Support NeoGAF

[OrlanisWorks]

Gross, but as long as it isn't resulting in children being harmed or used, it's just gross.

 

[Paracelsus]

Should video games that depict and glorify criminal activities such as murder be banned? =\

Hatred was asked to be banned for how hateful and gratuitous violence was. By the same token, porn has various degrees of violence too, some of which seems to be more than realistic. Sometimes I wonder if the people punching monitors at the 10000 yr old loli demon wearing a thong have ever glanced at just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

 

[JDSN]

Yes, child pornography is a broad term that goes beyond pictures and it includes drawings of real and fictional kids. And no, just because there is no specific study that says that your loli shit is bad, the fact that is included in the child porn category should tell you what you need to know.

I do not understand the sudden increase of child porn arguments in this board, was there a sudden change of demographics or something?

 

[Cloyster]

Yes, child pornography is a broad term that goes beyond pictures and it includes drawings of real and fictional kids. And no, just because there is specific study that says that your loli shit is bad, the fact that is included as child porn should tell you everything you need to know.

I do not understand the sudden increase of child porn arguments in this board, was there a sudden change of demographics or something?

in America, no, drawings are NOT including in the legal definition of child porn. I just linked that.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

 

[Coroner]

What the fuck.

Yes.

 

[Pegosaurus]

specifically it says "indistinguishable from an actual minor"

So, I wonder if very realistic CGI child porn would be deemed illegal.

I assumed they meant an existing minor, and not what an actual minor could look like, especially since they use the word identifiable later on as well.

Personally, I don't think CGI child porn should be illegal. Who is it hurting?

Speaking of CGI children, have you ever heard of Sweetie?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24818769

 

[sarcastor]

in America, no, drawings are NOT including in the legal definition of child porn. I just linked that.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

Also you can't take photos of minors in sexually explicit positions, even if they are clothed. So no 16 year old girls in lingerie for you!

What if you've got a kid posing for you?

Then you're not using your imagination and a real minor is involved so its illegal. Actual crime vs thought crime. There's a big difference.

 

[StudioTan]

That's like asking if people who draw images of murders should be arrested. No.

We depict murder and gore all the time in movies and TV too, no one gets arrested for that either. It's fake.

As disturbing as it is as long as you don't have a real child posing for you it's not illegal.

 

[JaeCryo]

I wish... but, no you can't. It's technically art. Where do you stop after that?

 

[nynt9]

If you draw a stick figure with a speech bubble saying it's underage and naked, does that count as drawn child porn? Where do you draw the line?

 

[MHWilliams]

in America, no, drawings are NOT including in the legal definition of child porn. I just linked that.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

From your own link, under Obscenity:

18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

Obscenity Involving Minors

Federal statues specifically prohibit obscenity involving minors, and convicted offenders generally face harsher statutory penalties than if the offense involved only adults.

Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

In addition, Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene. This statute offers an alternative 2-pronged test for obscenity with a lower threshold than the Miller test. The matter involving minors can be deemed obscene if it (i) depicts an image that is, or appears to be a minor engaged in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse and (ii) if the image lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. A first time offender convicted under this statute faces fines and at least 5 years to a maximum of 20 years in prison.

 

[Cloyster]

From your own link, under Obscenity:

18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

Huh. Then how come no one in America ever gets charged?

 

[Aaronology]

That's like asking if people who draw images of murders should be arrested. No.

We depict murder and gore all the time in movies and TV too, no one gets arrested for that either. It's fake.

As disturbing as it is as long as you don't have a real child posing for you it's not illegal.

This is the second thread we've had on this issue in the last month, and again I am finding myself shocked by all the people on an internet video game forum being so quick to advocate criminalizing victim-less (albeit taboo) art. If anyone suggested Rockstar devs should be imprisoned for creating a game that allows and encourages players to graphically commit all manner of homicide they'd be laughed off GAF.

 

[Ferrio]

Huh. Then how come no one in America ever gets charged?

Victimless crime, so no one really gives a damn. Better things to devote resources toward.

 

[Henkka]

It would be strange being able to commit a crime sitting by yourself with nothing but a pen and paper... So no. But I guess sale and distribution gets more complicated.

 

[MHWilliams]

Huh. Then how come no one in America ever gets charged?

United States v. Dwight Edwin Whorley

United States v. Christopher S. Handley

Essentially, in the US, you're just leaning on the fact that no one is turning you in. Think of it like jaywalking. People have better shit to worry about.

 

[Condom]

This is the second thread we've had on this issue in the last month, and again I am finding myself shocked by all the people on an internet video game forum being so quick to advocate criminalizing victim-less (albeit taboo) art. If anyone suggested Rockstar devs should be imprisoned for creating a game that allows and encourages players to graphically commit all manner of homicide they'd be laughed off GAF.

