Where is the justice?

[Trolldor]

Because Lolicon is depiction of that. Is it not?

So let's say you own a comic, book, movie, or whatever, in which someone is raped, you should be fined as if you owned material depicting actual rape?

In some parts of the world, you are.

Yeah, and in some parts of the world women are treated as the criminals after being gang-raped.

 

[Gigano]

There seems to be a lot of people on here who believe people should be jailed for being attracted to children. This really disturbs me.

Oh come on now.

It's only a step from thought crime (in both directions actually) and limiting individual freedom of information based solely on appealing to majority sentiments rather than a proper legal analysis of whether/what harm it causes that could even justify criminalization.

I see no principal civil rights problems whatsoever here.

...
I should think something being 'wrong' is enough to make it illegal.

In fact it seems to me that every law in existence is based on or derives from some naturally arbitrary judgement of virtue. Not that that's a good or bad thing. Just how the world works.

That something is wrong utterly disgusting isn't necessarily enough to declare it illegal. Concerns over individual freedoms, removing a harmless outlet for thoughts that are potentially harmful, how to ensure that a law that's based on the courts subjective assessment of the imagery is interpreted in the same way across the nation and with full legal guarantees to the defendant etc.

Of course, this is only "wrong" (to most of us) under the offence principle, as nothing on any discernible harm have surfaced so far to be able to declare it wrong under the harm principle. Anyone basing their assessment of what should be banned on the latter would have to consider just how wrong anything has to be to consider outlawing it. And it's a popular foundation of governmental ethics in the first world.

 

[Stasisesque]

Because Lolicon is depiction of that. Is it not?

So let's say you own a comic, book, movie, or whatever, in which someone is raped, you should be fined as if you owned material depicting actual rape?

In some parts of the world, you are.

Yeah, and in some parts of the world women are treated as the criminals after being gang-raped.

Sorry, I'm getting a little confused as to the argument. I'm not sure if people are arguing that lolicon isn't illegal or if it shouldn't be illegal.

The first point being impossible to argue due to differing laws, and the original case taking place in Sweden, so applying any outside laws to it would be... redundant. So I'm going to guess you're arguing the second instead, in which case I don't actually have any further argument!

 

[meece]

There are 2 arguments to drawn kiddie porn:

1) It encourages people to go and molest children (the same way the FPSs make you go and shoot random people) and so it should be banned.

2) It provides an alternative outlet for child molesters which doesn't involve them needing to go out and molest children.

Personally I think point 2 is more likely but hey I'm not the one making laws. It is possible for both arguments to be correct I suppose depening on the person but I can't help but feel that #2 will hold true for more people.

 

[Bobic]

So a drawing ... made by adults ... if it's a video it's voiced by adults ... made for adults only, and that's kiddie porn? Cause from what I can tell NO CHILDREN WHERE INVOLVED! It's as close to child porn as a picture of an adult woman in a school girl outfit.

The amazing thing about art is you can draw anything, cause it's not real and it doesn't/shouldn't effect reality.

If I draw a picture of hot naked sex, it's porn. If that picture involves two men, it's gay porn. If that picture involves children it is child porn. It doesn't matter who went into its creation.

Whether or not the law needs redefining on the matter is up for debate. Whether or not its child porn isn't.

Also, don't post images that are specifically designed to insult entire religions. I know most muslims probably don't care but it's still pretty intolerant.

Bullshit it is. Intolerance is telling someone they can't do something because somebody else might get offended. Intolerance is telling somebody else that they don't have the right to express themselves because somebody might get offended. Intolerance is saying that because you don't want to hear something you get to silence, and my choice as to whether I want to hear it or not overruled and irrelevant because someone might get offended.

That image was not drawn for any artistic merit, it was made specifically to piss people off. For the lulz if you will abide by such a retarded term. And anyway, that side note was put there simply because I found it odd that you included such an irrelevant image. Are we in agreement with the first, on topic, point; that it is child porn.

