Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

[BrotherRool]

I think in this kind of issue, we have to take into account whether the image can be said to be just artwork. In the event where the image is obviously not real and bears no real resemblance to a real child it isn't exactly wrong to say that it's just art, and this is definitely the case with anime and manga-style characters. However, when we get to a point where it actually resembles a real child and is actually extremely realistic then it becomes a lot more of a problem, as it's obvious that it was made to simulate a real child.

Yeah that's what I mean. It's pretty easy to tell if something is being used for sexual gratification or not. We can tell the difference between a cherub and a picture of a cherub doing something less legal than floating around holding banners. So this case was easy enough to decide, but its hard with that non-exception case.

If it were just a matter of we're not sure if it makes things worse or not, then it's simple. We ban the bad stuff because we shouldn't take that chance on something which isn't fundamentally important. But the tricky thing is that there are arguments for it reducing and increasing. Any decision you make could negatively afffect children in the long run

 

[Treblaine]

The government doesn't get involved in other speculative motivators for crime. It doesn't ban film that glorify bank robbery, or war crimes, or murder, or theft. Hell, the entire hip-hop genre does so much to glorify gang violence that has a huge contributory factor in murder, theft, vandalism, assault and narcotics trade. We ban snuff films where people are ACTUALLY hurt, but not slasher films where no one is actually hurt.

When society allows slasher films to be distributed, this is NOT society saying that murdering teenagers with a chainsaw is acceptable. I think the problem is a lot of people seem to think the mere suggestion of sex with children is enough to set people off. No. I don't think that is true. Just like watching Hostel or Dexter doesn't somehow make more serial killers.

I don't see how banning loli manga strikes the right balance between protecting children from people who are actually likely to attack them, and spending huge amounts of police time arresting people for drawings. Hell, if it includes drawings, why not also writing? Even a diary entry. This isn't a slippery slope argument, this is the same principal at work.

The principal of a Just Society is that people are supposed to be imprisoned for their crimes, not for their whims that they don't act upon. Thoughts don't say what we will actually do because we have free will.

I don't think there is anyone here who has never been tempted to steal, never resisted the urge to assault someone, never mentioned killing someone (especially when talking about murderous dictators, or, paedophiles). So I don't think it would be fair making one a thought crime and not another. Hate speech does make the distinction in how it is used to intimidate the target, insult the wider public and specifically recruit others to a violent cause, it is broadcast, not private musings.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

... what I'm saying is letting people have access to child pornography might not reduce the number of peadophiles, but in fact increase them.

Also, just to point out specifics, using the term Paedophiles to refer to sex offenders is horrifyingly incorrect. Paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to children, which is not a sex offence in itself.

See my recent post. What if the availability of hentai and manga and the like turns 10,000 people into hentai fans and 1 of them becomes a child-molestor as a result but it also diverts the attention of 1,000 existing potentially active paedophiles, of whom 700 settle for the safer activity of viewing it and forego molestations, thus reducing the number of children molested by several thousand? I'd rather have twice as many paedophiles around and none of them molesting children than have half as many but have all of them at it.

 

[Enthuril]

I think in this kind of issue, we have to take into account whether the image can be said to be just artwork. In the event where the image is obviously not real and bears no real resemblance to a real child it isn't exactly wrong to say that it's just art, and this is definitely the case with anime and manga-style characters. However, when we get to a point where it actually resembles a real child and is actually extremely realistic then it becomes a lot more of a problem, as it's obvious that it was made to simulate a real child.

Yeah that's what I mean. It's pretty easy to tell if something is being used for sexual gratification or not. We can tell the difference between a cherub and a picture of a cherub doing something less legal than floating around holding banners. So this case was easy enough to decide, but its hard with that non-exception case.

