now that people are getting convicted for drawings

Frenchy Lunning, a manga expert at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, was a consultant in the case. She says the books were from the widely available Lolicon variety — a Japanese word play on “Lolita.”

“This stuff is huge in Japan, in all of Asia,” Lunning says. Handley, she adds, “is not a pedophile. He had no photographs of child pornography.”
Click to expand...

Is the factor that determines whether something is pedophillic or not actually dependent on whether the material is photographic in nature? Is there a difference between sexual gratification obtained from "pen and pencil lines" and that obtained from photographs?

(Handley's intent notwithstanding)
 
Sarcasmo said:
Is the factor that determines whether something is pedophillic or not actually dependent on whether the material is photographic in nature? Is there a difference between sexual gratification obtained from "pen and pencil lines" and that obtained from photographs?

(Handley's intent notwithstanding)
Click to expand...

Of course there is a difference. Hand drawn is imagination while a photo involves an innocent little child. You sick fuck.
 
Viewing a photograph involves one's imagination too though. The thoughts are there regardless what they are derived from. I'm just trying to understand that woman's statement.
 
Sarcasmo said:
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?
Click to expand...

what part of justice prohibits people from looking at drawings of anything? on my random speculation of prosecuting the innocent i meant those innocent of molesting children... justifying cartoon kiddies as child porn is a bit beyond the realm of harming children.

i'm not denying art of lacking meaning. i stand by my opinion of it being "harmless." art does not rape, art does not murder, blah blah insert random ethical rhetorics. art is meant to bring about emotions, it is not illegal to hurt ones "feelings." how someone might respond to it is however their own fault. for those examples at hand in this discussion that are in fact art, i don't want laws like this prohibiting an artist's expression. and yes i said art, not all of this stuff is "porn." granted some of this is serious pedophilia, but in a fictional realm. i can't comprehend how someone can take from fiction and present it as a potentially real world harmful medium.

you say they won't attack random individuals... but look at this article. does this person have any related criminal record or did this "crime" bring to light any truly potential wrongdoings of this guy? you say it is necessary to establish laws that allow prosecuting people in these kind of situations, but what harm are these individuals doing to society? you may want to stop serious crimes at the source, but things can always be tracked back further and further, and soon people will be demanding more ridiculous regulation on entertainment.
 
animepark13 said:
what part of justice prohibits people from looking at drawings of anything? on my random speculation of prosecuting the innocent i meant those innocent of molesting children... justifying cartoon kiddies as child porn is a bit beyond the realm of harming children.

i'm not denying art of lacking meaning. i stand by my opinion of it being "harmless." art does not rape, art does not murder, blah blah insert random ethical rhetorics. art is meant to bring about emotions, it is not illegal to hurt ones "feelings." how someone might respond to it is however their own fault. for those examples at hand in this discussion that are in fact art, i don't want laws like this prohibiting an artist's expression. and yes i said art, not all of this stuff is "porn." granted some of this is serious pedophilia, but in a fictional realm. i can't comprehend how someone can take from fiction and present it as a potentially real world harmful medium.

you say they won't attack random individuals... but look at this article. does this person have any related criminal record or did this "crime" bring to light any truly potential wrongdoings of this guy? you say it is necessary to establish laws that allow prosecuting people in these kind of situations, but what harm are these individuals doing to society? you may want to stop serious crimes at the source, but things can always be tracked back further and further, and soon people will be demanding more ridiculous regulation on entertainment.
Click to expand...
It's cost prohibitive to prosecute random people. AND You are doing something illegal right now. You can never stop doing something illegal. That is how the law works, you can never be fully in compliance; the thing is they dont bother to enforce _most_ laws, but they exist so if it is in the best interest to arrest someone it is possible.

Most prosecutions dont rest on the fact that what someone did was right or wrong or whether they are a danger to society, they rest on whether or not they broke some law. Easiest way to think of it is that the "Law" are the rules to playing a game, it is flexible in that you can break x number of laws but if you do something to attract negative attention of the public at large you are going to get slammed with whatever sticks.

You cant make laws that proscribe every situation fairly in terms of the people prosecuted and the people doing the prosecution. The prevailing standards (district attorney, police force) has more discretion over what constitutes a "crime" than the "Law."
 
there are big differences between drawn and real.
the major reason child porn is under attack is because children are a part of it.
drawings and other mediums outside the realm of reality do not involve children.... no children are harmed in the making of it.


