Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
I was not aware that cartoons were on the government shit list. I was also unaware that you could get three years in federal prison for "lack of personal decency" but I guess there's a law for that too.
Bee has technically been charged with possession of "obscenity," which under US law includes "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that - (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene."
So wait, you can have a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct... as long as it's not "obscene"? So... what does "obscene" mean in this case?
Mayhaps this means that whomever wrote this law doesn't initially think that the depiction of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct isn't automatically obscene? They certainly have to show a distinction between "minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct" and "obscene".
Don't get me wrong, I think this punishment is boiling pot of manure but the actual laws involved are weird. They might as well take out the "obscene" clause because I think anyone who would enforce this law already thinks it's nasty.
---
Wait for it:
Who cares if he is a pedophile?
No clarifications, nobody should care. I'm seeing the "attraction is a choice" arguments all over again.
You should only care if he actually acted on his attractions. And so, the bigger question is do you think looking at cartoonish drawings is equal to forcing an actual child to undress in front of a camera... or even, more rationally, convincing a 12-year-old to send naked photos?
Apparently some people do, and yet still defend video-games. I understand, I do, child pornography is gross but running someone over with a combine harvester is fun. Well guess what... they're still massive hypocrites. A fantasy is a fantasy is a fantasy is not real life.
Bee has technically been charged with possession of "obscenity," which under US law includes "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that - (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene."
So wait, you can have a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct... as long as it's not "obscene"? So... what does "obscene" mean in this case?
Mayhaps this means that whomever wrote this law doesn't initially think that the depiction of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct isn't automatically obscene? They certainly have to show a distinction between "minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct" and "obscene".
Don't get me wrong, I think this punishment is boiling pot of manure but the actual laws involved are weird. They might as well take out the "obscene" clause because I think anyone who would enforce this law already thinks it's nasty.
---
Wait for it:
Who cares if he is a pedophile?
No clarifications, nobody should care. I'm seeing the "attraction is a choice" arguments all over again.
You should only care if he actually acted on his attractions. And so, the bigger question is do you think looking at cartoonish drawings is equal to forcing an actual child to undress in front of a camera... or even, more rationally, convincing a 12-year-old to send naked photos?
Apparently some people do, and yet still defend video-games. I understand, I do, child pornography is gross but running someone over with a combine harvester is fun. Well guess what... they're still massive hypocrites. A fantasy is a fantasy is a fantasy is not real life.
I'm happy that the Swedish translator finally got aquitted in the end. I was following that case with interest, as the very idea of outlawing thoughts and fiction just boggled my mind. That he was convicted in no less than TWO lower courts before they finally got their shit together was ever weirder, and my already low confidence in our justice system was evaporating fast. Thankfully, they finally figured out that fantasy porn IS NOT REAL.
Hell, even the chief of the national police department responsible for investigating child porn here in Sweden said the whole case was ludicrous. That convicting that man of child porn made a mockery of ACTUAL victims.
And now I see this happening.
...
sigh.. just... sigh...
Hell, even the chief of the national police department responsible for investigating child porn here in Sweden said the whole case was ludicrous. That convicting that man of child porn made a mockery of ACTUAL victims.
And now I see this happening.
...
sigh.. just... sigh...
Being attracted to children isn't really a sexual fetish, from what I've read it's closer to a sexual orientation and, like homosexuality, it can't be "cured". Wikipedia might say otherwise, but apparently the English wikipedia page on pedophilia has mostly been edited by an American organization out to basically rid the word of pedophiles.Vindictus said:
Another interesting part of this is that many, or at least some, pedophiles don't actually like child porn because they are aware of the fact that it wouldn't really be pleasant for the child in question.
On the contrary; sexual assaults on children are often performed by people who aren't sexually attracted to them but do it to feel powerful or to gain power over the child's parent in some way.
Most of this comes from an AMA with an actual pedophile, and please note that it doesn't mean "someone who wants to rape children", that would be akin to saying a homosexual is someone who wants to rape men.
Not saying all pedophiles are really nice people, a lot of them probably aren't, but it's not a choice they made nor is it a mental disease.