 

[-Ulven-]

Because Lolicon is depiction of that. Is it not?

So let's say you own a comic, book, movie, or whatever, in which someone is raped, you should be fined as if you owned material depicting actual rape?

What about words?

The Quran explains that Mohammed diddled his nine year old wife Aisha, though to be fair he did wait three years after marrying her at six. Every copy of the Quran has child porn. Every Muslim with a copy needs to be jailed for Child pornography.

But that is different you see... Allah/Yaweh or some other diety is in the picture... makes it totally legal y'know. And since it is in the hooly book it is all good.

 

[Jonluw]

There seems to be a lot of people on here who believe people should be jailed for being attracted to children. This really disturbs me.

Oh come on now.

It's only a step from thought crime (in both directions actually) and limiting individual freedom of information based solely on appealing to majority sentiments rather than a proper legal analysis of whether/what harm it causes that could even justify criminalization.

I see no principal civil rights problems whatsoever here.

Unless I misunderstand you, that's what I was trying to say.

Being attracted to children shouldn't be illegal; molesting children should be.

 

[MassiveGeek]

First off I want to say that this guy is actually one of my favorite translators, if I'm not wrong he's the one who translated One Piece into Swedish.

And onto the actual topic. People, in my opinion, can like whatever they want, and it's very difficult to repress arousal, so if you find lolicon arousing, well, then you find it arousing, what the fuck are you gonna do about it? You should have the right to have lolicon on your computer, because it is the most beneficial way for everyone in this situation - you're not hurting anyone in the process, and I really don't believe that crap about lolicon-likers suddenly turning into real time child molesters. I do think it could be harmful to take this away from them though.

But, I should also have a right to be disgusted by this, because I think that its really gross. I should have a right to react to this information in a negative fashion and express my opinions about why I feel it's not really okay. Though, I'd never try to stop you, because it's unnecessary, no fucking harm is being done here.

I am a bit split about this particular case though, I think it's rather mean to just scream to the world: "omg, look at this sick fuck!". But at the same time, this isn't something I personally approve off... but again, I have no right or reason to make everyone else live by my own morals, and I won't try to force them either. Not that I, as other people say, see what's wrong with looking at regular hentai where the subjects aren't minors. -Shrug-

 

[Danish rage]

It´s so clear many of you are not parents.

I´d like this discussion with people that actually cared for other than themselfes.

Where are you´re harts? How can you under any circumstances condone any misuse of children, even if it´s only a drawing. When did all of this imginary kiddyrape get legal? I sure as hell didn´t get the email, memo whatever. Oh shit people.

 

[Gigano]

There seems to be a lot of people on here who believe people should be jailed for being attracted to children. This really disturbs me.

Oh come on now.

It's only a step from thought crime (in both directions actually) and limiting individual freedom of information based solely on appealing to majority sentiments rather than a proper legal analysis of whether/what harm it causes that could even justify criminalization.

I see no principal civil rights problems whatsoever here.

Unless I misunderstand you, that's what I was trying to say.

Being attracted to children shouldn't be illegal; molesting children should be.

I got what you meant (and fully agree), I simply wished to elaborate on a few points as to why other stances would pose a problem, through a(n apparently failed) bid of Irony.

But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

 

[Eri]

Because it sure as hell isn't here.

On Friday, Sweden's Svea Court of Appeal upheld a conviction against Simon Lundström, a 37-year-old translator of manga, on possession of child pornography for 39 manga images. A lower district court in Uppsala had convicted Lundström for 51 images on his computer last June and fined him 25,000 kronor (about US$3,900).

Svea Court of Appeal ruled that it cannot determine that four of the images depicted children "with a sufficient degree of certainty." It also ruled that eight more images did not meet the legal definition of pornography. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling on the remaining 39 images as child pornography. None of the images depicted real children.

The court of appeal did lower Lundström's fine to 5,600 kronor (US$860).

