• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kotaku posts article with rendered CP

Komatsu

Member
Got any examples of people being sentenced for possession of child pornography based on the possession of drawings of fictional characters?

The written law, which is up to interpretation, doesn’t matter even an iota compared to how the law is actually enforced.

LOL, sure. From which European country would like an example? How about a Swedish translator that was prosecuted for having 59 images of lolicon in his possession? He was prosecuted, sentenced in three different courts. Kis case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they found a way of "absolving" him since he was a professional translator but while still maintaining at least one of his images was "realistic" and thus child pornography.

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund said:
In 2011, though, in the midst of a custody dispute, Swedish translator Simon Lundström's girlfriend accused him of sexually abusing their two-year-old daughter. City of Uppsala police found that charge to be baseless, but a search of Lundström’s computer turned up manga images they believed to be illegal under the child porn laws. Out of his entire collection, estimated at four million illustrations, the local prosecutor brought charges against him for 51 of them.

An investigator who was called as an expert witness in Lundström’s trial outlined a nonsensical “fridge test” she routinely used to discern child porn from non-porn: “Is this an image that I could put up on my refrigerator? If the answer is no, there’s a good chance that the image is pornographic.” Lundström was convicted for all 51 images and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to about $2,900. He also had to register as a sex offender and the publisher that he most frequently worked with dropped him like a hot potato, even though they obviously were aware that he had the images because of his work. “It’s frightening when a publisher does not stand up for freedom of speech,” he observed in a newspaper interview. “I was standing there defending what they publish.”

The local verdict from Uppsala was appealed to a regional court, which upheld Lundström’s conviction for 39 of the images but decided the other 12 were not pornographic after all. Now that the Swedish public was able to see and discuss some of the drawings for which he had originally been convicted, prevailing opinion turned firmly in his favor. Medium contributor Andersson even interviewed mangaka Arino Hiroshi, whose work was among the 12 cleared illustrations. He was shocked that such a thing could happen in liberal Sweden and observed that “it is central that there is no concrete victim.”

Lundström appealed his conviction for the remaining 39 images to the Supreme Court. As in the U.S., a decision from the highest court had the potential to affect not only the case at hand, but also the constitutionality of the law under which Lundström was prosecuted. But in the end, even the Supreme Court found a way to absolve him while preserving the legal definition of child porn which encompasses drawn images.

That's kind of important

Actually, I stand corrected - I took you assertion as true a few pages back but it seems that's not the case at all. Here's what the CBLDF has to say about Handley, this was 2 years ago:

CBLDF said:
Since Handley struck a plea deal on advice of his legal counsel, his case never even went to trial and that provision of the PROTECT Act remains untested in U.S. courts. But the Swedish case is a potent reminder that even top justices who are well-acquainted with the principles of free speech may skirt around those ideals when faced with the strong taboo on child porn.

So apparently, Judge James E. Gritzner's rulings that two parts of the PROTECT act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional are not considered binding precedent and the act still stands.
 
Last edited:

iconmaster

Banned
lmao Canada stays losing

After some further research, it does seem virtual child porn is legal in the US. Weird to think about.


I don't know how this would play out with a site accessible internationally. The Harry Potter sex article would seem to be legal within the US, where Kotaku is based, but illegal in some other countries from which the article could be (and surely was) accessed.
 
Last edited:

Helios

Member
After some further research, it does seem virtual child porn is legal in the US. Weird to think about.

I don't remember the exact details but I think there was some debate going on recently about this subject with US and Japan claiming that this is just art at the end of the day.
 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
lol once anyone starts relying on "It isn't illegal" for any argument you know they are on some shit.

if all we can hope from media companies is that they just don't break the law, then we are utterly fucked.
 
Last edited:

Komatsu

Member

That's always the catch, isn't it?

Regardless of the legality of it, as someone whose best friend is a public defender: If your SO accuses you of being an abuser/you fail to pay alimony/you get in a scrape with the law/etc. you do not want to be caught with drawing of kids having sex in your hard drive anywhere in the United States of America.
 

Whitesnake

Banned
LOL, sure. From which European country would like an example? How about a Swedish translator that was prosecuted for having 59 images of lolicon in his possession? He was prosecuted, sentenced in three different courts. Kis case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they found a way of "absolving" him since he was a professional translator but while still maintaining at least one of his images was "realistic" and thus child pornography.