If it were just a matter of we're not sure if it makes things worse or not, then it's simple. We ban the bad stuff because we shouldn't take that chance on something which isn't fundamentally important. But the tricky thing is that there are arguments for it reducing and increasing. Any decision you make could negatively afffect children in the long run

Yeah, I guess so. I think that it's less if an image is being used for sexual gratification and more if the image is realistic though. It just reminds me of arguments I saw when TERA was released, because they had a childlike race wearing fairly revealing clothing. When you actually looked at it, their physical proportions were nothing like a real child's aside from the fact that they were short and flat chested, so it's fair to argue that it isn't harmful because their race does not realistically resemble a child. If they were to have something that looked exactly like a real human child in there it would be a problem as you could say it was made to actually look like a human child in revealing clothing.

 

[BrotherRool]

... what I'm saying is letting people have access to child pornography might not reduce the number of peadophiles, but in fact increase them.

Also, just to point out specifics, using the term Paedophiles to refer to sex offenders is horrifyingly incorrect. Paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to children, which is not a sex offence in itself.

See my recent post. What if the availability of hentai and manga and the like turns 10,000 people into hentai fans and 1 of them becomes a child-molestor as a result but it also diverts the attention of 1,000 existing potentially active paedophiles, of whom 700 settle for the safer activity of viewing it and forego molestations, thus reducing the number of children molested by several thousand? I'd rather have twice as many paedophiles around and none of them molesting children than have half as many but have all of them at it.

Sorry as Enthuril had already pointed out to me, I was misusing the word peadophile

 

[blackrave]

Who said those were drawings of little girls?
I know 2 girls who can be classified as "pedophile's dream"
One is 26, other is 22 years old
Both can pass for 14-15 years old (with specific clothes, a little make-up and right behavior)
So maybe those are "that" kind of women.
(ok, most probably not)

 

[Enthuril]

Who said those were drawings of little girls?
I know 2 girls who can be classified as "pedophile's dream"
One is 26, other is 22 years old
Both can pass for 14-15 years old (with specific clothes, a little make-up and right behavior)
So maybe those are "that" kind of women.

True, I feel that we need to pay more attention to what the drawings are representative of. It's the same argument as the Elins in TERA, which were made to look like fairies but because of that had a childlike image in some aspects.

 

[Dinosaur_Face]

That gave me a little faith in my country. I have always enjoyed his translations so it feels great that Lundström got rid of the charges (I hope I got that right.)

 

[Emiscary]

Congratulations are due to the Swedish court system for having realized the difference between fiction and reality.

Really, well done.

 

[Zefar]

The Swedish court system most likely is made up of old people. Old people who have quite radical thoughts about the subject. Most people would or have said something about this in Sweden. Even if they do not like such pictures it still doesn't hurt anyone.

I do wish though every old person in seat of power would be replaced with someone younger. Country might get fixed up better then.

 

[soren7550]

*reads article title*

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Damn you ninjas! Always ninja-ing.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

In other words, you can't have child pornography without an actual existing child that has actual existing rights being depicted. No victim, no crime.

He's still creepy though and wouldn't be my first choice for a babysitter.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Thank god for that. Would have been a dark day for Swedish justice if he had been found guilty for absolutely nothing.

 

[Tradjus]

It's pretty damn hard to root for this guy, given the general extreme scuzziness of what he is defending. However, the point that imaginary children drawn on paper are definitely not real children is completely immutable.

 

[Woodsey]

If only the UK weren't so retarded - I'm sure you can get prosecuted for having images of someone who looks to be under 18, even if they are over 18.

 

[Shjade]

He was only charged for doing his job

This has rarely proven to be any kind of defense in the past. Kneebreakers employed by a loan shark are only doing their jobs, but it's still assault and battery.

 

[repeating integers]

I'd just like to say that this is my new favourite headline.

"Imaginary children aren't real"

 

[GameChanger]

It's probably his way of relief.
Drawing these pictures might help him focus on not molesting any actual children. Remember that pedophilia is not a choice either. I firmly believe that if they manage to control their urges than they should NOT be locked up in chambers for the way their brain chose to develop.

 

[Epona]

There was a time when men would marry girls who had just reached puberty. Those men would be called pedophiles today.

 

[Caligulove]

I agree, not be considered the same as possession of child porn and the punishment that goes along with it- however, I reserve the right to still think that its odd and creepy.