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

[2012 Wont Happen]

If you send a man to jail for possession of a cartoon you can no longer claim to be a first world country.

 

[LackofCertainty]

snipped

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.

Alright, then I have a thought experiment for you. Right on the bottom with rapists and pedophilles are serial killers, so lets use serial killers.

What happens if I make a game, where you as the main character are a serial killer. The whole point of the game is to find people who fit your serial killer theme (lets say you're supposed to target women in their 20's) and then kill them, and hide their bodies so that you can keep it going for as long as possible. The more people you kill, the more attention you get from the police. You can lower the police attention by laying low or moving to a different part of the city, or maybe collecting powerups. Killing people inside your target group would decrease your suicide bar, which would be the clock to keep the game intense. If you let the suicide bar fill, your character commits suicide. (obviously)

This game I suggest has no merit to it's violence. You are simulating a horrible act with no question about how you could justify the action. To me, it sounds like you could make a disturbing, but fun game out of this concept. I wouldn't let a child play it, but I could see having fun with it.

Owning or playing this hypothetical game would make me guilty of obscenity because the entire purpose of the game would be to simulate serial murder, (an unambiguously evil act) and I would deserve 3 years in jail.

I find that unacceptable, as the game wouldn't hurt anyone.

What are your thoughts on it?

Edit: the gamer in me had to add a clock mechanic so the game wouldn't bog down into excessive hiding. >_>

 

[GTwander]

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").

Hmm, this kind of worries me as an aspiring writer... because I work with horror and very "sensitive subjects".

I wonder how this will affect my prospects of getting published if what I write is considered "Obscene". Consider this; it's almost impossible to use a minor in a story surrounding a climate of sex/violence, and/or other harsh tones - so how the fuck is society going to go back on it's opinion of things such as Lord of the Flies?... because they wouldn't DARE make a remake of it nowadays.

One of my works involves high school kids offing themselves in order to repeat the day's events from waking, in order to fix the mistakes that constantly spring up from their sheer stupidity. There is a message to be had, but will anyone in this country be able to get past "Oh Gad! Kids killing themselves! Sound the alarm!"? It's a kneejerk reaction that is going to absolutely stifle art in general.

 

[tyriless]

The man was masturbating to images of children which makes him a pedophile. Just because they where drawings doesn't change that what turns him on are children. The only things that changes is that no child was actually harmed by creation of these images. Still the man has issues and I would not want him around my family or friends until he dealt with them.

For those who equate this playing violent video games, you seriously need to reexamine your argument. There is a big difference between a fetish for children (which is lolicon and child porn) and firing up your console for hour of running and gunning. Fantasizing about immature sex partners only reinforces that behavior. It keeps happening until the idea becomes more and more acceptable. I don't know if this man would ever indulge in his fantasy, but that threat is always going to be there. If he actually did do such a thing, then someone's child just got destroyed. For video game violence, almost every study I read states that there is no correlation between the violence that we indulge in and the violence we commit. In the gaming community, the consensus is that video game violence causes real violence is bullshit. Even if there was, and we do become more violent due to our gaming habits, that violence is almost always portrayed between adults. Especially between soldiers , a choice has been made to commit to violence on each other, to seek out and harm the opposite faction, thus it is actually consensual. This does not hold up for the likes of GTA, but more than 90% of gaming only allows you to kill hostile npcs (npcs that are going to kill you) so it is the norm.

However, I am an American and I find my country's approach to sex is puritanical and draconian. I am all for harsh punishment for people who hurt children and rapists, but this man actually did not hurt a single child. He needs guidance,help, and counseling, not a mandatory three year sentence. Our handling of crime, in general, is abominable since we focus completely on punishment and not on prevention. I have to agree with those who defend this man on this one point: all we are doing is pushing this behavior further underground, not deterring it. I would preferred that he was mandated to take and pay for therapy. That therapy would help him deal with his urges and help realize the consequences if he ever did hurt a child. Despite what I said about him I feel sorry for the poor bastard. He needs help and he is not going to get it.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

0_o It was...loli manga? That's it?

....What?! Ok, if it's actual real kids in the images, then you should get busted hard since you are supporting people who are abusing kids.

But LOLI MANGA CARTOON IMAGES?! 0_o Umm....Last I checked that hurts no one...

If he was looking at real images or had hurt a kid, then I would DEFINITELY condone sending his ass to jail in a heartbeat. But for non-real images? No way.

Why? Because you can't really help what you get turned on by. And if you're turned on by something that's really harmful or wrong, you need to find an alternate way to get your fix without hurting anyone.

