Poll: Is this fair? a question of creepy porn

[Abedeus]

Images of human body in sexual positions or intercourses counts as a pornography. Hentai movies count too, you know, books too.

So yeah, he should be found guilty and a nice sentence.

 

[kjrubberducky]

I always thought child pornography was illegal because it was, essentially, child abuse. How can you be arrested for drawings? It would be like being arrested for cruelty to animals if you owned a Wiley Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon.

Sick and twisted? Yes. A crime? Pretty gray, IMO.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Why would he even admit that the girls in question were underage? All girls, of legal and illegal age, in manga and anime look like they're 12 years old anyway.

Me thinks the law here is kinda weird, who gets to decide if drawn characters are underage anyway? The creator of said drawings? The owner of the material? A judge?

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

I say let people be fucked up, as long as they don't try the real thing...

Small fine AT MOST.

 

[Istickell]

What if him drawing these is what is the only thing that keeps him from committing molestation??? This is a victimless crime, but he needs to be put under watch for sure and go to intense therapy.
I don't believe he should go to prison though.

 

[space_oddity]

I always thought child pornography was illegal because it was, essentially, child abuse. How can you be arrested for drawings? It would be like being arrested for cruelty to animals if you owned a Wiley Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon.

Sick and twisted? Yes. A crime? Pretty gray, IMO.

Took the words right out of my mouth dude.

 

[Leorex]

well.. I'm a bit torn on this.
On one hand child pornography and child abuse is so wrong I can't even find the words to describe how wrong it is.
On the other hand, it's not real pictures.

Obviously he has gone to great lengths to not harm any children, despite his apparent obsession.
I just don't know, so I say let him fry!

he should not be put in jail, he should be given help. but essentially i agree with the post above.

 

[manic_depressive13]

yes he should be jailed. jus becasue their not real pictures dosn't change anything. its like when someone pleads not guilty to "almost" shooting someone because they missed.

It's more like someone shooting at a cardboard cut-out in the shape of a person. Do you think that just because it's not a real person it doesn't change anything? I agree that it's disgusting and perverted but there weren't any children actually involved. I just said huge fine, probably psychiatric help and they should keep an eye on him.

 

[Gamer137]

Whats the crime? It would be one thing if any minors were harmed in the making of this drawing. One guy drew something, and one guy purchased it. Who was honestly hurt? Is it against a law that as been established for years? Yes, but it is an unjust law that should be adjusted.

 

[ace_of_something]

Ownership of artwork depicting illegal activities does NOT imply that one would commit said illegal activities in the future. That's up to the individual. The law is NOT supposed to catch criminals BEFORE they commit a crime, but after. A law against possession of drawings of illegal stuff is an unjust law. What if somebody said it was illegal to draw a man smoking pot? Or draw a rape scene? Or something equally illegal/distasteful? We can't have shades of gray with the law-it has to be consistent. No double standards for you, Mr. Supreme Court! No sir!

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate (as is my way doesn't mean I agree with what I'm saying just offering the veiwpoint)
Possesion of drugs is what is illegal not actually using them. So, possesion of creepy pornogrpahy could fall into the same scope. It's illegal to have them. The slippery slope argument is kind of true though I'll give you that.

Should I go to jail if I draw a picture on a napkin of Stalin engaging in "relations" with -insert respected historical person here-? Can you really punish somebody with real consequences just for owning non-real controversial material?

No, you should post in on the internet for all to see. I suggest Napoleon Bonaparte, Susan B. Anthony, or both.

 

[razer17]

yea its sick but i dont think its jailworthy, hes actually made a very large effort to obtain just cartoons, im not very informed about this but if you feel that way i doubt it is very difficult to get pictures of ACTUAL child porn over the interweb. So in essence, yes the guys a creepy wierdo but he is not actually harming anyone.

but where is the line between animations and then getting photos/ doing it himself?
because at some point he will get bored of just animated images and move on. because that is how some paedophiles become paedophiles, they have more and more extreme sex, until they only have one more barrier to break. its disgusting and he should go down, but for a shorter time than if he had real child porn.

 

[ify_]

Yup. It's fair.

Owning pictures of little kiddies doing that sick shit is only a step away from doing it yourself.

I understand your point of view, honestly I do. But I think we need to be careful with this kind of thinking. Is not owning a game in which you kill people only one step away from doing it yourself? ...

If fiction is a crime then I say the victim should set the punishment. ...exactly.

 

[spuddyt]

If he didn't actually hurt a child, I would say he did nothing wrong.

 

[Lord George]

I think it better that he's trying to deal with his urges in this way. Rather then you know. Going out and raping some child. Its like I'll watch violent bondage, but I'm not going to go and do those things to my GF (she won't let me ). Its just biological impulses that people can't control, so its better they get a release from them without harming someone.

 

[ChocoFace]

I always thought child pornography was illegal because it was, essentially, child abuse. How can you be arrested for drawings? It would be like being arrested for cruelty to animals if you owned a Wiley Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon.

Sick and twisted? Yes. A crime? Pretty gray, IMO.

that's actually a pretty good comparison.
And i say the same. He hasn't harmed anyone, so there's really nothing to put him in jail for.

 

[Fingerprint]

Of course its still wrong on so many levels but at the same time he hasn't harmed any one (though who is to say he wouldn't?)

I think that jail is unjust, I would have him placed under observation - either a mental home (with regular visits to a quack) or by other means - to make sure he isn't able to do anything worse.

 

[razer17]

but where is the line between animations and then getting photos/ doing it himself?
because at some point he will get bored of just animated images and move on. because that is how some paedophiles become paedophiles, they have more and more extreme sex, until they only have one more barrier to break. its disgusting and he should go down, but for a shorter time than if he had real child porn.

So by your own logic you should go to prison for playing violent video games? Because you need more and more violence until theres only one barrier to break...
See where your argument turns to shit?

no thats not how it works. you can't take an argument and apply it to other, completely unrelated topics, to disprove it.
videogames are very different to paraphilias. paraphilias are strong sexual urges, whereas playing videogames is just for enjoyment.
so to quote "See where your argument turns to shit?"