Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

[gyro2death]

Hmm, several posts of people affirming that they agree with the ruling. Pffft, that's boring. I offer up a bounty of 57 internets to whomever can build a reasonably sane argument against the ruling.

Let me give it a shot:

1) This ruling may set precedence that anything animated, generated by computers or drawn is not child porn. However, as technology advances the ability to differentiate between CG, or highly realistic drawings (done via computers) may blur the line between real life child pornography and virtual to indistinguishable levels making it hard to rely on the "needs a victim" as a means of differentiating for law enforcement.

2) Virtual reality (I.E. Think virtual reality on the level of the holo decks of star treck) will also come into effect one day at which not only can it be realistic level, but truly can be assuredly virtual and thus the difference between real life child pornography and that of the digital world will be only in the lack of a real victim at which point the ability to know what you're seeing might even come into question.

Ok that's the best I can manage while staying sane..

*Edited for formatting

 

[Dandark]

Good to hear that Sweden isn't completely insanse. I felt sorry for this guy being convicted because of the current "pedo scare" thing but im glad he made it out okay. Sweden, I once again like you and think you are pretty cool country.

 

[Vrach]

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

^This. That Iowa or whatever place it was thing still pisses me off. Don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about that stuff, but it's fucking cartoons, it's not real and doesn't harm anyone, just like erotic stories or imagination and I don't think you should be able to make those illegal in a billion years. Now, if they have proof that the art was based on nude posing of children (considering it's anime/manga/whatever, I'll add a 'lol' to that) or that any child was harmed by it, sure, but that's a whole different goddamn crime.

 

[VeryOddGamer]

Huh, Sweden isn't completely insane. Well, I guess you learn something every day.

 

[Bobic]

It's kinda good that this ruling happened, otherwise someone would have to go around arresting classical art gallery owners for all those flying naked babies that float around those olde paintings.

Also, freedom and all that.

 

[sethisjimmy]

He disputed the ruling, arguing that you need children for child pornography and that drawings aren't children

This phrasing is hilarious, doubly so due to it being essentially the perfect rock solid defense. I like to think that the prosecution just felt like a massive moron when he realized his case had absolutely no grounds whatsoever.

 

[Evilsanta]

Holy shit, So the Supreme Court in my country actully has some common sense. Yay!

Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real



And that real children could have been used as models for the drawings. I'm going to assume that last argument sounded marginally less insane in the original Swedish.




<a href='/news/view/117938-Swedish-Courts-Imaginary-Children-Arent-Real'
target='_self'>Permalink

No, It still sounds as insane in swedish.

 

[Gigano]

It doesn't exactly legalize all fictional drawings, but it does limit the scope of criminalization quite significantly.

According to the premises, at least when firmly rooted in a cultural tradition as manga drawings are, only drawings which are "realistic" are held to be criminal. Meaning that ordinary images in the manga art style are presumably legal. The translator had a single image deemed to be realistic, but was acquitted due to his status of expert.

Without having actually seen what the court considered "realistic" though, and it perhaps being somewhat unclear whether clearly fictional drawings without any cultural rooting are legal, so it's hard to say that this ruling truly legitimize such drawings. There's really nothing in the premises on any guidelines on what is to be considered "realistic" (it probably have to do with anatomical correctness or something, but it's ultimately anyone's guess), so if you're a Swede with strange urges you should probably still stay away.

The court deserves praise for reaching the most reasonable result it could within the phrasing of a messed up law though. Unlike the hyperbolically puritanical Swedish legislators, it assigns proper weight to Freedom of Speech.

 

[BrotherRool]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

 

[Enthuril]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Imaginary kids are not real?
You should probably tell the United States that next.

First you'd have to get a few senators and congresscreatures without an imaginary extra father appointed.

 

[BrotherRool]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

Before I get the police on me by doing some research on this stuff, are you a psychologist whose studied this kind of thing, or just a clever informed person?

EDIT: No worries, found out, it turns out that studies show that exposureto pornography can icnrease rates of sexual assault, also

In a paper written in 1965[6] called, Sexual Deviation as Conditioned Behavior: A Hypothesis, R.J. McGuire found that the viewing of pornography can serve as a source of a paraphilic "vivid sexual fantasy" which, when contemplated during masturbation, may condition men into perversion

In a prison interview conducted by Gail Dines, rape of a prepubescent child followed "habitual" consumption of child porn "within six months," although the men were previously "horrified at the idea".[8]

However, a metaanalysis by Hald, et al (2010)[11] suggests that there is a link between consumption of violent pornography and rape-supportive attitudes in certain populations of men, particularly when moderating variables are taken into consideration.