You can't just arrest a guy because kids turn him on. You only arrest him if he's planning to, or has already hurt a kid (or has REAL images of kids he faps to). Otherwise, what's next? "You played GTA, sorry we have to arrest you for future crimes of robbery with weapons"? "You played Paintball, therefore we must arrest you on future crimes of mass shooting"? "You voted *party a* one time, therefore we must arrest you for the future crime of your assassination of *party b*"?

Thoughts are not crimes. Actions are.

If thoughts were crimes, EVERYONE would be in jail.

Oh and all this is on the assumption he actually fapped to loli. It's possible he didn't.

EDIT: Yeah he should probably get some therapy to make sure he never goes totally off the rails and hurts someone. That I can agree to. I just think sending him to prison is a REALLY stupid idea.

 

[AlphaLackey]

The man was masturbating to images of children which makes him a pedophile. Just because they where drawings doesn't change that what turns him on are children. The only things that changes is that no child was actually harmed by creation of these images. Still the man has issues and I would not want him around my family or friends until he dealt with them.

For those who equate this playing violent video games, you seriously need to reexamine your argument. There is a big difference between a fetish for children (which is lolicon and child porn) and firing up your console for hour of running and gunning. Fantasizing about immature sex partners only reinforces that behavior. It keeps happening until the idea becomes more and more acceptable.

The bolded part is the exact same logic applied to violent video games, where fantasizing about shooting people only reinforces that behavior and it keeps happening until the idea becomes more and more acceptable, and you do Columbine 2.0; the fact that the Columbine shooters played FPSs was hammered home around the clock by the media.

Yet we know that argument is BS when it's applied to video games. When it's applied to paedophiles, I don't see how it becomes more valid given A) Japan's staggeringly low rape and child abuse rate [in fact, all crimes across the board, relative to the USA] and B) the vast disparity between estimated paedophile rates (6-9% of the population) and child abuse rates (0.2-0.4%).

The only difference is that we are attributing the "I know right from wrong, so the fantasy is harmless" to gamers across the board (despite the Columbine shooters and others like them), but not to paedophiles (despite the vast majority of paedophiles, if statistics are to be believed, who do not abuse children)

I don't know if this man would ever indulge in his fantasy, but that threat is always going to be there.

.. as per people who play violent video games, as per people with rape fetishes, violent sex fetishes, etc. Virtually anyone is a threat to snap to a small percentage like this -- this is where we get "going postal" from, right?

Even if there was, and we do become more violent due to our gaming habits, that violence is almost always portrayed between adults. Especially between soldiers , a choice has been made to commit to violence on each other, to seek out and harm the opposite faction, thus it is actually consensual. This does not hold up for the likes of GTA, but more than 90% of gaming only allows you to kill hostile npcs (npcs that are going to kill you) so it is the norm.

Consensual, yes, but dehumanizing all the same. The danger is in seeing the taking of a life reduced to an unsympathetic blip on a score sheet.

However, I am an American and I find my country's approach to sex is puritanical and draconian. I am all for harsh punishment for people who hurt children and rapists, but this man actually did not hurt a single child. He needs guidance,help, and counseling, not a mandatory three year sentence.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. I, as the vast majority of the population, rightfully find the notion of sex with pre-pubescent children repulsive. Even if he had pictures of an actual case of a child being abused, that is a difference of night and day. As far as I'm concerned, he thought he had found a way to indulge his sexual urges in a way that didn't harm anyone.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Police-probe-of-CPS-widens-after-baby-s-death-3954342.php

In a nutshell, this woman abandoned her three children for over a week, to the point where one died of severe malnutrition and two of them were on death's door. I am taking all even-money bets (even charity bets, or 'pride bets') that this woman will do less time in jail for her ACTUAL harm to three children than what this guy did for having a cartoon.

I would preferred that he was mandated to take and pay for therapy. That therapy would help him deal with his urges and help realize the consequences if he ever did hurt a child. Despite what I said about him I feel sorry for the poor bastard. He needs help and he is not going to get it.

Given that he hid it completely from the world, it seems pretty obvious that he had zero difficulty leading a normal life. He had a normal sexual relationship with an adult (a HUGE positive indicator, the vast majority of child-abuse-level paedophiles can never have such) and was contributing to society. That he is going to get more punishment and less help than Andrea Yates, who actually killed four of her children in cold blood and got off without a day in jail, kind of sickens me.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

That he is going to get more punishment and less help than Andrea Yates, who actually killed four of her children in cold blood and got off without a day in jail, kind of sickens me.

I-Wait what?!

0_o What is this case?!

(although in Canada there is a case like that that came up. A doctor went nuts and murdered his kids, and now, years later, he looks like he can continue to practice medicine when they let him out due to "I was just temporarily insane at the time". I don't know about you, but if someone snaps like that...I do NOT want them in charge of my health thankyouverymuch)

 

[AlphaLackey]

That he is going to get more punishment and less help than Andrea Yates, who actually killed four of her children in cold blood and got off without a day in jail, kind of sickens me.

I-Wait what?!

0_o What is this case?!

(although in Canada there is a case like that that came up. A doctor went nuts and murdered his kids, and now, years later, he looks like he can continue to practice medicine when they let him out due to "I was just temporarily insane at the time". I don't know about you, but if someone snaps like that...I do NOT want them in charge of my health thankyouverymuch)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

Short version: Killed her four kids, found not guilty by reason of insanity, sentenced to be in a mental hospital. Currently in low security mental hospital at this time.

 

[Something Amyss]

You can believe that all you want but thankfully the law in many countries disagrees.

and you can cleave to the law all you want, but many cultures outlaw homosexuality and interracial relationships. NONE of the laws referenced have any bearing on reality.

Sorry, I may not like Loli material, but that doesn't mean everyone who does is a pedo.

 

[Something Amyss]

What you are doing is giving yourself a chance to feel self righteous on the Internet.

Please don't pretend to know what I'm doing. Assumption is not cool.

 

[irishda]

snipped

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.

Alright, then I have a thought experiment for you. Right on the bottom with rapists and pedophilles are serial killers, so lets use serial killers.

What happens if I make a game, where you as the main character are a serial killer. The whole point of the game is to find people who fit your serial killer theme (lets say you're supposed to target women in their 20's) and then kill them, and hide their bodies so that you can keep it going for as long as possible. The more people you kill, the more attention you get from the police. You can lower the police attention by laying low or moving to a different part of the city, or maybe collecting powerups. Killing people inside your target group would decrease your suicide bar, which would be the clock to keep the game intense. If you let the suicide bar fill, your character commits suicide. (obviously)

This game I suggest has no merit to it's violence. You are simulating a horrible act with no question about how you could justify the action. To me, it sounds like you could make a disturbing, but fun game out of this concept. I wouldn't let a child play it, but I could see having fun with it.

Owning or playing this hypothetical game would make me guilty of obscenity because the entire purpose of the game would be to simulate serial murder, (an unambiguously evil act) and I would deserve 3 years in jail.

I find that unacceptable, as the game wouldn't hurt anyone.

What are your thoughts on it?

Edit: the gamer in me had to add a clock mechanic so the game wouldn't bog down into excessive hiding. >_>

My comment about ranking of illicit activities was referring to being more contained within the sphere of criminals. In a prison, rapists will be somewhat shunned depending on if that's their sole crime, and child rapists will be killed without guard protection. Serial killers are actually pretty close to the top of the totem pole, with various factors considered.

But again, this is because of how our society treats violence and how it treats sex. I can argue the semantics and list all the reasons why we accept violence over sex, but suffice it to say that we accept violence in certain contexts over sex in most contexts. We shield children from the sexual world while being alright exposing them to violence for one simple reason.

Violence is simple. There are simple consequences for it. There are simple cases for when we find it acceptable and when we don't. Child have a very solid grasp of life and death, of pain, and they understand what violence can do (most of the time). But sex isn't so simple. Hell there's plenty of adults that don't understand the implications of it. The motivations behind it, the implications of it, even the consequences of it are almost impossible to be understood by a child.

To be more on point, there's a fine line between the world of violence and the world of child pornography, so I'm not taking the comparisons.

 

[irishda]

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.

People from the 14th century also understood the body's physiological well-being as being four liquids that needed to be drained if someone was sick. I'm chalking up the child marriages of the past to a time when the average world-wide life expectancy of a person was roughly 30 years old, almost a third of what modern medicine has brought us to. Mankind evolves over time, even if ever so slightly, and people of today mature at a slower rate than I imagine they did not so long ago. So, even though they're children to us today, it wasn't so long ago that they weren't seen as that back then.

 

[irishda]

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.

Yeah, no one cares at all when someone diddles a little boy. That dude from Penn State got to retire to an island, I'm pretty sure.

 

[irishda]

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?

No, but contrary to popular belief, repression is not at all the terrible thing people believe it to be. The brain is so completely susceptible to conditioning that any habitual response to an emotion is taken as habit. So, for example, if a man is aroused by the image of children, and his response to this arousal is to sexually release it, then his brain will program itself to seek release every time he's aroused. But, say he's trained to respond to the arousal in a different matter, or even to see the object of arousal in a completely different light, then I think he'll be better off. Certainly wouldn't have to worry about people going on his computer.

As a stoic, I find the latest fad of "if you have an emotion, you must act on it, or it'll tear you apart" rather horribly insulting. People are strong-willed when they want to be, they don't have to follow their heart's every desire, especially when it's something such as being aroused by child pornography.

 

[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.

People from the 14th century also understood the body's physiological well-being as being four liquids that needed to be drained if someone was sick. I'm chalking up the child marriages of the past to a time when the average world-wide life expectancy of a person was roughly 30 years old, almost a third of what modern medicine has brought us to. Mankind evolves over time, even if ever so slightly, and people of today mature at a slower rate than I imagine they did not so long ago. So, even though they're children to us today, it wasn't so long ago that they weren't seen as that back then.

You can chalk it up any way you like but it doesn't change natural attractions that cultures do and have always oppressed. For example, until recently and throughout most of history, homosexuals were oppressed for their attractions. When I was younger, I remember heated debates about interracial marriage. Today though, we think nothing about interracial marriage.

 

[Epona]

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.

Yeah, no one cares at all when someone diddles a little boy. That dude from Penn State got to retire to an island, I'm pretty sure.

It has happened that boys who were raped by older women had to pay child support when she become pregnant from the rape. Seems like clear cut sexism to me.

In case you doubt this:

A Pickerington couple and their son are fighting for custody of a baby born to a Lancaster woman charged with having unlawful sex with the boy, who was 15 at the time of conception.

A paternity test shows that the teen is the father of the baby born April 7 to Jane C. Crane, who was 19 when she became pregnant. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay $50 a month in child support and set visitation at seven hours a week.

Crane, meanwhile, faces criminal charges. A Fairfield County grand jury indicted her last month on two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 25 years.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/08/16/janecrane.ART_ART_08-16-08_B1_T0B1RSR.html

Also, 1 year and 6 months for RAPE?? Is that the going rate when an adult male sleeps with a teenage girl? I highly doubt it.

 

[GTwander]

...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.

Yeah, no one cares at all when someone diddles a little boy. That dude from Penn State got to retire to an island, I'm pretty sure.

I give an example and you try to justify your angle with a man-on-boy diddle?
You're not trying hard enough.

@Crono
all that hubbub for a 4-year difference between the older girl and boy?
PSH! I lied about my age at 14 and hooked up with a 19 year old before. That poor girl (not mine, yours) was done dirty if you ask me... (well, maybe I did mine dirty too)

...and quit using the word "rape", you're throwing it around like wadded-up kleenex.

 

[Call me Baz]

It's so difficult to mediate this sort of thing, there are always those people that say "well if cartoons are illegal you might as well go for real photos" as if the line between fantasy and reality is simply the "line of punishment"

What I don't get is why more people are busting out wise-cracks about the wife, she reported her own husband? Either she really doesn't like him and wants to get herself a toyboy, or she earns the majority income in that household and won't economically suffer from that jail sentence.

At least try and help him before turfing him out to the cops
(assuming they haven't been attempting to seek help)

 

[Epona]

...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.

Yeah, no one cares at all when someone diddles a little boy. That dude from Penn State got to retire to an island, I'm pretty sure.

I give an example and you try to justify your angle with a man-on-boy diddle?
You're not trying hard enough.

@Crono
all that hubbub for a 4-year difference between the older girl and boy?
PSH! I lied about my age at 14 and hooked up with a 19 year old before. That poor girl (not mine, yours) was done dirty if you ask me... (well, maybe I did mine dirty too)

...and quit using the word "rape", you're throwing it around like wadded-up kleenex.

Like it or not, the law says that it's rape when a 19 year old has sex with a 15 year old. I am not throwing it around, that's the law.

That poor girl is done dirty? The boy who was raped has to pay child support to his rapist. Now reverse that, if a 19 year old man had impregnated a 15 year old girl, would the law force her into parenthood at 15? She could abort it, she could have it but give it away or e in some states she could even abandon it at designated shelters with no questions asked. As a male though, his only option is to become a daddy and start paying support to his rapist.

 

[GTwander]

The boy who was raped has to pay child support to his rapist. Now reverse that, if a 19 year old man had impregnated a 15 year old girl, would the law force her into parenthood at 15?

That son of a *****! I'll kill him!

~but in all seriousness, the law can call it rape all they want. Apparently, at 14, I weaseled myself into getting raped. High five!
(this is why the paradigm doesn't work when the "victim" is seeking it, btw)