Lundström has translated over 80 volumes in two series for the publisher Bonnier Carlsen over the last decade. However, after the Uppsala ruling in June, Bonnier Carlsen ended its working relationship with Lundström.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2011-01-28/swedish-translator-child-pornography-charges-upheld

Really? The US also did something like this. How can you classify DRAWN images as child porn? That's just messed up. As far as I can tell he doesn't serve jail time or anything besides a fine, but NONE OF THIS IS A CRIME. He shouldn't have to do shit.

Do you consider piracy stealing?
It is a virtual copy of something like Loli is a virtual copy of CP...

Lol what? No it's not. That implies someone took an actual CP photograph and scanned it in to their computer and sent it off. Drawn images aren't made from actual people.

paedophile gets caught and your on his side? messed OP, really messed up

Pedophile? I didn't realize translating something you didn't even draw made you a pedophile.

 

[Jonluw]

There seems to be a lot of people on here who believe people should be jailed for being attracted to children. This really disturbs me.

Oh come on now.

It's only a step from thought crime (in both directions actually) and limiting individual freedom of information based solely on appealing to majority sentiments rather than a proper legal analysis of whether/what harm it causes that could even justify criminalization.

I see no principal civil rights problems whatsoever here.

Unless I misunderstand you, that's what I was trying to say.

Being attracted to children shouldn't be illegal; molesting children should be.

I got what you meant (and fully agree), I simply wished to elaborate on a few points as to why other stances would pose a problem, through a(n apparently failed) bid of Irony.

But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

Okay. I was afraid you - by "Oh come on now" - meant I was being ridiculous in that first post.

Also, after reading that post where you said lolicon is legal in Denmark, I went to check if the same is the case in Norway. What I found was sort of unsettling.
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-023.html

§204 and §204a regard pornography, and it seems like it's saying that the state has the right to decide what pornography is acceptable and what isn't on a whim. And then sentencing you to 3 years of prison.
And what the hell is "scientifically sound pornography" anyways?

 

[Eri]

My ex gf is 22. She is just 5ft tall. She looks like she is about 14 years old. She has no mental defects and her IQ is slightly above average. Should I have been arrested for having sex with her on the basis she looks very underage? She's older than me for christ sake. You can't just say "it looks underage therefore I declare it TO BE underage and also therefore illegal".

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Condemning someone over images of non-existent children in sexual scenarios is like condemning someone over the robbery of a non-existent store or the murder of a non-existent person...

Every single person that murdered an NPC in a video game should be sentenced according to this level of logic.

Do you think Piracy is a crime then? (Downloading stuff not robbing people on a boat)
It is after all a non-resistant thing you copy.

If you (or the person you are downloading the software for) were (was) going to buy said downloaded product then it's condemnable because you effectively stole a customer (ergo prohibited a sale from occurring) .

If not (for whatever reason: Be it lack of funds or unavailability of the product for a physical purchase) then I don't think Piracy would be a crime.

Bottom line: If there isn't a real-world victim it's not a crime. Take into consideration that software-piracy isn't stealing, it's copying someone else's product and distributing it, which means that there would only be a victim if the pirate or whomever the pirate is supplying was buying the software before being supplied.

PS: Regarding the "slippery-slope" fallacy, I did consider that while writing, I assure you, BUT I also considered that the very same people that normally jump behind these acts of censorship are, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, pushing to remove all references of sex, drugs, violence, etc. from other forms of media. It would be the slippery-slope fallacy IF the later examples were unheard of, which isn't the case.

 

[Danny Ocean]

1. Murder. Stops me from being killed. Stops me from killing other people. Very practical.

2. Theft. Protects not just luxiries but necessities like food.

3. Property law. Ensures people can't strong arm you in to the street because they like your drapes.

Need I go on?

1. Why is it bad if people die? I've actually read posts on here from people who seem to be quite happy about the idea of humanity being wiped out.

2. Why is it bad if people steal?

3. Why is it bad for someone to strong arm you into the street and take your stuff?

Hm? You see, when you actually start to question it, you will always reach a moral judgement at some point down the line. Eventually someone has to say "It's just wrong!"

