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

[irishda]

But I see no reason we can't draw the line at sexual depictions of children solely for the purpose of arousal.

Drawing the line there means you can start drawing it elsewhere.

Sexual depictions of children aren't ok? Are depictions of rape ok? Are depictions of homosexual sex ok? Are depictions of BSDM ok? Are depictions of sodomy ok? Are depictions of cunnilingus ok?

Not only is the difficulty in where you draw the line, it's in HOW you draw the line. Depictions are okay if and only if a council of xenophobic elders deems it okay, not by how the person views the work. So masturbate to Lolita all you want, just not Harry X Hermione fanfic.

As detailed above, the logical conclusion of "artistic merit" laws has the UK making it illegal to own a copy of the strangling scene from Frenzy, but legal to own the whole movie. This is the logical conclusion that comes from drawing lines. And this is the madness you want to use to decide someone's freedom or punishment on?

We can all agree that ACTUAL child pornography is bad right? It says pedophilia is allowable. The production of it exploits and harms children who do not know any better and thus spreading of an industry like that hurts children.

It cannot be said enough. Man, even debating in this thread for a few days has been wearing on me. I don't understand how lawyers go through their daily routines debating debasement night and day, and still maintain their humanity. If they do at all, I suppose.

If we can agree that ACTUAL depictions are bad, why are the cartoon depictions ok? Because no REAL children were involved? (Also, why the fuck are the elders xenophobic? Are these cartoons depicting black guys raping kids?) If we find someone pleasured by the sight of real children being molested, why is one who was aroused by fake children better?

So no, I don't think drawing a line and saying, "Graphic depictions of child molestation are not allowed" will lead us all to some horrifying dystopia where people are thrown in jail for mentioning any kind of sex by a panel of Puritan overlords. You know why? Cause we already drew a line that said "Sex with real children is bad" and the world didn't go to shit.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Only reason child molestation is illegal is that it seriously harms people. I shouldn't say only because really it really does to a lot of harm to the kid involved but that is motivation enough to make it illegal. With no one being hurt there is no justification for making it illegal. You can say it's in poor taste... you can dislike it... you can dislike people who like it but ultimately if they aren't hurting anyone you've got no right to touch them.

 

[The Lunatic]

A hypothetical scenario for some to think over.

Person A Produces images that depict child porn in a stylized way.

He bases these images off real child porn and gets his inspiration from these.

Person B views these images, and creates demand for them.

Person A seeks more source material.

Now, person B isn't hurting anyone, but, he's indirectly fuelling a world where children are abused.

Not all people who make porn that depicts this are Person A however.

How do you know which ones are, and which aren't?

It isn't more reasonable and safer just to ban it all? Given it's a small minority that will be affected to solve a fairly large loop-hole that would basically create legal child porn.

You kinda have to look at it from this view.


Nobody who made these laws looked directly at under age anime material and said "Ban this" they looked at the law, saw how it could be exploited and fixed that exploit.

But, that has a side effect of crossing over into certain territory, but, you have to question if it's worth it to prevent the abuse of the flaw in the law.

 

[The Material Sheep]

A hypothetical scenario for some to think over.

Person A Produces images that depict child porn in a stylized way.

He bases these images off real child porn and gets his inspiration from these.

Person B views these images, and creates demand for them.

Person A seeks more source material.

Now, person B isn't hurting anyone, but, he's indirectly fuelling a world where children are abused.

Not all people who make porn that depicts this are Person A however.

How do you know which ones are, and which aren't?

It isn't more reasonable and safer just to ban it all? Given it's a small minority that will be affected to solve a fairly large loop-hole that would basically create legal child porn.

You kinda have to look at it from this view.


Nobody who made these laws looked directly at under age anime material and said "Ban this" they looked at the law, saw how it could be exploited and fixed that exploit.

But, that has a side effect of crossing over into certain territory, but, you have to question if it's worth it to prevent the abuse of the flaw in the law.

Taking pictures of kids and put an animated effect over it isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about original artwork here. If you going so far as to saying inspiration is indirect abuse... I'm sorry but that's assuming a lot. That has implications on many different levels that I'm sure most wouldnt be capable with. Hell that's like saying the guys who made a game are culpable for a crazy person who takes inspiration from them, or hell a game or movie that takes inspiration from a cereal killer. With selling child pornography it has a DIRECT connection to a victim and a crime. Someone draws Bart Simpson having sex there is no connection... it's just a drawing. Any claim that it was inspired by a real crime is irrelevant since it's not actually connected in any way to it.

Stop believing politicians have your best interest in mind when making laws. The people who advocate these kind of obscenity laws are short sighted, reactionary types, that are acting on a gut reaction to the idea of pedophilia or are more concerned with pleasing those types then any thought of real justice or a fair unbiased approach to law.

