Precursor Games Founder Arrested For Child Porn

[Abomination]

Look at it this way; if they police did screw up, he'd be a victim. His story of how his career and reputation could spread, making him an icon for police incompetence. Society would hold them accountable and the people responsible would be punished for it. He could sue for damages, and continue his life. None of that happens if his story and identity are suppressed. That is why it's all public. The police are on trial just as much as the suspect.

So why not just suppress the name so nobody gets hurt?

Why do we always have to have somebody suffer?

Edit: ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with a crime that might actually not even have a victim.

By victimless crime I assume you mean if it's hentai. We don't suppress the name because it's a public record. The names of everyone involved are put on the record, even the person writing the record. By making everything public, we significantly reduce the chances of the law being mishandled or manipulated, making everyone accountable for their actions. There are drawbacks, in the unfortunate case of someone's reputation accidentally damaged, but even then, those that screwed up are held accountable by the same system, which then is required to make some kind of reparations to the wronged party. It's not perfect, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

I don't think you understand how name suppression works. It doesn't mean the entire crime goes unreported and no records are kept, it just means that the court is under orders to not release the identity of the accused unless there is a guilty verdict.

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

Are we talking about actual child porn or Lolicon because there is a difference [one uses real children the other drawing/cartoons] depending on the answer my opinion will change.

This was just one arrest of many involving a country wide investigation which saw about 22 people being arrested. Two children were saved during the search and seizures. Something tells me this wasn't just anime.

Well in that case:
Did the children consent?[yes I know that they don't have the knowledge needed ect ect but I'm still curious on if they were willing]
And how old are we speaking, toddlers or young teens?
These things will affect my judgment but so far it's not looking good for him.

I don't think it matters. in the United States any person under the age of 17 is not legally declared an adult, and thus are dubbed to not be legally able to "consent" to sexual acts with anyone. We hear of teens having sex all the time, but it's harder to pin the blame on two teens then say, one teen, and an adult. If this is legitimately the case then this company had one hell of a dark cloud cast upon it.

I know in they eyes of the law it doesn't matter [which personally I think is stupid saying that having sex a 14 year old who wanted it is just as bad as fucking a 5 year old is ridiculous] I'm just talking about my personal thought on the matter which are much more flexible than that of the government's.

Take it as you will. It is just simply American Law. In some countries you are declared an adult at earlier ages. In Iraq and Iran adulthood is 15 years old. Even in Scotland you can be declared mature at 16. The majority set the age at 18 however. If this includes the act of having sex I can't say for sure, but it's the age set in the US and its how the law is set. No exceptions.

Actually the age of consent in the USA is based on the state you're in. While a few states (12) have 18 as the age of consent, most states (30) have a lower age requirement like in Georgia, Hawaii, New Jersey, etc. In the case of Canada the age is 16.

Some states, like mine which is PA, have very vague age of consent laws. They claim it's 17, but it's really 18. But if an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, and the 17 year olds parents object to it, they can claim the 18 year old "Corrupted a Minor" and get arrested.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

That said, I don't know Canadian law, I don't know if lolicon is considered illegal, just saying that your morals and beliefs don't matter in terms of the law: illegal stuff is illegal.

In Canada, drawn depictions are considered as serious as real child porn. You'll often hear stories of people coming to Canada from other countries where child porn laws extend only to real depictions of it but drawn is either nebulous or all right, and said people often finding themselves in trouble with the law because they indeed have the drawn depictions, either in physical format or on their computer. Oddly enough, this extends also to written material that may not even depict any pictures, at least if the wikipedia article on the matter is too be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Canada.

The exception to this, or rather something that differentiates what is and isn't child porn, is if the material in question serves an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical purpose, which is why something like Alan Moore' Lost Girls, which does depict images of children having sex (drawn of course) is allowed in Canada, because on it's evaluation it was determined that the book as a whole held artistic value and thus was not considered child porn (although stores still don't openly stock it; you usually have to go to the store front and ask if they have it in stock)

As for this particular case, I don't think the guy has a chance. Regardless of if it was drawn or real, both are still very much illegal in Canada and can earn serious jail time. Maybe he is innocent and this was an honest misunderstanding on whoever's part, but at the same time I'm not holding my breath. Not saying he is definitely guilty, just that I don't think there's much he can do to get out of this.