Sarcasmo said:
Viewing a photograph involves one's imagination too though. The thoughts are there regardless what they are derived from. I'm just trying to understand that woman's statement.
Click to expand...

i don't need a photograph/art to give me the inspiration to imagine and act on thoughts. i don't follow your argument. the point as i mentioned is that children are actually involved when it comes to real material. yes imagination plays a role in viewing... but when it comes to the creation which she is arguing, cartoons are imaginary while photographs/movies are real
 
ZRH said:
It's cost prohibitive to prosecute random people. AND You are doing something illegal right now. You can never stop doing something illegal. That is how the law works, you can never be fully in compliance; the thing is they dont bother to enforce _most_ laws, but they exist so if it is in the best interest to arrest someone it is possible.

Most prosecutions dont rest on the fact that what someone did was right or wrong or whether they are a danger to society, they rest on whether or not they broke some law. Easiest way to think of it is that the "Law" are the rules to playing a game, it is flexible in that you can break x number of laws but if you do something to attract negative attention of the public at large you are going to get slammed with whatever sticks.

You cant make laws that proscribe every situation fairly in terms of the people prosecuted and the people doing the prosecution. The prevailing standards (district attorney, police force) has more discretion over what constitutes a "crime" than the "Law."
Click to expand...

none of that constitutes the creation of unjust laws. and as i already said, look at the guy in the article how did he bring about attention? what warrants the public to be mad at some random guy for looking at cartoon porn? there already are laws in place to prosecute those who have done wrong.
 
animepark13 said:
none of that constitutes the creation of unjust laws. and as i already said, look at the guy in the article how did he bring about attention? what warrants the public to be mad at some random guy for looking at cartoon porn? there already are laws in place to prosecute those who have done wrong.
Click to expand...
Im not telling you what's right or wrong, Im telling you how the legal system works. Not getting arrested is directly proportional to the AMOUNT OF DISCRETION you exercise when doing things of questionable legality. Bringing the "heat" of any law enforcement agency is enough to cause permanent damage.

All packages sent across international borders are subject to SEARCH. There does not need to be probable cause. I had a package returned to me once for containing dry batteries.

Sending obscene material through the USPS is ILLEGAL, technically, any porn is illegal to send through the mail. It has been that way since the 1800s. Try sending postcards with nekkid wimmen through the mail and see what happens.

A good test would be "hmm if I dont want my mother to see this stuff, maybe I shouldnt have it sent through the mail system." Mail cant be opened, but if it "breaks" open, it's not a "search", it's in plain sight.

The only thing the legal system considers is "was this person guilty of this crime at this time with these laws existing," and since he plead guilty that is all that matters. This law has been struck down repeatedly in appellate courts, including the 8th (where he lives). It would be a gamble but if you played it right (hello aclu) you probably couldve secured at least numerous appeals.
 
Sarcasmo said:
Viewing a photograph involves one's imagination too though. The thoughts are there regardless what they are derived from. I'm just trying to understand that woman's statement.
Click to expand...

You aren't understanding me. One doesn't hurt anyone and the other is subjecting a child to a heinous act. Come on dude.
 
ZRH said:
Im not telling you what's right or wrong, Im telling you how the legal system works. Not getting arrested is directly proportional to the AMOUNT OF DISCRETION you exercise when doing things of questionable legality. Bringing the "heat" of any law enforcement agency is enough to cause permanent damage.

All packages sent across international borders are subject to SEARCH. There does not need to be probable cause. I had a package returned to me once for containing dry batteries.

Sending obscene material through the USPS is ILLEGAL, technically, any porn is illegal to send through the mail. It has been that way since the 1800s. Try sending postcards with nekkid wimmen through the mail and see what happens.

A good test would be "hmm if I dont want my mother to see this stuff, maybe I shouldnt have it sent through the mail system." Mail cant be opened, but if it "breaks" open, it's not a "search", it's in plain sight.

The only thing the legal system considers is "was this person guilty of this crime at this time with these laws existing," and since he plead guilty that is all that matters. This law has been struck down repeatedly in appellate courts, including the 8th (where he lives). It would be a gamble but if you played it right (hello aclu) you probably couldve secured at least numerous appeals.
Click to expand...

and the fact that this law exists is all that pisses me off. i'm not arguing with the regulations the usps has in place, that's their business, but the guy is also charged with possession.
 
so this begs the question, since kiddie porn is illegal, does that mean those who are reluctant to participate in active searching for the shit, and don't want to face legal consequences, then turn to the world of anime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back