Support NeoGAF

[Chittagong]

Long story short, the geniuses at Kotaku decided to “explore video game porn” ie people using game characters to create porn.

Published an article. Decided to post some underage characters getting fucked.

Not going to link it because, well, it’s CP.

I think all Kotaku threads should include the following disclaimer going forwards:

These articles are being published by Kotaku. For those who may not be aware or who may have forgotten, Kotaku had an article where it intended to gain attention using child pornography, as well as for support of harassment, doxxing, and other extremely damaging behaviours.

Kotaku provided no response to this fiasco except for an apology claiming they did not do enough research. As the website is unlisted by Google, they had spoken to the media owner about removing "nasty stuff", and content was viewable both before and during the campaign, this claim is beyond belief. The individuals responsible are known not to be rogue PR interns, but go up to Kotaku’s board. Kotaku has not dealt with the individuals responsible.

Consider that by linking to their articles, you are supporting a publisher that is complicit with child pornography.

 

[ZeroGravity]

This is the inevitable outcome when you base your entire existence on clickbait bullshit. You try and push it further and further until you're now posting articles with Misty getting mouthfucked by a Lickitung.

 

[cormack12]

There is an archive link: http://archive.fo/mPDRA (NSFW)

 

[Northeastmonk]

Why can't they just stick to making articles about video games? Notify the FBI or The Center for Missing and Exploited Children online if you find anything to report.

 

[Chittagong]

Not just CP, but generally it’s wild that they can post those pictures with no age verification overlay

 

[rofif]

Lol it's not really that shocking. There is a ton of this on reddit and all around internet. It's something that almost nobody (i presume) looks at as "child porn" ffs....
People watching this does not equal child rapists

 

[Helios]

Notify the FBI or The Center for Missing and Exploited Children online if you find anything to report.

For a cartoon drawing of Misty? ? C'mon now.

 

[ZeroGravity]

Lol it's not really that shocking. There is a ton of this on reddit and all around internet. It's something that almost nobody (i presume) looks at as "child porn" ffs....
People watching this does not equal child rapists

That's not really the point. Kotaku, a supposed professional website covering video games, shouldn't be posting shit that's equivalent to what a random Reddit users posts.

Also the laws of many countries don't distinguish between animated or real porn involving minors. They're treated the same. You can argue the morality of that, but the fact is that it's still illegal in those countries, so putting that shit up on a, again, "professional" website is ridiculously stupid and irresponsible.

 

[Thabass]

Ahhh, so they have people posting articles there from ResetEra now. Nice Kotaku.

They're officially on my blocked list. This was the last straw.

 

[Battlechili]

This isnt CP.
Cartoons can't be cp.
This is honestly one of the less offensive Kotaku articles out there and people are freaking out over nothing.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Why can't they just stick to making articles about video games? Notify the FBI or The Center for Missing and Exploited Children online if you find anything to report.

Can fictional characters be exploited?

 

[Whitesnake]

That final paragraph tho

I left my friend’s house covered in dog hair, drunk from the beers, and potentially put off sex forever.

She got drunk, watched porn, and left with dog hair all over her?

And she’s a white woman?

hmm

The ingredients are all there, but the cake is still a lie.

This article is the perfect amalgamation of everything wrong with Kotaku. Useless blogpost about video game porn that says nothing of value, written by someone who probably doesn’t even play video games, and ends with a meme that’s been stale for a decade.

 

[Northeastmonk]

For a cartoon drawing of Misty? ? C'mon now.

Bad links may lead to dangerous places. Cartoons can't hurt people, but tread lightly. The internet can be a dangerous playground and not everyone is equipped with the knowledge you assume they already have.

 

[J-Roderton]

The fuck they doing that article, anyway?

 

[Ulysses 31]

The fuck they doing that article, anyway?

Clicks?

 

[The Pleasure]

Can fictional characters be exploited?

Are the artists getting donations from patereon?

 

[Fuz]

This isnt CP.
Cartoons can't be cp.
This is honestly one of the less offensive Kotaku articles out there and people are freaking out over nothing.

Legally speaking, in some countries it is.