As for if it was real or drawn, as another poster pointed out, the language of the article suggests that it was in fact not drawn, and was most likely the real stuff. I guess we'll know more though as the story continues

 

[Weaver]

Are we talking about actual child porn or Lolicon because there is a difference [one uses real children the other drawing/cartoons] depending on the answer my opinion will change.

This was just one arrest of many involving a country wide investigation which saw about 22 people being arrested. Two children were saved during the search and seizures. Something tells me this wasn't just anime.

Well in that case:
Did the children consent?[yes I know that they don't have the knowledge needed ect ect but I'm still curious on if they were willing]
And how old are we speaking, toddlers or young teens?
These things will affect my judgment but so far it's not looking good for him.

I don't think it matters. in the United States any person under the age of 17 is not legally declared an adult, and thus are dubbed to not be legally able to "consent" to sexual acts with anyone. We hear of teens having sex all the time, but it's harder to pin the blame on two teens then say, one teen, and an adult. If this is legitimately the case then this company had one hell of a dark cloud cast upon it.

This happened in Canada. Our age of consent is 16.

 

[RJ 17]

That said, I don't know Canadian law, I don't know if lolicon is considered illegal, just saying that your morals and beliefs don't matter in terms of the law: illegal stuff is illegal.

In Canada, drawn depictions are considered as serious as real child porn. You'll often hear stories of people coming to Canada from other countries where child porn laws extend only to real depictions of it but drawn is either nebulous or all right, and said people often finding themselves in trouble with the law because they indeed have the drawn depictions, either in physical format or on their computer. Oddly enough, this extends also to written material that may not even depict any pictures, at least if the wikipedia article on the matter is too be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Canada.

The exception to this, or rather something that differentiates what is and isn't child porn, is if the material in question serves an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical purpose, which is why something like Alan Moore' Lost Girls, which does depict images of children having sex (drawn of course) is allowed in Canada, because on it's evaluation it was determined that the book as a whole held artistic value and thus was not considered child porn (although stores still don't openly stock it; you usually have to go to the store front and ask if they have it in stock)

As for this particular case, I don't think the guy has a chance. Regardless of if it was drawn or real, both are still very much illegal in Canada and can earn serious jail time. Maybe he is innocent and this was an honest misunderstanding on whoever's part, but at the same time I'm not holding my breath. Not saying he is definitely guilty, just that I don't think there's much he can do to get out of this.

As for if it was real or drawn, as another poster pointed out, the language of the article suggests that it was in fact not drawn, and was most likely the real stuff. I guess we'll know more though as the story continues

Thank you very much for the post, as you better touched on the points that I was trying to make than I could.

Mainly I've been trying to say that - after a warranted search - the guy wouldn't have been arrested if they didn't find anything that they were looking for as described by the warrant. But in the end, we should all wait for the details to come out before we make our conclusions. Will the media define him as "definitely guilty!" before the trial is over? Certainly. But just as it's silly for them to do that, it's silly for us to do the opposite and defend him as "definitely innocent!" before the trial is over when we don't have all the facts either.

So again, I'd urge my fellow escapists to take on a "wait and see" mentality before jumping onto one boat or the other.

 

[Ldude893]

I'm going to reserve my judgement till more details are revealed about this case. If this is actual child pornography, I'd let justice get its way, as letting these images circulate would encourage the selfish abuse of children for the sake of someone's desires.

But if this is another case of drawings and artificial imagery being considered as child pornography, I think Canadian lawmakers has some problems distinguishing reality and fiction. If you ban these kinds of fetishists from acting upon their desires, and yet eliminate the only legal ways for them to express their desires, what alternatives do they have? There's currently no way to remove fetishes, and they're hardwired into the human body after all.

But again, I'll wait till we find out more about this case.

 

[Signa]

There is not accidental, "I did a single picture of CP and got caught" incidents in these cases.
If that were true, then I'm pretty sure 80% of users on websites like Furaffinity would find themselves in jail in a heartbeat.

Look at what the man is being accused of. Mainly viewing and downloading child porn. At that point, the man is guilty. That's it.

Why?

Because when they do investigations like this, they watch you. How long? Nobody knows. It could be months, or years. However they monitor your activity, and they compile data and evidence against you. Enough of it that they have a case against you.
Chance are, when they are knocking on your door telling you your under arrest for child porn, you can bet your ass you're already guilty. You are simply wasting your breath trying to defend yourself.
They just need the courts to make it official.

