Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
It must have taken a lot of head scratching to work this one out I mean really who woulda guessed it.
Joking aside I think if the guy ended up in court for those pictures there was definatly something going on in them that should'nt have been.
I makes me wonder how bad those pictures really were.
Joking aside I think if the guy ended up in court for those pictures there was definatly something going on in them that should'nt have been.
I makes me wonder how bad those pictures really were.
For those interested and capable of reading swedish (if you can't you could always try to find a friendly scandinavian nearby) the detailed verdict can be found at this link: http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2012/2012-06-15%20B%20990-11%20Dom.pdf
In short, the court found that 38 of the 39 images clearly do not depict any real molestation and criminalising the possession of them would violate freedom of information and expression.
The 39th drawing was apparently found to be realistic enough to be punishable in other circumstances, but because of his profession as a translator and manga expert it was deemed that possession of it was justified.
In short, the court found that 38 of the 39 images clearly do not depict any real molestation and criminalising the possession of them would violate freedom of information and expression.
The 39th drawing was apparently found to be realistic enough to be punishable in other circumstances, but because of his profession as a translator and manga expert it was deemed that possession of it was justified.
A part of me wants to think that this, combined with the NY ruling that accidental/unknowingly viewing or possessing the real thing means that common sense may be starting to prevail on this subject.
Though I have faith that this ruling will be upholded for Sweden, efforts have gone into hyperdrive to reverse the NY one. Seems the only thing that can unanimously unite both sides of our political system is fearful ignorance.
TL;DR:
Hurrah for Sweden's common sense!
Though I have faith that this ruling will be upholded for Sweden, efforts have gone into hyperdrive to reverse the NY one. Seems the only thing that can unanimously unite both sides of our political system is fearful ignorance.
TL;DR:
Hurrah for Sweden's common sense!
I'm not going to go find it now, but there was a study that found that making CP legal to view and own actually led to a decrease in reported child abuse.BrotherRool said:
This makes sense to me, as it provides an.. "alternate method of relief" than abuse.
That said, for the most part, abuse still has to take place for such images to be created.
Also, I feel it's important to note that peadophile =/= abuser.
EDIT:
Sorry for the double post.
The problem with the snip here is I've said a lot of things and been quoted by a lot of peopleJabberwock xeno said:
I'm afraid I can't actually work out where I am with you in conversation or which part we're talking about In any case, yeah I've been remanded for the peadophile thing, I was using it completely incorrectly in my head.
If this conversation comes from one of the earlier parts, what we've arrived at so far is that there have been a few statistical studies that have suggested that the availability of explicit materials seems to lower rates of sexual assault and some more controlled studies which suggest the opposite. There are problems with both approaches and particularly with what we're talking about here, because cases of rape and child molestation are infamous for not being correctly reported and hard to find reliable data on anyway.
Whilst it intuitively provides a relief, you could also equally argue that it makes people feel more comfortable with their positions on such a thing and convince themselves that it's okay and that they should seek it out from more direct methods. As I said, studies have shown that expressing your anger and relieving it, often actually just makes you more angry more often. If you relieve yourself regularly it devalues the meaning of that relief and you need stronger forms of relief to do the same amount of work. As I've said there've been studies that show that this may well be directly applicable in the case of sexual materials.
In another example, people who don't swear receive more psychological satisfaction from it than people who swear regularly.
In the end, I've come to the conclusion that no-one knows the answer to this stuff, which is really unfortunate because any policy you legislate could be beneficial or it could make things a lot worse and there's no telling which is the case.
It's a little simpler with actual real juvenile pornography though, because the making of it is clearly exploiting children and in no situation would you want to create an economic demand for it. But in the case of fictional images, the case continues to be hard to see way through
I see what you did there...Charli said:
OT: Preposterous! This man is clearly violating the rights of innocent fictional children. He should be strung up for even considering that children that do not exist could possibly be sex objects!
Are you sure you don't want to phrase that a little bit differently?Charli said:
But seriously, I'm glad to see that the human race is using common sense.
Most of you guys seem happy that the the charges were dropped, and I honestly don't know how bad this stuff was (the image that led me here was Goku with his nipple covered in a censor), but I don't see how it was common sense that he should automatically face no repercussions. While drawing and doing aren't exactly the same, which is obvious, haven't we sort of collectively decided as a species that this kind of thought and expression is pretty harmful. I'm not saying he should be punished for it with fines because that won't help anything, but if he is a pedophile, then shouldn't he get help. Instead, their courts the precedent that drawn child pornography (and I'm assuming this would go for drawn rape) is ok. He can sugarcoat it by saying they were trying to "prohibit certain expressions of the imagination", but I can't see any good coming from this. I may be insane for thinking this, but my common sense tells me that allowing this won't help the pedophiles out there. Even though Enthuril and BrotherRool both had a lot of evidence on either side it seemed to be inconclusive as to whether it helps them or makes them worse. But I'd rather play it safe and keep a ban on it or at least search for some alternative means to help people like that. So until it is decisively proven, if it ever is, it is incorrect and misleading to say that this material is not harmful.
Frankly, I don't support child porn whether or not it involves real children, if only because I refuse to support any kind of pedophilia.
Happy this blow against the idea of thought crime has been struck. Thoughts are not crimes, actions are. Now if only other countries would take notice, looking at you UK.....
No-one seems to get that if you set the precedent that crimes can happen to non real people, it will have a big impact on video-games? No-one seems to get that we as gamers should be very concerned by this idea.
I love the hypocrisy on these forums as well. People who one minute argue that you are crazy to think, that being exposed to violent videos make people violent. Then turn around and think it is logical that being exposed to drawings of child (including 17 year olds, as the law is written, even though the age of consent in Sweden is much younger), will make you want to abuse children. Can anyone see the disconnect between those two positions.
'Well even if there is no conclusive evidence better safe than sorry?' Hope legislators don't get the same idea with video games.
People here are so disappointing....
No-one seems to get that if you set the precedent that crimes can happen to non real people, it will have a big impact on video-games? No-one seems to get that we as gamers should be very concerned by this idea.
I love the hypocrisy on these forums as well. People who one minute argue that you are crazy to think, that being exposed to violent videos make people violent. Then turn around and think it is logical that being exposed to drawings of child (including 17 year olds, as the law is written, even though the age of consent in Sweden is much younger), will make you want to abuse children. Can anyone see the disconnect between those two positions.
'Well even if there is no conclusive evidence better safe than sorry?' Hope legislators don't get the same idea with video games.
People here are so disappointing....