I mean the fact that they were just willing to let it go kinda indicates that they don’t treat it the same way as child porn, right?

Unless they’re willing to let actual, real pedophiles go too. Then that’s a whole other can of worms.

I don't know how this would play out with a site accessible internationally. The Harry Potter sex article would seem to be legal within the US, where Kotaku is based, but illegal in some other countries from which the article could be (and surely was) accessed.

I think in such countries it would be “possession” (i.e. downloading) of the offending material that would tick it over into illegal territory.

At least, I would hope briefly accessing a website wouldn’t be able to get you sent to prison.
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
I don't remember the exact details but I think there was some debate going on recently about this subject with US and Japan claiming that this is just art at the end of the day.

???
 

Whitesnake

Banned
That's always the catch, isn't it?

Regardless of the legality of it, as someone whose best friend is a public defender: If your SO accuses you of being an abuser/you fail to pay alimony/you get in a scrape with the law/etc. you do not want to be caught with drawing of kids having sex in your hard drive anywhere in the United States of America.

And there it is.

You don’t care about legality. You care about demonizing people.

I don’t think anyone is going to tell you this stuff isn’t weird and creepy, because it is.

But it’s not the same as child porn, my guy.
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
And there it is.

You don’t care about legality. You care about demonizing people.

I don’t think anyone is going to tell you this stuff isn’t weird and creepy, because it is.

But it’s not the same as child porn, my guy.
Yeah, I'm not sure where some posters here are saying users are defending CP either.
 

Helios

Member

???
No, it was from this year but it was still from the UN.
I think it was this but I don't remember where I saw US/JAP's response



NVM, I found it
 
Last edited:

Komatsu

Member
And there it is.

You don’t care about legality.

You asked for examples. You were given two - one from Canada, one from Sweden. There are others, which you can google and find pretty easily.

You care about demonizing people. I don’t think anyone is going to tell you this stuff isn’t weird and creepy, because it is.

But it’s not the same as child porn, my guy.

Frankly, I'm not sure where this irrelevant digression is coming from. At no point did I demonize drawings or even call it creepy - I don't really care about it. The point is, and stands, that illustrations are considered CP in dozens of jurisdictions. You've already been proven that's the case, so I guess I am done.
 
Last edited:
“Well these western countries have classified drawn underage porn as child potion and this it’s illegal” is a lame Appeal to Authority fallacy. It has no bearing on whether underage cartoon drawings count as child porn as it is not an argument based on logic. Citing examples of Man X is arrested for underage cartoon porn in Country Y is not an argument. That’s confirmation bias towards an institution that happens to have same views as you.

The characters are not drawn to scale which already makes it rather obvious that they are not real. The reason why child pornography is illegal in the first place is because children are not capable of consenting to sex or sexual activities. It puts serious negative consequences to their mental development. This logic can not apply to underage cartoon porn as those characters aren’t real and human rights only apply to real people.
 

Airola

Member
hypothetically speaking, if someone started jacking off to Misty when they were 11 years old, and continued to do so well into adulthood, did they start out as 11-year-old sick fucks or did they become sick fucks somewhere along the way? If so, when? (Asking for a friend, I'm more of a May guy)

I've been wondering that if you have sex with an underaged girl while being underaged yourself, BUT decade or two or three later still remember that fondly, are you a pedo? Is it permitted to get aroused by some old memories of having sex while being underage?

Just to be clear, I lost my virginity when I was 21 so I'm off the hook anyway, but still asking for science.
 

Mista

Banned
Miura drawing Puck is CP apparently.
Are you asking for a fight? It seems to me that you are

69330839_2363357500575666_123612856084195035_n.jpg
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
Are you asking for a fight? It seems to me that you are

69330839_2363357500575666_123612856084195035_n.jpg
WTF MISTA IS POSTING CP! GET HIM!

I honestly think we never got the Lost Children chapter adaptation due to all the monster naked kids getting murdered and the shitstorm it would ensue.
 

Shagger

Banned
I'm not a legal expert and it may differ between countries, but as far as I know, possession and the creating of drawn CP or CP that is in some way artificially rendered is not against the law. To hold "real" CP you're a benefactor of a crime, that crime being the sexual exploitation of minor, thus why it's in violation of the law. When the material is drawn or animated as opposed to photographed or filmed, there has been no exploration of a minor. There is no crime to be benefactor of. I think I speak for all of us when I say we don't like, but like or not, this is not illegal.