If people under the age of 18 take pictures of themselves naked, it's considered a breach of child pornography laws.
If he had a single picture of a 17 year old or childlike cartoon featuring nudity in some folder you could potentially reach from an internet location, it could possibly make him guilty of the charges leveled against him.
Technically, if I send you an unlabeled email containing one of these images, or send it to you in a text, you can be charged with storing child pornography. Possibly even accessing, because rhyme and reason goes out the window in so many of these cases.

Sure, they watch some people for a long time. However, some people they maybe watch for one second, if they can prove they have the "one image of CP" on any kind of storage.

In those cases it usually involves someone reporting them to the police, or it being spread around so much that the police catch wind of it and get the person in question arrested. However if the police are investigating you in private, without any tip off from a third party source, they keep tabs on you until they know without a doubt that you are into CP.

I'd love to share your optimism, but I know the law doesn't try very hard to weed out the dangerous. I hear too many stories of junior high kids being registered as sex offenders because a girl they liked sent a nude photo, and he shared it with his friends. I also remember hearing one case where a guy had his computer hijacked by a pedo bot virus of some sort. It used his computer as a storage hub for the porn without his knowledge and so he got arrested for storing and distributing the porn. He was quoted in the article asking the investigating officer if he even had access to the files, and was told no. He still was arrested.

OT: If this guy is involved in some serious shit (Antari seems to think so, but I see no source for his post), then I hope he burns. On the other hand, I appreciate the levelheadedness in this thread, because I was about to say "yup, fuck this guy" before the thoughts of how easily this guy could have been charged without actual harm to children being involved. Drawn porn or loli offends my sensibilities of what's "hot" just as much as actual child porn, but there is a very, very clear difference between the two.

 

[LordMonty]

These guys have some shitty luck as a compony, at this point its just bad press ignoring if he's guilty or not(and for what ofc). Shame liked the look of Shadows. But screw it got lots of other games to play at the moment and i'll hold out for a good Cthulu lore themed game again one day.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Why are so many people assuming that its lolicon at all? The article straight up says "Child Porn" not "images depicting child porn".

Also, keep in mind that this is a Canadian case. Yes there's the term "innocent until proven guilty" but the police must have done a thorough investigation with the appropriate warranted attached and have compiled enough evidence to get this guy in 3 different charges involving child pornography.

Come on people, its not lolicon, its child porn.


Aaaaaaand, even if it is lolicon, Canadian lawn counts that as illegal as well. Either way this guy is screwed. In the US lolicon is protected under the 1st Amendment.

 

[Dragonbums]

There is not accidental, "I did a single picture of CP and got caught" incidents in these cases.
If that were true, then I'm pretty sure 80% of users on websites like Furaffinity would find themselves in jail in a heartbeat.

Look at what the man is being accused of. Mainly viewing and downloading child porn. At that point, the man is guilty. That's it.

Why?

Because when they do investigations like this, they watch you. How long? Nobody knows. It could be months, or years. However they monitor your activity, and they compile data and evidence against you. Enough of it that they have a case against you.
Chance are, when they are knocking on your door telling you your under arrest for child porn, you can bet your ass you're already guilty. You are simply wasting your breath trying to defend yourself.
They just need the courts to make it official.

but the difference between cub art and lolicon is there is no way a prosecutor could argue that cub art directly harms various cubs.

It's like saying me looking at a picture of a toaster would automatically make me want to rape it. One, that's stupid, toasters can get hot and I dont feel like having second degree burns anywhere, and two, it was asking for it, with how it would pop up that toast....

but yea, nearly everyone who had been to 4chan even would be prison bitches right now if the police came after you for just one picture.

Hell, I remember one night a long long time ago where AT kept spamming the hell out of /b/, AT or AnonTalk was basically the 12chan of forums.


But I'm not sure if its the same way in Canada, but simply viewing an image does not immediately create guilt, much like shock images, you probably weren't looking for themacuser.jpg, but damn, it's there, and you are all out of eye bleach.

Instead, at least in New York if I remember right, the prosecutor has to prove the suspect knowingly downloaded it, which could be accomplished by looking at the date created, date modified, date last used/opened.


Sad to say, but I dont think he was looking up pictures, can across one that was very questionable, and the RCMP burst down his door with their beavers. Something tells me there was more than just one picture, and it might of been something worthy of being on an external drive.

Cub art is literally the furry version of Child Porn. There is no way around that. It has nothing to do with actual animal cubs. They are simply drawing underage kids in a sexual manner as bear cubs.

