On this, we agree. So how many children are abused by an anime comic? Zero. Irrelevant objection. Your point has weight IF AND ONLY IF there is a demonstrable link between artistic child porn and the actual abuse of children. If there is no link (and none has been brought to my attention thus far), then it's no more problematic than rape porn / asphyxiation porn / etc. "No humans were harmed in the making of this production".

I'm arguing that material reveling in or even condoning the sexual abuse of children should be treated like anti-Semitic hate speech or material advocating for the murder of LGBT people; whether or not it should be illegal, it's still undeniably not socially acceptable and it should be condemned.

What about LGBT people who get sexually aroused by homophobic abuse? A man who gets off on being abused and denigrated, called every derogatory term under the sun, hit and struck? Why would it be okay for him to read a viscerally detailed chapter about Matthew Shepherd's horrific assault, but not read a one-page fanfic he wrote?

 

[irishda]

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.

Even if you are right... so what?

Calling it CP isn't the auto win feature you seem to think it is.

It's not a good reason why this stuff is immoral or should be banned, just because it falls into a legal definition.

Because any sort of justification for having child pornography (even depictions) for the sake of sexual arousal is nonexistent?

Sexual arousal does not hurt anyone, nor does owning those drawings. It's not our job to justify having them it's your job to justify why they should be banned. And just labeling it child porn doesn't cut it. Especially when he was charged for obscenity and not for child porn possession.

Heres a justification. It doesn't hurt anyone, There is no evidence that it leads to criminal acts and to some extent it can be a outlet for people who experience sexual arousal from kids.

Lump you guys in together since you both gave the same answer. It hurts the man watching it. At BEST, he's got a mental illness centering around an illicit fantasy that's horribly immoral. At worst, he's exhibiting warning signs for future activities that it would be in everyone's best interest for him not to carry out. Regardless of whether or not he's acting on his tendencies, that's still no reason to dismiss them.

How does this hurt the guy? He is releasing his sexual desires in a non harmful way. If anything this is better for him than suppressing them forever. I wouldn't say simply being attracted to kids is a mental illness, the same way homosexuality is not a mental illness. I would say it is an abnormality and yes it is immoral but so are rape fantasies, murder fantasies and many others. As long as they are kept private, and not acted upon another who could be harmed by them, then I simply don't see the problem.

Because its the sexual desire itself that's the problem, not simply his treatment of it. He needs psychiatric help, not a cartoon. And it's not comparative to murder fantasies. Depictions of violence are for a variety of reasons, and are not always seen as bad by society. But child pornography is for one reason only.

And rape is hardly better. In the criminal hierarchy, pedophiles and rapists are on the bottom, and they're not very far apart. He may not have been harming anyone (yet, or that we know of), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be getting help.

 

[Zombiefish]

Because its the sexual desire itself that's the problem, not simply his treatment of it. He needs psychiatric help, not a cartoon. And it's not comparative to murder fantasies. Depictions of violence are for a variety of reasons, and are not always seen as bad by society. But child pornography is for one reason only.

And rape is hardly better. In the criminal hierarchy, pedophiles and rapists are on the bottom, and they're not very far apart. He may not have been harming anyone (yet, or that we know of), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be getting help.

Why is his sexual desire an issue if he never acts upon it by harming another human?

And are you implying he can be cured?

 

[ph0b0s123]

Welcome to the wonderful world of 'thought crime'. Looking at such material is obviously, irrefutable evidence of you have bad thoughts, these need to be punished and your thoughts corrected. I am sorry but this precedent is scary. Once established where else will this principle, so many are throwing their weight behind, be used next.

The 'murder simulators' most on this site spend time on? I don't think the arbiters of what are good thoughts or not, once the above precedent is set, will be swayed much by arguments that some times violence is necessary, so therefore we can keep all the violence there is in video games.

When did it become not enough, to only punishing someone for causing actual harm to someone else, or attempting to cause harm to someone else.

It should be actions that actually harm someone else, which should be punished, not thoughts people can not be 100% sure that someone is having. Touching actual children is wrong / criminal and worthy of harsh punishment. That message is crystal clear, even clearer than it is with murder (zero defense), so why do we also need to invoke thought crime as a tool?

Even with hate / racist / discriminatory speech, that is criminalized, it is only the creator that is punished, not the audience.

 

[dystopiaINC]

What a load of crap. They weren't real pictures and apparently were "cartoons". Why it's still in quotations I don't know.

Either way, this poor sob is now gonna waste potentially 3 years of his life in prison where he'll possibly be raped once news spreads of his 'crime'. He never touched a kid but I bet the ignorant fuck ups that inhabit jail will take it as child pornography and harass him all the same.

Fuck you Missouri and fuck your obscenity laws. And for the wife... some wife you are.

All the obscenity laws are doing is making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Putting him in prison will make him more of a dangerous individual than he was before hand. When he comes out he's going to be psychologically damaged from the experience, he'll have fewer opportunities to find good honest work, and he's going to come into contact with people like drug dealers and thief's who'll teach him a few tricks of their trade if they don't abuse him. It wouldn't surprise me if after he's released he re-offends and brought before the court for a different crime where he's actually harmed someone. Pragmatically speaking, it's a waste of taxpayers money and morally speaking it's vile.

"Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilization."- Winston Churchill

lol reminds me of shawshank redemption. "outside i was an honest man, i had to go to prison to be a crook" (in case you haven't seen it the main character wet to jail under a false murder conviction, before that he was a accountant, the prison ended up using him to cheat out o their taxes and make big money basically forcing him to brake the law for them.)

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.

Even if you are right... so what?

Calling it CP isn't the auto win feature you seem to think it is.

It's not a good reason why this stuff is immoral or should be banned, just because it falls into a legal definition.

Because any sort of justification for having child pornography (even depictions) for the sake of sexual arousal is nonexistent?

Sexual arousal does not hurt anyone, nor does owning those drawings. It's not our job to justify having them it's your job to justify why they should be banned. And just labeling it child porn doesn't cut it. Especially when he was charged for obscenity and not for child porn possession.

Heres a justification. It doesn't hurt anyone, There is no evidence that it leads to criminal acts and to some extent it can be a outlet for people who experience sexual arousal from kids.

Lump you guys in together since you both gave the same answer. It hurts the man watching it. At BEST, he's got a mental illness centering around an illicit fantasy that's horribly immoral. At worst, he's exhibiting warning signs for future activities that it would be in everyone's best interest for him not to carry out. Regardless of whether or not he's acting on his tendencies, that's still no reason to dismiss them.

How does this hurt the guy? He is releasing his sexual desires in a non harmful way. If anything this is better for him than suppressing them forever. I wouldn't say simply being attracted to kids is a mental illness, the same way homosexuality is not a mental illness. I would say it is an abnormality and yes it is immoral but so are rape fantasies, murder fantasies and many others. As long as they are kept private, and not acted upon another who could be harmed by them, then I simply don't see the problem.

This right here, and better than I could have put it at that.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Because its the sexual desire itself that's the problem, not simply his treatment of it. He needs psychiatric help, not a cartoon. And it's not comparative to murder fantasies. Depictions of violence are for a variety of reasons, and are not always seen as bad by society. But child pornography is for one reason only.

.. except when it's Lolita, or American Beauty, or Eli Langer's paintings of children in sexual positions (granted by the Canadian courts as having 'artistic merit') or any of a wide number of pieces that contain the written or drawn depiction of child pornography with enough filler to meet some criteria completely irrelevant to who masturbates to them.

Murder fantasies, rape fantasies and child pornography fantasies are all comparable in two ways:

#1) If they are acted upon, they are horrible.
#2) If not acted upon, they are harmless.

Any difference between them pales in comparison to those important facts.

And rape is hardly better. In the criminal hierarchy, pedophiles and rapists are on the bottom, and they're not very far apart. He may not have been harming anyone (yet, or that we know of), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be getting help.

And the non-trivial number of women who sexually fantasize about being raped, they need help too? Are they the lowest of the low as well?