However, Kotaku could still find themselves in alot of legal trouble because they published it publicly. This material does promote and/or depict harmful acts/behaviours that would not be protected by free speach in the same sort of way that trying to incite racial hatred is not covered by free speach. It almost certainly violates laws and codes of conduct for journalisum as well. It may also, rather amusingly, not be protected by the terms of fair use under the DMCA, so if the original copyright holders wanted to sue they may have a case, but for some reason I don't see the coming to claim these images are theirs anytime soon.

But the moral backlash will surely be enough to sink them anyway, so they've done and undoubtedly stupid and very moral wrong thing here.
 
Last edited:

Gun Animal

Member
I'm not a legal expert and it may differ between countries, but as far as I know, possession and the creating of drawn CP or CP that is in some way artificially rendered is not against the law. To hold "real" CP you're a benefactor of a crime, that crime being the sexual exploitation of minor, thus why it's in violation of the law. When the material is drawn or animated as opposed to photographed or filmed, there has been no exploration of a minor. There is no crime to be benefactor of. I think I speak for all of us when I say we don't like, but like or not, this is not illegal.

However, Kotaku could still find themselves in alot of legal trouble because they published it publicly. This material does promote and/or depict harmful acts/behaviours that would not be protected by free speach in the same sort of way that trying to incite racial hatred is not covered by free speach. It almost certainly violates laws and codes of conduct for journalisum as well. It may also, rather amusingly, not be protected by the terms of fair use under the DMCA, so if the original copyright holders wanted to sue they may have a case, but for some reason I don't see the coming to claim these images are theirs anytime soon.

But the moral backlash will surely be enough to sink them anyway, so they've done and undoubtedly stupid and very moral wrong thing here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment, as it should be.
 
Last edited:

Shagger

Banned
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment, as it should be.

First, it really shouldn't be

Second, it really isn't . Saying and/or doing something that deliberately threatens another's overriding rights, like the right to live, right to vote ect, is not protected by free speach. That is, in fact, a crime.
 
Last edited:

Gun Animal

Member
First, it really shouldn't be

Second, it really isn't . Saying and./or doing something that deliberately threatens another's overriding rights, like the right to live, right to vote ect, is not protected by free speach. That is, in fact, a crime.
Democracy was a mistake, nobody should have the right to vote. (especially not you, though. christ.)
 

JSoup

Banned
So, did someone bring up that guy in the States that was sentenced for having child porn, but that's not actually why he was sentenced, the media purposefully reported it wrong?
Lot of legal blogs and such were going on about it at the time.
Guy ordered a bunch of lolicon or something from Japan, customs opened the package and found it, sent cops after him for buying child porn. Neither the court nor the DA could come up with an actual on the books law as to what he did being actually illegal (cartoons of not real people and all that). They eventually charged him with shipping lewd content via USPS (which is technically illegal, but hasn't been seriously enforced for decades prior) and just let the media say "yeah it was child porn, fuck me right".
 

decisions

Member
First, it really shouldn't be

Second, it really isn't . Saying and/or doing something that deliberately threatens another's overriding rights, like the right to live, right to vote ect, is not protected by free speach. That is, in fact, a crime.

What do you mean “saying or doing”?

The acts of saying and doing something are very different, stop trying to equalize them.
 

Hexa

Member
First, it really shouldn't be

Second, it really isn't . Saying and/or doing something that deliberately threatens another's overriding rights, like the right to live, right to vote ect, is not protected by free speach. That is, in fact, a crime.

Assuming we're still talking about the US, I don't know what legal standard you're referring to. The closest I can think of is that incitements to immediate illegal action or an immediate breach of peace are not protected by the 1st amendment. Key word there is immediate, in that advocating for something long term or implemented as policy is protected speech. As an extreme example, speech telling people to beat up a certain group of people if they try to vote would not be protected but speech advocating for the government to take away the right to vote from said group would be protected speech. The primary precedent for this is Brandenburg v. Ohio. Hate speech doesn't have a legal definition in the US, but is generally just seen as speech that is abusive and bigoted. As long as it isn't also explicitly threatening it would be protected under the first amendment.
 