 

[uchytjes]

apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Many people have strange turn-ons. Some people have a fetish for shoes, long hair, leather, the same sex or octopuses. The problem with people who are turned on by kids is that they create incentives for child abuse, which of course is a very serious problem because children are vulnerable. But this aside, I find pedophiles no different than other people with unusual sexual preferences. It's something people don't have any control over either. You are what you are. This is why I think that cartoony or fake child pornography should not be illegal, and that instead of sending people to jail, they should be sent to psychiatric evaluation to see if they form an actual danger for children or not.

Ah, someone that is actually somewhat sane. Its basically "its okay as long as no one is hurt in the process". As long as no one is actually hurt by the making of or the end product, it'll be okay in my book.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Better than throwing them under the bus before they are convicted.

Also being a pedophile isnt a crime, abusing a child is a crime, pedophelia is a sexual orientation no different than being straight, gay, or bisexual.

Most pedophiles are able to control their urges and are never a harm to anyone, some cant though and they are called child abusers.

Edit: As for the OT, it wouldnt surprise me if this was some group of retards arresting him over lolicon or some shit.

(snip)

I find myself unwilling to accept that pedophilia is 'a sexual orientation no different than' any other. Whatever happens between consenting adults is one thing. When someone faps over images, thoughts, souvenirs of or with actual underage children present, party's pretty much over and I am absolutely unable to even want to generate any compassion or sympathy.

(snip)
When I say its no different than Straight/Bi/Gay I mean that a person is born that way. It is not a choice or something that they can flip on and off any more than a gay person can flip off being gay.

The best they can do is control it. I never said it was socially acceptable, or that abusing children SHOULD be socially acceptable. By all means loathe and hate those that hurt and abuse children to sate themselves... But if you are unable to find compassion or sympathy for someone who was born and suffer with such a condition but never hurts anyone, that speaks more to you as a person than anything else.

Oh, I certainly and absolutely hope so!

I can accept the snake, venomous or not. It is in its nature to evade me, but when I prod and stomp and finger it, it is bound to bite or otherwise deter me from causing it harm. If I get bitten by a lowly creature featuring the IQ of, say, a loaf of bread and a jar of marmalade, it's clearly my fault.

If I accept that a pedophile is a creature on God's green earth that just wants to be loved (while sticking it to little children), I welcome the risk of children getting raped, abused and killed just for the love of my all-encompassing tolerance. This shit won't fly, no matter how Hare Krishna one goes about it.

 

[Trishbot]

Innocent into proven guilty...
...
... But, geez, Precursor Games just can't catch a break, can they?

 

[Amir Kondori]

I don't know why anyone is rushing to defend this guy. Yes, he has just been charged and not convicted of anything. To get a warrant to come seize the computers in the home means the cops went to a Judge and had evidence to present. It might be "lolicon" but I doubt it.

As is always the case, time will tell.

I'm appalled the case is public knowledge at all. The damage to this man's reputation is now no longer salvageable.

Well I am glad it is public, not because I like the trial by public opinion stuff that goes on, but because it is only possible because arrests are a matter of public record and it means that police can't just arrest people and not tell anyone about it.

 

[Caiphus]

In that case you're also forgetting the potential for witnesses or other victims to come forward. There are countless cases of a person being arrested, only to have people come forward and report being victimized in one way or another, now that the potential for reprisal from the accused is gone. If they never find out about it, the police never find out about them, the perpetrator might go free and continue their crimes. There are also incidents of people coming forward who can corroborate the accused's story who wouldn't have known otherwise.
Again, it's not a flawless system, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

In this case there are no such pros. There is no need for victims or witnesses to come forward. All the police need to do is find porn on his computer. That really is it. Once he is found guilty of that, people can come forward and seek reparation if he has committed other sexual offences.
Which he probably hasn't.

The possible con is that you ruin an innocent man's life. Which is pretty big. Name suppression is given in a lot of sexual abuse cases. Name suppression does not necessarily equal lack of accountability. It means lack of publicity, which can be a good thing. For both victims and those who are accused.

If the accused wants to find witnesses and testimonies, he can. He doesn't need a wanted poster put up with his face on it for people to come forward. Besides, some of the people most likely to defend him (his company) have already abandoned him after the news. So there's that.

EDIT: Oh, and my opinion might be different if it was an actual sexual abuse case. Where there are actual victims, the priorities change. Here it's child porn. Unless he is directing the stuff, there aren't any victims that are going to come forward in the first place.