Silbert, M. and Pines, A., in "Pornography and Sexual Abuse of Women," published their study involving prostitutes in the international journal Sex Roles, "The comments followed the same pattern: the assailant referred to pornographic materials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence."[18]

. According to the study, child molesters indicated "significantly more" exposure to pornography than rapists in adulthood.

According to the study "Pornography Use as a Risk Marker for an Aggressive Pattern of Behavior Among Sexually Reactive Children and Adolescents", sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), also referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, "may be more vulnerable and likely to experience damaging effects from pornography use." According to the study, the SRCAs who used pornography were "more likely" to display aggressive behaviors than their nonusing counterparts

So yes although it's not conclusive there is a huge body of evidence that perusual of pornography leads to increases and rape and child molesting.

snip

I wanted to bring you in again because I found research that suggests that exposure to child pornography actually does lead to an increase in child molesting. The research is not fully conclusive but I haven't found any studies that suggest it would decrease sexual urges

 

[Enthuril]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

Before I get the police on me by doing some research on this stuff, are you a psychologist whose studied this kind of thing, or just a clever informed person?

Just a clever informed person. Look up sexual philias in general and you'll find that they're not something that can actually be modified as far as I remember.

EDIT: I also recall reading something that claimed that most convicted sex offenders are situational offenders and not actually paedophiles, though I can't remember where I found that.

 

[Denamic]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

I have sexual urges towards women.
I masturbate to alleviate the stress that comes with resisting the urge to give them a good dicking.
It's the same for paedophiles and people who like redheads.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

There's a similarly crazy claim that all rapists are men. I think "with a fist" counts at least as much as "with a penis," particularly in terms of the average number of stitches required afterwards, even if it can't get a girl pregnant.

Also, to respond to your main point there:

Study finds online porn may reduce the incidence of rape [http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-02-02/news/17916706_1_incest-national-network-online-rainn]Todd Kendall, an economics professor at Clemson University, published a study that found "the arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape incidence."

He notes that "association" is not causality, but he does point out that "it is notable that growth in internet usage had no apparent effect on other crimes."

The rate of forcible rape in the past 15 years has declined 30 percent nationwide, according to Bob Dyer in a recent column on Ohio.com. Meanwhile, he reports that "never has pornography been more readily available." Dyer attributes the decrease in rapes at least in part to the increased prevalence of porn.

Hmm, several posts of people affirming that they agree with the ruling. Pffft, that's boring. I offer up a bounty of 57 internets to whomever can build a reasonably sane argument against the ruling.

Sweden now has a freedom, and it's a sexual one too, which Teh Scary Moozlims! will find offensive because they are all against freedoms, especially sexual ones, which is why Teh Scary Moozlims! blew up half of Manhattan and killed ... ummm ... let me just check ... well, more than 7,500, anyway, obviously [http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html] ... Good Honest Ammurikanz! in 2001 because They Hate Our Freedoms which is why we had to liberate their internal organs .....

Wait. You said sane? Sorry. Never mind.

 

[BrotherRool]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

I have sexual urges towards women.
I masturbate to alleviate the stress that comes with resisting the urge to give them a good dicking.
It's the same for paedophiles and people who like redheads.

Hi, if you look at my post above, there's research that shows the opposite of this is more likely to be true.

 

[BrotherRool]

From the article, it does sound

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

Before I get the police on me by doing some research on this stuff, are you a psychologist whose studied this kind of thing, or just a clever informed person?

Just a clever informed person. Look up sexual philias in general and you'll find that they're not something that can actually be modified as far as I remember.

EDIT: I also recall reading something that claimed that most convicted sex offenders are situational offenders and not actually paedophiles, though I can't remember where I found that.

Sorry I edited my post, please check back and have a look at it, I did look it up, but the results suggested that the opposite was true. It increases rates of sexual violence, assault and child molesting. Surprised at the amount of studies involved, although naturally they weren't conclusive, it's a wider body of evidence we have than for your current hypothesis