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

[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.

I know they do it for small breasts but do they really do it for pigtails and braces?

That's just pathetic.

No, I'm just making a point.
... but if someone raises a stink and it moves in that direction over there - you heard it here first.

 

[AlphaLackey]

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.

I know they do it for small breasts but do they really do it for pigtails and braces?

That's just pathetic.

No, I'm just making a point.
... but if someone raises a stink and it moves in that direction over there - you heard it here first.

My understanding is that it's even worse that just "small breasts", that they in fact refuse to give any specific criteria of any kind, only "if we think they look underage, it's smut".

I don't see how it should be unacceptable to use an underage-looking 18 year old, given that it's also not acceptable to use an 18-year-old-looking underage actress

 

[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.

I know they do it for small breasts but do they really do it for pigtails and braces?

That's just pathetic.

No, I'm just making a point.
... but if someone raises a stink and it moves in that direction over there - you heard it here first.

My understanding is that it's even worse that just "small breasts", that they in fact refuse to give any specific criteria of any kind, only "if we think they look underage, it's smut".

I don't see how it should be unacceptable to use an underage-looking 18 year old, given that it's also not acceptable to use an 18-year-old-looking underage actress

Ah yes...

"I know it when I see it" continues to fuck things up.

 

[Quaidis]

I'm somewhat curious what hentai manga he downloaded off of bit torrent was that got him 3 years in prison. You know, so I don't accidentally find myself in a similar position. It must have been rife with some explicit stuff.

Seriously, though, I think jailing the man for any time over something like reading a cartoon is rather obscene. The justice system should focus its attention on more important matters instead of wasting tax payer dollars screwing over people for real stupid reasons.

 

[LongMuckDong]

What the fuck bros.... that is some bullshit.

I have anime depicting multiple acts of tentacle rape, does that make me a octo-rapist?

Clone Wars has murder in it, should I be imprisoned for that?

Fuck off you bullshit legal system, nobody's 'actually' being hurt by this sickos odd porn taste, leave the poor **** alone.

Now he'll probably kill himself due to life being frakked entirely by this facade, makes me sick.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I don't understand the demonization of child porn/pedophiles, as though there is something fundamentally sick/wrong with it. Just throwing out a random time period here, 14th century (Although it was also practiced for long after and long before). Girls were married shortly after starting puberty, which was generally between ages 8-16. They were married to men who were 25-40 years old. The Church did eventually step in and forbid 'child' marriage, although they considered a person to no longer be a child at 12 (for girls) and 14 (for boys). That practice wasn't considered strange or disturbing in the slightest.

Just because most present day developed countries believe it to be immoral doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to justify the practice (Because honestly, I really don't care one way or the other), I just don't understand where the sheer amount of blind hatred comes from.

 

[GTwander]

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to justify the practice (Because honestly, I really don't care one way or the other), I just don't understand where the sheer amount of blind hatred comes from.

If one person says "Rabble, Rabble!", others will join in... if only to not look suspect.

It's a common media tactic as well. When they cover stories like this they pose a sentiment you'd never argue against publicly. All you can do is stay silent, or go along with the tide... after all, who in their right mind would try to preach sense about this particular situation if the counter-argument would set you up as pro-molestation?

 

[Kopikatsu]

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to justify the practice (Because honestly, I really don't care one way or the other), I just don't understand where the sheer amount of blind hatred comes from.

If one person says "Rabble, Rabble!", others will join in... if only to not look suspect.

It's a common media tactic as well. When they cover stories like this they pose a sentiment you'd never argue against publicly. All you can do is stay silent, or go along with the tide... after all, who in their right mind would try to preach sense about this particular situation if the counter-argument would set you up as pro-molestation?

I guess, but then there are even things like protection programs for child molesters in prisons because if they were put into general pop, they'd be killed before the end of the day. I mean, the protection thing was set up specifically because murderers, addicts, and rapists felt that child molestation was so abhorrent that even they couldn't stand to be around them.

It's strange is all.

 

[Epona]

I don't understand the demonization of child porn/pedophiles, as though there is something fundamentally sick/wrong with it. Just throwing out a random time period here, 14th century (Although it was also practiced for long after and long before). Girls were married shortly after starting puberty, which was generally between ages 8-16. They were married to men who were 25-40 years old. The Church did eventually step in and forbid 'child' marriage, although they considered a person to no longer be a child at 12 (for girls) and 14 (for boys). That practice wasn't considered strange or disturbing in the slightest.