 

[The Cockatrice]

I'll admit thats a shitty article but CP? That's a bit of a stretch.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Are the artists getting donations from patereon?

That sounds more like an intellectual property issue than a human rights violation issue which fictional characters don't have.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Editor’s Note: This story originally included screenshots from the Harry Potter and Pokemon animated porn parodies. We’ve removed those images after readers expressed discomfort over some of the scenes, and believe that words can sufficiently explain the material.

damn what the actual fuck. and these jackasses think they can call out bewbs and skin as a horrible thing. show some adult cleavage in a dark fantasy game and we won't hear the end of it.

NSFW Warning: Explicit scenes of computer-rendered sex.

We began with some extremely terrible Harry Potter porn. My friend and I are both into Harry Potter, as much as you can be now that the author has turned out to be a trans-exclusionary feminist who clumsily retcons diversity into her work.

wait a minute, she is a "radical feminist" because she doesn't think men who wears dresses are literally women, but you are just a regular good old normal feminist, cos you are posting images of animated children having sex???

again what the actual FUCK with these people

 

[PSlayer]

Please tell that by cp you mean club pinguim or literally cheese pizza!

 

[Komatsu]

Is this the content they want to create? You have 15 million readers, access to a good chunk of the industry and you post about... machinima Harry Potter porn using low-poly models?

 

[#Phonepunk#]

we can just go to 4chan for that?

 

[Battlechili]

Legally speaking, in some countries it is.

I mean, I guess, but Kotaku's hosted in the US, no? They're fine.

I just think its dumb that people are getting up in arms over what is essentially an article about cartoon porn. Theres no children here. Just drawings and silly CGI props.

 

[Petrae]

Pervtaku: Buzzfeed’s weird friend that kinda likes video games but likes interjecting unwanted tangents about sex even more.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

I just think its dumb that people are getting up in arms over what is essentially an article about cartoon porn. Theres no children here. Just drawings and silly CGI props.

no, it's more dumb to be stanning for CP

 

[GreenAlien]

The Pokemon/Zelda pics are fine.. but the Harry Potter ones?

A lot of countries do rightfully not consider stuff with fictional "children" cp..
But using the likeness of real children (the actors), even if animated, is a completely different matter. Even in the US that might make problems..

 

[Battlechili]

Kotaku

professional

what

 

[Battlechili]

no, it's more dumb to be stanning for CP

The moment you call cartoons cp is the moment you belittle the suffering of victims of sex abuse, equating content created involving their suffering to that of cartoons.
It also implies people actually see these characters as children in the same way one would see a child in the street, which is simply not how people interpret information. These arent children. Theyre characters. Cartoons. And that's all people see when they create or view such porn. It's why most porn artists drawing Pokemon characters or the hottest new anime arent pedophiles. They have no interest in children. Just these characters for being these fictional abstract ideas.

 

[DarkBatman]

This isnt CP.
Cartoons can't be cp.
This is honestly one of the less offensive Kotaku articles out there and people are freaking out over nothing.

In Germany it is. So while we can discuss whether cartoons can count as CP, legally you'd have a problem here.

 

[Helios]

 

[Whitesnake]

These are the same people that will proselytize to you about how female characters having cleavage is an affront to mankind.

Shit, Jason Schreier posted an article insinuating that anyone who likes Dragon's Crown is secretly a pedophile because one of the (adult) characters has big tits.

It's the same website.

 

[ZeroGravity]

what

Hey I used supposed and airquotes for a reason.

 

[Chittagong]

The moment you call cartoons cp is the moment you belittle the suffering of victims of sex abuse, equating content created involving their suffering to that of cartoons.
It also implies people actually see these characters as children in the same way one would see a child in the street, which is simply not how people interpret information. These arent children. Theyre characters. Cartoons. And that's all people see when they create or view such porn. It's why most porn artists drawing Pokemon characters or the hottest new anime arent pedophiles. They have no interest in children. Just these characters for being these fictional abstract ideas.