 

[Kinguendo]

Obscenity laws do sound like tricky things... however, a drawing is still intended to depict something either accurately or in a certain artistic genre. I dont understand the merit of the "Its a drawing." argument, a photograph is just ink... a digital photograph is just pixels... does that make it okay to have pictures of children in sexual scenarios?! Didnt think so.

 

[AlphaLackey]

(double post, my bad)

 

[AlphaLackey]

If we can agree that ACTUAL depictions are bad, why are the cartoon depictions ok? Because no REAL children were involved? (Also, why the fuck are the elders xenophobic? Are these cartoons depicting black guys raping kids?) If we find someone pleasured by the sight of real children being molested, why is one who was aroused by fake children better?

A) Cartoon depictions are OK because no actual child was harmed in their creation. Actual depictions are not okay because an actual child was harmed in their creation. This is consistent with the stated purpose of the law against child pornography, which is to protect children from harm.

You, on the other hand, are talking as if this is a law to enforce sexual orthodoxy. The way you are describing it, it is as if you are trying to make a fetish illegal. You are the epitome of the news broadcaster describing someone as a "convicted paedophile". And yes, any world in which being born with a fetish is illegal -- even if you have never harmed a single person in your life and demonstrably know right from wrong -- is very much the definition of a thought-crime-persecuting dystopia.

B) The elders are xenophobic because they are applying American standards of morality to products of Japanese culture, and thus less likely to consider something artistic if it comes from a culture with different standards than theirs. And since the fact that whether "media depictions of child pornography" are or aren't legal to own hinges SOLELY on someone else's artistic impressions, that is a problem.

Do you not see how the combination of "laws with the power to jail you" and "we refuse to define what or what does not break this law" is problematic?

So no, I don't think drawing a line and saying, "Graphic depictions of child molestation are not allowed" will lead us all to some horrifying dystopia where people are thrown in jail for mentioning any kind of sex by a panel of Puritan overlords. You know why? Cause we already drew a line that said "Sex with real children is bad" and the world didn't go to shit.

We live in a world where stories depicting sex with children is either legal or illegal depending on what one person's artistic tastes are. We live in a world where non-real depictions of children in sexual positions are legal or illegal depending on what one person's artistic tastes are. We live in a world where it can be illegal to own a five minute clip from a movie but legal to own the whole movie.

These are all facts, real life observations on our world today, yet they look like they fell right off the pen of Orwell or Huxley. All of them consequences of interpreting laws designed to protect children in an effort to enforce sexual orthodoxy.[/quote]

Obscenity laws do sound like tricky things... however, a drawing is still intended to depict something either accurately or in a certain artistic genre. I dont understand the merit of the "Its a drawing." argument, a photograph is just ink... a digital photograph is just pixels... does that make it okay to have pictures of children in sexual scenarios?! Didnt think so.

The test is simple: were real children required to create the media? If yes, illegal; if no, not illegal. No question of "artistic merit" required. Laws that protect children from harm, making things that harm children illegal.

The only reason why there's even a THOUGHT about stretching such laws to cartoon depictions would be if there was a demonstrable "gateway effect" that manufactured media lead directly to increased rates of real abuse. Such arguments have been found wanting. Real world evidences at least anecdotally suggests otherwise.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

If we can agree that ACTUAL depictions are bad, why are the cartoon depictions ok? Because no REAL children were involved?

Yes, that's exactly right.

(Also, why the fuck are the elders xenophobic? Are these cartoons depicting black guys raping kids?)

His point is that the people who make laws are not always acting in the interest of the the law but their own morality. Miscegenation laws are the greatest example of this,

If we find someone pleasured by the sight of real children being molested, why is one who was aroused by fake children better?

Because the latter person hasn't done anything to support actual children being molested. I read comics with rape, I don't support real rape, there's nothing to suggest I do.\

So no, I don't think drawing a line and saying, "Graphic depictions of child molestation are not allowed" will lead us all to some horrifying dystopia where people are thrown in jail for mentioning any kind of sex by a panel of Puritan overlords.

Maybe, maybe not. But you're supporting the idea that not everyone can differentiate between fiction and reality, and the moment you do that you're supporting censorship.

 

[irishda]

Do you not see how the combination of "laws with the power to jail you" and "we refuse to define what or what does not break this law" is problematic?

Because I don't see how it's hazily defined. Graphic depictions of child molestation or child sexualization solely for the purpose of sexual arousal. That seems rather clear. Is there an implication of child abuse? That's fine. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Butterfly Effect, any number of movies that chose to be subtle about their depictions are safe. Any feature or cartoon where a guys plowing his kid or someone elses kid? I'd say that's a graphic depiction. You might believe these words to have unclear definitions, but I think they all have rather straightforward definitions that coalesce into a rather clear image.