Last edited:

iconmaster

Banned
Saying and/or doing something that deliberately threatens another's overriding rights, like the right to live, right to vote ect, is not protected by free speach. That is, in fact, a crime.

How do I say something that threatens another’s right to live?

You seem confused.
 
That's the lowest of the lowest of Kotaku ever accomplished and I thought that it couldn't get any worse .
It's alway about the sexualization of kids the endgame of this bullshit. Being depicted or not. Always.

B3VbUlC.gif

Yet in a sense, what Kotaku has somewhat done now is in a way is attempting to normalize the sexual objectification of children. The article is all about the author sitting down and watching cartoon kiddy porn this like it's a normal activity. Posts graphic fucking images then Kotaku takes down the images but leaves the article up.

There's hardly any backlash or anything about. Just because this shit exists in the fringes of the internet doesn't mean it needs to promoted on a mainstream video game website.

Then to top it off, JASON SCHREIR IS FUCKING ACTING LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED.

THIS FUCKING ASSCLOWN CALLS PEOPLE WHO LIKE DRAGONS CROWN PEDOPHILES WHEN THE COMPANY HE WORKS FOR IS PROMOTING CARTOON KIDDY PORN.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yet in a sense, what Kotaku has somewhat done now is in a way is attempting to normalize the sexual objectification of children. The article is all about the author sitting down and watching cartoon kiddy porn this like it's a normal activity. Posts graphic fucking images then Kotaku takes down the images but leaves the article up.

There's hardly any backlash or anything about. Just because this shit exists in the fringes of the internet doesn't mean it needs to promoted on a mainstream video game website.

Then to top it off, JASON SCHREIR IS FUCKING ACTING LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED.

THIS FUCKING ASSCLOWN CALLS PEOPLE WHO LIKE DRAGONS CROWN PEDOPHILES WHEN THE COMPANY HE WORKS FOR IS PROMOTING CARTOON KIDDY PORN.
Schreier prides himself on digging for dirty laundry at companies trying to find nuggets of negatively.

The guy even spends his time on small indie studios like Nicalis. An expose on a stupid Kotaku article should be a slam dunk for one of his investigative pieces on CP since it's a fellow Kotaku coworker who did the article.

Let's see how ballsy he is on a Kotaku headliner.
 

MizzyLone

Member
So she just watched some CP with her friend and none of them were once like "Is this ok?". After they were done rubbing each other off, one of them was like "Boy am i going to have sooo fun writing an article about the animated CP that i just watched with my friend." MF she got paid to write an article about animated CP how messed up is this world we are living in? SMH
 
Schreier prides himself on digging for dirty laundry at companies trying to find nuggets of negatively.

The guy even spends his time on small indie studios like Nicalis. An expose on a stupid Kotaku article should be a slam dunk for one of his investigative pieces on CP since it's a fellow Kotaku coworker who did the article.

Let's see how ballsy he is on a Kotaku headliner.

It's a stupid article but things like this have power with the way it's worded. The article acts like watching this crap is a "normal" activity.

This is always how this shits starts. It starts slowly to test the waters and then it builds up.

That author could have watched and made an article about any other animated porn with adult pop culture characters. No one would have cared.

Yet she very specifically wrote an article about multiple animated porns that all featured characters depicted as underage. Think about that.
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
I'm sure that's good enough for REEEEera. They're probably willing to jump through numerous mental hoops to avoid having to cancel their idol Schreier
 
Last edited:

Chittagong

Gold Member
As this is a rapidly developing situation please read the updated thread mark as it had been updated to reflect the latest developments

Old thread mark

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 blaming the readers who felt uncomfortable with child porn and removing the pictures. 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.

Updated thread mark

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 and removing the pictures. 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.
 
It's a stupid article but things like this have power with the way it's worded. The article acts like watching this crap is a "normal" activity.

This is always how this shits starts. It starts slowly to test the waters and then it builds up.

That author could have watched and made an article about any other animated porn with adult pop culture characters. No one would have cared.

Yet she very specifically wrote an article about multiple animated porns that all featured characters depicted as underage. Think about that.

Can I guess who the writer is without clicking on it?

I think it is the same one who did the Article about Nintendo Characters Vaginas with Cakes in them. (Laura Kate Dale or something like that)

Would not be shocked if that is who it is.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom