now that people are getting convicted for drawings

sham w_a_w said:
brooke shields did a nude scene when she was something like 13
Click to expand...

picture.php
 
Sarcasmo said:
It isn't always legal to draw someone being shot. We recognize the difference between threatening and benign behavior.

If I repeatedly mailed April pictures of me shooting her in the head I would go to jail if she felt threatened.

When it comes to kids we have decided that it is in our best interests to take a zero tolerance policy towards child related offenses and threats. Which I agree with. Nothing should be more valuable to any species than it's own offspring.
Click to expand...
In your example the repeated mailing of the drawings is where the threat and harassment lie. I can't think of an example where the drawing of an act constitutes a violation except in conspiracy cases, where the planning and preparation clearly indicate an intent to carry out the act depicted.

Art is rife with examples of despicable acts either drawn, sculpted or acted out for entertainment and artistic purposes and for no other subject is enjoyment of those depictions considered an indication of a likelihood to carry them out.
 
Last edited:
Jonny_B said:
In your example the repeated mailing of the drawings is where the threat and harassment lie. I can't think of an example where the drawing of an act constitutes a violation except in conspiracy cases, where the planning and preparation clearly indicate an intent to carry out the act depicted.
Click to expand...

i wrote two words in high school and got fined and sent off to an alternative school :lol:
 
Sarcasmo said:
You aren't this stupid fly. Vehicles don't possess malicious intent.
Click to expand...

But the whole "if it saves one child" is foolish polly anna bullshit. If a congressman put up a bill that would require the US to 50% of GDP on protecting children, would you be for it? At SOME point, even you parents have to logically say, that's silly and enough. Where is that line for you? Seriously, I want to understand.
 
animepark13 said:
it's just crazy that someone could seriously get in trouble for a drawing. you can argue it being "art" or not, but regardless it is simply a harmless expression of an artist's thoughts. unrealistic and out of wack, most of it isn't serious.

i can think about any slew of disturbing material but that doesn't mean i'm the slightest bit interested in such acts. some drawing isn't going to convince someone to go over their barrier and molest some kids. i seriously doubt that such a law is going to prevent anyone who is seriously attracted to kids from acting on their thoughts. maybe it will catch a couple truly f*cked up individuals but many innocent people will be dragged in. and do you seriously think a sentence imposed by someone owning cartoon porn is going to stop them from later molesting children.

yes it is disturbing, no i don't touch myself to it, but i find it ridiculous that laws like this can exist.
Click to expand...

You don't draft penal codes thinking "Bad people will look at this and stop what they are doing now that they know their behavior is wrong, which they didn't before we told them." That's stupid on at least 17 different levels. Possibly more.

Laws exist in order to give We the People a means of dispensing justice. That's it. Rule of law. We don't like vigilantes because they cause chaos and trample on peoples' rights. So we set up carefully defined and restricted systems that grant us official permission to prosecute one another. If laws like this are never put in place, then we don't have the OPTION of prosecuting anyone. Ever.

And it is an option. Prosecutors will not pursue every single Tom, Dick, and Harry who has a drawing on their computer of a kid fellating a unicorn. So rest assured that your allegedly non-perverted self won't become some dude's bitch in prison.

As for your "harmless" statement, I find it incredible that you would paint with such broad strokes when defining what art is. Pun intended. Ask any doctor, psychiatrist, criminal profiler, cop, state advocate, teacher, or historian (to name but a few) how innocuous it can be. Art has been a profound expression of emotion for thousands of years and I'm stunned that you've apparently completely written it off.

Make no mistake, I don't hold every doodle on a napkin as having some pronounced meaning. But when the intent and volume of the imagery is quite obviously to obtain sexual gratification from the abuse of children I take that very seriously, and so do most people.

Is it less sick to dismiss it with a laugh than view it with your hand down your pants? Quite frankly I'm not sure. You either tolerate perverts or you are a pervert. What's the difference?

And how many innocent people get caught with child pornography?
 
fly said:
But the whole "if it saves one child" is foolish polly anna bullsh*t. If a congressman put up a bill that would require the US to 50% of GDP on protecting children, would you be for it? At SOME point, even you parents have to logically say, that's silly and enough. Where is that line for you? Seriously, I want to understand.
Click to expand...

Protecting children from what? Accidents? Or sexual predators? It sucks when kids die in train accidents, but it doesn't disturb me. People arguing that the meaning behind depictions of pedophilia is somehow diminished if transcribed in charcoal or paint is disturbing.
 
Jonny_B said:
In your example the repeated mailing of the drawings is where the threat and harassment lie. I can't think of an example where the drawing of an act constitutes a violation except in conspiracy cases, where the planning and preparation clearly indicate an intent to carry out the act depicted.

Art is rife with examples of despicable acts either drawn, sculpted or acted out for entertainment and artistic purposes and for no other subject is enjoyment of those depictions considered an indication of a likelihood to carry them out.
Click to expand...

You don't have to explain it to me. I grew up in Europe. America is notoriously puritanical. I'm just being the Devil's Advocate. I'm explaining why it's an issue to some people, and why these circumstances happen, and why, when they happen, they usually involve kids.
 
Last edited:
animepark13 said:
it's just crazy that someone could seriously get in trouble for a drawing. you can argue it being "art" or not, but regardless it is simply a harmless expression of an artist's thoughts. unrealistic and out of wack, most of it isn't serious.

i can think about any slew of disturbing material but that doesn't mean i'm the slightest bit interested in such acts. some drawing isn't going to convince someone to go over their barrier and molest some kids. i seriously doubt that such a law is going to prevent anyone who is seriously attracted to kids from acting on their thoughts. maybe it will catch a couple truly fucked up individuals but many innocent people will be dragged in. and do you seriously think a sentence imposed by someone owning cartoon porn is going to stop them from later molesting children.

yes it is disturbing, no i don't touch myself to it, but i find it ridiculous that laws like this can exist.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Coqui said:
Yeah I can't remember the name of it. Blue Lagoon or something like that?
Click to expand...
Yes! What a great movie. I had to buy it a few months ago just to watch it again...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back