We live in a world where stories depicting sex with children is either legal or illegal depending on what one person's artistic tastes are.
These are all facts, real life observations on our world today, yet they look like they fell right off the pen of Orwell or Huxley. All of them consequences of interpreting laws designed to protect children in an effort to enforce sexual orthodoxy.

And right there is the crux of the matter. You believe these enforcements are done because of artistic tastes and integrity, but ultimately what artistry is there to be had in the world of child sexuality? What is there to gain from graphic or lewd depictions beyond the glorification of such aspects (which I've already laid out reasons why this is incomparable to violence)? The only media that toes the line to my knowledge (Lolita) is incredibly misunderstood. People often cite it as evidence of the inherent sexuality of young teenagers, mistaking the tone of the book and Humbert's own predatory nature.

And while you feel this is the result of an oppressive system that keeps America from becoming sexually awakened to the joys of child pornography, I highly doubt that Orwell or Huxley were fighting to keep manga depicting children being tentacle raped was what they had in mind. Certain fetishes have always had a sense of taboo in society, and sometimes these taboos have fluctuated. But the difference between almost every other fetish and this one is the involvement of two consenting adults.

 

[Kinguendo]

Obscenity laws do sound like tricky things... however, a drawing is still intended to depict something either accurately or in a certain artistic genre. I dont understand the merit of the "Its a drawing." argument, a photograph is just ink... a digital photograph is just pixels... does that make it okay to have pictures of children in sexual scenarios?! Didnt think so.

You have missed the point. A photo or video is taken of a child being abused, be it digital or not; a drawing is imagined, there is no abuse. The drawings weren't whipped up UK court room style in the absence of cameras.

Captcha: zero tolerance :-/

So what you are saying is if the pictures are of naked children doing unthinkable things BUT not being abused within said picture... then thats fine? Seems like quite a large loophole as proving abuse in a picture not containing abuse is tough, there are many ways of sexualizing things and "abuse" is certainly not the only way of doing it.

Zero tolerance of paedophilia? Shame on me(!)

 

[Kinguendo]

The test is simple: were real children required to create the media? If yes, illegal; if no, not illegal. No question of "artistic merit" required. Laws that protect children from harm, making things that harm children illegal.

The only reason why there's even a THOUGHT about stretching such laws to cartoon depictions would be if there was a demonstrable "gateway effect" that manufactured media lead directly to increased rates of real abuse. Such arguments have been found wanting. Real world evidences at least anecdotally suggests otherwise.

Incredibly over-simplified view of things, like I said to the other person... Harm? Abuse? If those are the only ways of proving something is child pornography then that is a huge loophole... which clearly doesnt exist as those arent the only ways.

Its enabling an illness brought on by societal influences... often incredibly negative ones forced upon them when they were children. The solution to this is NOT fuelling it with drawn images of children engaging in sexual acts, pretending it is literally does nothing to help.

 

[GTwander]

The test is simple: were real children required to create the media? If yes, illegal; if no, not illegal. No question of "artistic merit" required. Laws that protect children from harm, making things that harm children illegal.

The only reason why there's even a THOUGHT about stretching such laws to cartoon depictions would be if there was a demonstrable "gateway effect" that manufactured media lead directly to increased rates of real abuse. Such arguments have been found wanting. Real world evidences at least anecdotally suggests otherwise.

Incredibly over-simplified view of things, like I said to the other person... Harm? Abuse? If those are the only ways of proving something is child pornography then that is a huge loophole... which clearly doesnt exist as those arent the only ways.

Its enabling an illness brought on by societal influences... often incredibly negative ones forced upon them when they were children. The solution to this is NOT fuelling it with drawn images of children engaging in sexual acts, pretending it is literally does nothing to help.

It's strange that social morality can have such an effect on some people that they are willing to ban anything "representative" of a particular taboo.

This is like if India banned any beef-like products because it was too similar to the delicious meat of their sacred cows, and based on the fear that a "slippery slope" will see people start to eat the real thing.

Somebody PLEASE think of the cows!!!

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The test is simple: were real children required to create the media? If yes, illegal; if no, not illegal. No question of "artistic merit" required. Laws that protect children from harm, making things that harm children illegal.

The only reason why there's even a THOUGHT about stretching such laws to cartoon depictions would be if there was a demonstrable "gateway effect" that manufactured media lead directly to increased rates of real abuse. Such arguments have been found wanting. Real world evidences at least anecdotally suggests otherwise.

Incredibly over-simplified view of things, like I said to the other person... Harm? Abuse? If those are the only ways of proving something is child pornography then that is a huge loophole... which clearly doesnt exist as those arent the only ways.

Its enabling an illness brought on by societal influences... often incredibly negative ones forced upon them when they were children. The solution to this is NOT fuelling it with drawn images of children engaging in sexual acts, pretending it is literally does nothing to help.