Just because most developed countries believe it to be immoral doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to justify the practice (Because honestly, I really don't care one way or the other), I just don't understand where the sheer amount of blind hatred comes from.

...because people have been taught that their culture's way is the ONLY right way and any deviation from that is wrong, immoral and in need of psychiatric intervention at a minimum.

It really shows the sickness of our culture when people call for cruel and unusual punishment like castration, execution with/without a trial and prison justice (anal rape).

I think people who call for these things are as bad or worse than the person they are condemning.

 

[GTwander]

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not attempting to justify the practice (Because honestly, I really don't care one way or the other), I just don't understand where the sheer amount of blind hatred comes from.

If one person says "Rabble, Rabble!", others will join in... if only to not look suspect.

It's a common media tactic as well. When they cover stories like this they pose a sentiment you'd never argue against publicly. All you can do is stay silent, or go along with the tide... after all, who in their right mind would try to preach sense about this particular situation if the counter-argument would set you up as pro-molestation?

I guess, but then there are even things like protection programs for child molesters in prisons because if they were put into general pop, they'd be killed before the end of the day. I mean, the protection thing was set up specifically because murderers, addicts, and rapists felt that child molestation was so abhorrent that even they couldn't stand to be around them.

It's strange is all.

It's not that strange.

Even the movie Taken (watch Movie Bob's take on this) was pandering to the good' ol American fear of someone diddling our daughters. This is exactly why when it's a young boy and older woman it's all gravy (from a male perspective, the women folk are usually screaming "oh, mah baby!" all the same), but when it's a young girl and older man people can't pick up the pitchforks fast enough.

 

[Elyxard]

If anything, pedophiles should be encouraged to resort to "cartoon porn" or hentai. Repression is bad. We've long figured this out ages ago from a scientific standpoint. We have to accept that these people will always exist in our society, and allowing them a healthy outlet will prevent actual cases of abuse from occurring. These people legislating "obscenity" laws are only making the situation worse.

I feel sorry for the guy because most peoples' gut reaction is to crucify him for even being associated with the sensitive subject, despite the fact that there's no victim here. You can't just lash out at the guy without understanding the intricacies of it all, and a lot of people don't have the patience for it.

We don't arrest people for artwork, and we don't arrest people based on the logical fallacy of a slippery slope, plain and simple (or at least we shouldn't, not all laws are "correct").

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

It's all fine and good to raise pitchforks against The Man for this, but it may have served the prosecuted well to exercise a little restraint too, you know.

 

[The Lunatic]

I'd like to remind people that the guy did plead guilty.

He didn't fight it, he didn't say "I have a disorder" or anything like that.

He just accepted it.

Arguments of "He shouldn't be found guilty" shouldn't really be brought up, as that's not what happened, that dude just confessed, nobody found him guilty but himself.

 

[Something Amyss]

This has probably already been replied too but why does it matter if they agreed?

Because the context here was talking about "violence," which gets really silly when you're talking actors.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd like to remind people that the guy did plead guilty.

He didn't fight it, he didn't say "I have a disorder" or anything like that.

He just accepted it.

Arguments of "He shouldn't be found guilty" shouldn't really be brought up, as that's not what happened, that dude just confessed, nobody found him guilty but himself.

He plead guilty to a lesser obscenity charge, just for the record.

I mean, if you want to be all factual about it.

Which maybe you don't.

Pleading out to a lesser charge may still be a guilty plea, but it's often an ass-saving maneuver.

 

[LackofCertainty]

If having drawings of child porn is illegal, then having drawings of violence or murder should be illegal.

If having drawings of child porn is illegal, then having any story involving underage sex should be illegal. (and by extension, any story involving violence or murder should be illegal as well)



If the above is true, then every single person in the united states should get a 3 year jail sentence for obscenity, because at some point in everyone's life, they've seen a movie or read a book or watched a play where someone was killed.



But apparently that's not how Missouri works. If I draw a person tearing apart a corpse and eating it, that's fine. If I draw two children banging eachother, I get 3 years in prison. If I draw the president murdering and eating babies, it's fine. If I draw the president raping babies, I get 3 years in prison.


Stupid.