 

[Gigano]

...

Okay. I was afraid you - by "Oh come on now" - meant I was being ridiculous in that first post.

Also, after reading that post where you said lolicon is legal in Denmark, I went to check if the same is the case in Norway. What I found was sort of unsettling.
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-023.html

§204 and §204a regard pornography, and it seems like it's saying that the state has the right to decide what pornography is acceptable and what isn't on a whim. And then sentencing you to 3 years of prison.
And what the hell is "scientifically sound pornography" anyways?

That § 204 does seem disturbing, I read it as banning all forms of spreading or selling (though not viewing and possessing) even quite ordinary "pornography" as the term is defined in the article, which has no real limitations other than "støtende".

As for whether animated child pornography is illegal, that would depend on the content of the word "fremstilling" in § 204b. I believe it is indeed illegal to view or possess such images in Norway though.

 

[Jonluw]

...

Okay. I was afraid you - by "Oh come on now" - meant I was being ridiculous in that first post.

Also, after reading that post where you said lolicon is legal in Denmark, I went to check if the same is the case in Norway. What I found was sort of unsettling.
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-023.html

§204 and §204a regard pornography, and it seems like it's saying that the state has the right to decide what pornography is acceptable and what isn't on a whim. And then sentencing you to 3 years of prison.
And what the hell is "scientifically sound pornography" anyways?

That § 204 does seem disturbing, I read it as banning all forms of spreading or selling (though not viewing and possessing) even quite ordinary "pornography" as the term is defined in the article, which has no real limitations other than "støtende".

As for whether animated child pornography is illegal, that would depend on the content of the word "fremstilling" in § 204b. I believe it is indeed illegal to view or possess such images in Norway though.

Indeed, that's what I took from it as well. Those two laws are waaayy to vague.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

But, I should also have a right to be disgusted by this, because I think that its really gross. I should have a right to react to this information in a negative fashion and express my opinions about why I feel it's not really okay. Though, I'd never try to stop you, because it's unnecessary, no fucking harm is being done here.

But this would be a reaction based on common sense. And can´t have that, can we ?
To be able to react in such a way, you would have to have realized that there is a difference between "I don´t like this." or even "I find this disgusting." and "This is wrong, it should be forbidden.".
Many people are incapable of seperating those things.

 

[delet]

With the Youth Ordinance Bill being passed and now this, I can see this turning into a witch hunt. If this isn't stopped now, I can see myself getting in trouble with the law for dating Naoto in P4 (who is 16). This could get ugly, real fast. People have a right to be offended. They don't have the right to unfairly prosecute people who don't adhere to their outlook on things.

Sure keeping your fake child porn hidden is an okay solution for some of us, but thing of the precedent this sets: The court's ruling is essentially saying that any depiction of a child/underaged person/minor is a sexual situation is child pornography! Classic works like Lolita are considered child porn now. Any sort of actual porn starring legal adults portraying the cliche schoolgirl or babysitter are child porn now.
I don't agree with child porn, but I think that classifying any depiction of a crime as that crime is just plain dangerous. Should I be convicted or murder for watching Passion of the Christ? Should I be arrested for drug use and possession for listening to Sublime?
Hell, just think of what this slope represents to us as gamers, where we take part in interactive portrayals of violence all the time. Hell, anyone who's ever played Grand Theft Auto could be up for a real-life death sentence...

Where the fuck do you live? For some reason, I doubt either of you live in Sweden or Japan. If you live in America, this doesn't affect you. If you live in America, you have the right to appeal this shit. Don't take a random case from a completely different country and start raging about social and unlawful injustice.

And as for the Youth Ordinance Bill, that doesn't outright outlaw it; it just throws any manga that may depict an illegal act into pornography section of stores. It's an idiotic bill built upon bigotry and idiocy, but it does not completely get rid of it. It just makes people who want to look at regular, non pornographic manga have to look like they're buying porn.