Alcohol enables alcoholism too, alcoholics and people influenced badly by it have harmed society overall incredibly more so than pedophiles I would like to think.


Still, you don't see people ask for alcohol to be banned, the view of "if you wanna kill yourself (and your loved ones or some stranger who happens to cross the street while you're driving drunk) you're free to do it and if you DO do it then you'll be prosecuted...and it'll be your fault and not Heiniken's".


This is because in a free society, that's how people deal with these things.

 

[GTwander]

Alcohol enables alcoholism too, alcoholics and people influenced badly by it have harmed society overall incredibly more so than pedophiles I would like to think.

Still, you don't see people ask for alcohol to be banned, the view of "if you wanna kill yourself (and your loved ones or some stranger who happens to cross the street while you're driving drunk) you're free to do it".

This is because in a free society, that's how people deal with these things.

Ahem.

It's happened once before, and because of a zealous group of ugly chicks.
They would have banned thongs, push-up bras and the Hooters franchise... had they existed back then.

Yeah ladies, no-one was gonna touch your lips anyway. Fail ultimatum.

~but these are the kinds of people I see pushing the morality agenda, even today.
Take my word for it America - ban ugly. Our future depends on it!

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Alcohol enables alcoholism too, alcoholics and people influenced badly by it have harmed society overall incredibly more so than pedophiles I would like to think.

Still, you don't see people ask for alcohol to be banned, the view of "if you wanna kill yourself (and your loved ones or some stranger who happens to cross the street while you're driving drunk) you're free to do it".

This is because in a free society, that's how people deal with these things.

Ahem.

It's happened once before, and because of a zealous group of ugly chicks.
They would have banned thongs, push-up bras and the Hooters franchise... had they existed back then.

Yeah ladies, no-one was gonna touch your lips anyway. Fail ultimatum.

~but these are the kinds of people I see pushing the morality agenda, even today.
Take my word for it America - ban ugly. Our future depends on it!

Hehe, I used present tense for a reason, I'm not saying you never saw it. Alcohol is illegal in those Muslim countries too...the ones with child marriages as institutions. That was kinda my point.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Do you not see how the combination of "laws with the power to jail you" and "we refuse to define what or what does not break this law" is problematic?

Because I don't see how it's hazily defined. Graphic depictions of child molestation or child sexualization solely for the purpose of sexual arousal. That seems rather clear.

.. unless the work is considered to have artistic merit. That is the law as it stands.

Any feature or cartoon where a guys plowing his kid or someone elses kid? I'd say that's a graphic depiction. You might believe these words to have unclear definitions, but I think they all have rather straightforward definitions that coalesce into a rather clear image.

It is hazily defined because you cannot apply a set list of quantifiable criteria to it to ultimately determine if it is legal to possess. The law explicitly states that some works are acceptable and some works are not. You might wish to CHANGE those laws, to change them to start enforcing a sexual orthodoxy. The very next step ahead of what you are proposing is being done in the UK and I gotta tell you, it's a clusterfuck. No pun intended.

And right there is the crux of the matter. You believe these enforcements are done because of artistic tastes and integrity, but ultimately what artistry is there to be had in the world of child sexuality? What is there to gain from graphic or lewd depictions beyond the glorification of such aspects (which I've already laid out reasons why this is incomparable to violence)? The only media that toes the line to my knowledge (Lolita) is incredibly misunderstood.

Irrespective of whether or not it is misunderstood, it is legal to possess, whereas a page of equally graphic Harry Potter fanfic is not. That is the nature of the law. That is ludicrous.

And while you feel this is the result of an oppressive system that keeps America from becoming sexually awakened to the joys of child pornography

I said nothing of the sort. I have only opposed criminalizing behavior which does no harm to anyone, in the name of making a fetish illegal and enforcing a sexual orthodoxy and doing it under the guise of 'protecting the children'. I would never hope anyone would ever be born with a fetish that gives them, in the very best conditions, a lifetime of guilt. Your constant and deliberate misrepresentation of me as being "pro-child pornography" speaks more about your motivations and your arguments than I could.

I highly doubt that Orwell or Huxley were fighting to keep manga depicting children being tentacle raped was what they had in mind. Certain fetishes have always had a sense of taboo in society, and sometimes these taboos have fluctuated. But the difference between almost every other fetish and this one is the involvement of two consenting adults.

That is an irrelevant point. If never acted out in real life, all fetishes are equally harmless.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Its enabling an illness brought on by societal influences... often incredibly negative ones forced upon them when they were children. The solution to this is NOT fuelling it with drawn images of children engaging in sexual acts, pretending it is literally does nothing to help.

I'm not claiming it helps. I'm claiming there is no evidence to suggest that there is harm, and the onus is on you to prove there is harm done. Do drawn cartoons that harm no one when drawn result in more children being harmed, or not? Are you as right about child porn as Jack Thompson was about video games?