I think the incriminating thing here was that some of the images weren’t your typical “1000 year old dragon“ loli characters but rendered realistic human characters. As renderings are becoming increasingly lifelike and hard to distinguish from real life, rendered CP is bound to be outlawed in the next decade.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Please go bankrupt at your earliest convenience Kotaku.

 

[Spukc]

Guess the pedo's at reera gonna love kucktaku now

 

[iconmaster]

Harry is 17 by the last book, so I think it's the Hogwarts scenes that would constitute child porn... but maybe in the author's mind it all takes place during their postgraduate education.

Hermione is a little older, so by year 7 you're probably in the clear.

 

[PSlayer]

The fuck they doing that article, anyway?

They need to criticize something that people enjoy(like hentai) for clicks but of all the SFM porn they could pick as an example they cherrypicked the wrong ones.

 

[Komatsu]

I mean, I guess, but Kotaku's hosted in the US, no? They're fine.

I just think its dumb that people are getting up in arms over what is essentially an article about cartoon porn. Theres no children here. Just drawings and silly CGI props.

I do not disagree with you one whit - I do think the comparison cheapens the actual victims of sexual abuse.

But as for this being legal... This is a common misconception but it's actually not true. The PROTECT Act has very clear provisions against rendered images of CP. People have been prosecuted under this statute.

(a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) so that subparagraph (B) reads as follows:
``(B) such visual depiction is a digital image,
computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or
is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct; or'';

That being said, it's considered legitimate and/or lawful to depict minors engaged in sexual activity if the depiction in question is deemed to have "artistic and/or intellectual value".

And, no, nobody at Kotaku is going to jail.

 

[Gargus]

Child porn? Nah.

I dont like it or want anything to do with it but really what's the harm if it's just computer generated and fake and not real with no actual people? When it comes to something just created on a computer nothing should be off limits anywhere. Even sick fucks need some kind of outlet for whatever is they are into instead of just having to keep it pent up or having to resort to something where an actual real person is involved in something immoral or illegal. A written story made up, or a game, or a CG video are harmless.

Anyway. Kotaku is a joke of a bunch of kids with illusions of grandeur at being award winning and ground breaking writers for acting like a bunch of know it all alarmists. I miss when that site was run by people who wrote about fun things and niche nerdy stuff.

 

[Cattlyst]

People still read Kotaku?

 

[iconmaster]

it's considered legitimate and/or lawful to depict minors engaged in sexual activity if the depiction in question is considered to have "artistic and/or intellectual value".

Kotaku are screwed.

 

[Katsura]

These are the same people that will proselytize to you about how female characters having cleavage is an affront to mankind.

Shit, Jason Schreier posted an article insinuating that anyone who likes Dragon's Crown is secretly a pedophile because one of the (adult) characters has big tits.

It's the same website.

That's because SJW are always projecting

 

[Phunkydiabetic]

Kotaku flew too close to the sun...

 

[Komatsu]

Kotaku are screwed.

There's wide prosecutorial discretion when it comes to these things - it's not widely or effectively enforced. But, as I said, the law's there and people have been destroyed over it.

I'm a bit of a first amendment absolutist and don't think people should go to jail if no minors were harmed, but Congress thought differently.

Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. But that's not the case with the PROTECT act, which still stands.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Well it's child porn if you identify as a Cartoon character.
Which i'm sure a lot of people at kotaku who also identify as "journalist" are.

 

[Petrae]

Please go bankrupt at your earliest convenience Kotaku.

It can’t happen soon enough. Double bonus if Polygon becomes Poly-GONE before long.

 

[SirKicksalot]

The article complains that Harry Potter and Pokemon porn is not exciting and sexy enough. Specifically, the porn that includes images of underage characters, not the Brazzers parodies.
Do they even have editors working there?

 

[xool]

Update: Kotaku has now removed the images of children engaging in sex.

Timeless

 

[Battlechili]

The PROTECT Act has very clear provisions against rendered images of CP. People have been prosecuted under this statute.

(a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) so that subparagraph (B) reads as follows:
``(B) such visual depiction is a digital image,
computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or

That section of the Protect Act was deemed unconstitutional in US v. Handley actually. It bears no power in US court today.