Again, a pedophile isn't someone who has sex with children, it's someone who gets attracted to children, either sexually or simply romantically. Most of people think it's opposite; they think it equals child rape.
I've said what I have to say on the subject, to say any more I really should have the links to the research papers and books the AMA guy in question linked to throughout the AMA, but I really can't be bothered going through 80 pages of questions and answers to dig them out.
Paedophilia is one of these topics where everyone seems to abandon any semblance of objectivity or common sense in their rush to spew bile on what is probably the last politically correct target to hate.Phasmal said:
Any long-term solution that isn't a simple demand that people should ignore their sexual proclivities (something we humans are laughably bad at) is dead in the water as long as anyone admitting to his natural urges is shunned and ruined for life.
And meanwhile people are imprisoned for imagery the likes virtually anyone in this thread will have seen - and that's before considering how retardedly sexualised non-hentai anime is.
Paedophilia is inherently problematic due to it by definition not involving two consenting adults, but this retarded notion of society to abandon all common sense in favour of an universally accepted witch hunt is just as much to blame for many instances of child abuse as the actual perpetrators.
...
/rant
Erm.... Okay.Kargathia said:
I do not dislike paedophiles because of `political correctness`.
There are perfectly reasonable things about them to dislike.
Either way, I'm conflicted between reasonably feeling sympathy for those saddled with a `problematic` sexuality and thinking the whole thing is disgusting. So I'll leave the legal/not legal talk to other people who can probably stomach that sort of thing.
Could the obscenity law be used to counter itself (sounds like applying Pokemon logic to this situation)? I mean, the person here was charged because his possession of pictures serves no artistic merit, therefore not protected by freedom of speech laws. One interpretation of the obscenity law could be that an object lacks any artistic merit from person A to person B. For example, Gamers like Yahtzee and MovieBob see artistic merit in video games, yet Jack Thompson and Michael Atkinson don't see any artistic merit in video games. So, in the court's view the possession of these pornographic pictures has no artistic value, therefore it is worthless and violates their rights via obscenity laws. Yet couldn't the Missouri person argue the same complaint using the same law?
Because they are pedophiles is not a good answer. It tells me nothing.Phasmal said:
Anyway, I am only asking because you said that political correctness is not your reason for disliking pedophiles. I am just trying to point out that your opinion on pedophiles has been taught to you. You see how people react to pedophiles and you learn how you should react. You see it on TV that pedophiles are bad people and so you dislike them.
Political correctness is completely involved. You know, a few years from now you will not see any bashing of homosexuals in public channels but in the past it was common. You see how political correctness affects how people think?
Pretty much everything has been `taught to you`.Crono1973 said:
Political correctness is not my reasoning.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea of paedophiles, so I dislike them.
If this makes me prejudiced, once again, I can live with it.
Apologies for being short with you, I have people viewing my house right now.
It's true, everything has been taught to you. Political Correctness is the reason you see pedophiles in a certain light in public channels like television, in school and so on. Political Correctness determines who it is ok to hate and who it is not ok to hate.Phasmal said:
You want me to say your are prejudiced but I am not going to say that, you hold the popular view as do I. I am only pointing out that society encourages hating of pedophiles in the same way society discourages violence against women but has a much different attitude of violence against men.
That's all, no need to respond if you don't want to, just want to throw out there how many of our views are cultural and would be different if we grew up in a different culture.
but they didn't search his house because they spend month building a case against him, they searched his house because his wife said "dude has loli porn" and they immediately sprang into action.Father Time said:
now, i don't know what the situation was like and i highly doubt she did something like this, how hard would it be for a wife who wants to get a divorce to plant some loli porn(which i am certain is a lot easier to come by than actual child porn) onto his computer?
They will use these laws when the police just really really want to screw someone over, or the media hears about it so they feel they should.Andrew_C said:
Otherwise when 14 year old girls are being gang raped in Rochdale and other areas by organised gangs of men then the police like to take a back seat because it's not worth their time or it's not a priority for a good few years.
I remember when the police raided a 'muslim' household due to a terrorist investigation. Found nothing.
Took the computers and later charged the owner for having paedophilic material. I wonder what it really was. A cartoon? A standard porno?
UK is broken