You can't blame people for hating against child porn

 

[Johndoey]

As other have said as long as a real kid ain't in the mix in some untoward way who the hell cares what someone draws its their business.

You can't blame people for hating against child porn

We can blame people for taking it to a totally illogical extreme.

 

[stump sock]

I do not understand the sudden increase of child porn arguments in this board, was there a sudden change of demographics or something?

I have no idea but I don't have the energy to deal with them anymore.

a fucking lot of people are super willing to fight for things that fall 1 cm over the line into "legal" territory though and that's worrying

 

[Cloyster]

You can't blame people for hating against child porn

You know that isn't what he said. He's talking about a supposedly victimless crime. Not child porn.

 

[FormallyMegadrive]

Can we charge anyone who's drawn Sonic or Disney princess porn? Nearly every character in Sonic is underage and nearly every Disney princess (especially the ones who seem to be the most sexualised) are underage.

Spoiler

I mean snow white is supposed to be 14. Jasmine 16.

 

[Joyful]

uh no, they are drawings
unless based on actual photos or something
what happened to your friend who got arrested exactly?

 

[Puruzi]

huh? no

that would be stupid

 

[Extollere]

I've probably drawn questionable things, who knows... You wanna know what age they were? Too bad, cuz fuck if I know man I just draw them I don't pay attention to that ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[striferser]

Nope. Why are we defending the right of fictional character?

 

[True Savior]

Off course not. Unless you live in a totalitarian society.

 

[Joyful]

Nope. Why are we defending the right of fictional character?

corporations have the same rights as people in america
fictional characters might as well be next

 

[KazenY2J]

That just seems pointless to do honestly.
Arresting someone over a drawing?

 

[sensui-tomo]

uh no, they are drawings
what happened to your friend who got arrested exactly?

I just know he left Japan and came into Ontario and he was randomly searched and they found some doujin in his luggage. (not sure which doujin but its being treated as a CP charge) He isnt a close friend, but an acquaintance i met through college. Again this discussion was made due to recent events i've seen and learn (that school scandal, finding out on google that Rebecca Sugar made Ed edd and eddy yaoi while she was younger , and my buddy getting arrested, to finally make a thread on this discussion.. (i have more but i'm waiting for the right time for other threads as those ones have been made by others... and they went to shit instantly.)

 

[Chariot]

corporations have the same rights as people in america
fictional characters might as well be next

But wait. If fictional people have the same rights as real people, does that include the right to marry?

 

[Izuna]

We just don't have any evidence as to what it does to an individual. That being said, I would encourage platforms to not encourage or actively allow such material. After all, we are talking about online and events to be only places stuff like this exists. I would personally take the step to ban any sales of such material.

Anyway, in the UK it is considered child porn. I agree with that law.

 

[B_Spooky13]

As long as there isn't a actual person being harmed then no nobody should be charged as gross as it might be.

 

[Symphonia]

If you're not hurting anyone but you should be put on some kind of watch-list.

You may as well send out leaflets to his neighbours, warning them a peadophile lives in the area. Unless an actual child is involved, no action should be taken. It's gross, but it's not illegal. If we start charging people for it, then a whole tin of ugly, messy worms is opened about depictions in all mediums of art.

 

[Joyful]

I just know he left Japan and came into Ontario and he was randomly searched and they found some doujin in his luggage. (not sure which doujin but its being treated as a CP charge) He isnt a close friend, but an acquaintance i met through college. Again this discussion was made due to recent events i've seen and learn (that school scandal, finding out on google that Rebecca Sugar made Ed edd and eddy yaoi while she was younger , and my buddy getting arrested, to finally make a thread on this discussion.. (i have more but i'm waiting for the right time for other threads as those ones have been made by others... and they went to shit instantly.)

ah canada
they have silly laws up there

 

[V_Arnold]

corporations have the same rights as people in america
fictional characters might as well be next

Yeah, no, mass murdering civilians and opponent gunman is not going away in fiction and games anytime soon.

 

[EGM1966]

Just for the drawing? No. But I'd want a nice range of charitable offences ready to be applied if they remotely try and utilise said drawing in any unfit way.

 

[stump sock]

It's gross, but it's not illegal. If we start charging people for it, then a whole tin of ugly, messy worms is opened about depictions in all mediums of art.

it's illegal in canada, the UK, and arguably the US. it's not a hypothetical situation. it is literally considered child pornography in those countries.

 

[MrBadger]

it's horribly unpleasant, but no actual children are being abused.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

That would be a stupid thing to do, so no.

Your friend shouldn't have been arrested too, what the hell.

 

[Astarte]

Nah.

 

[KirbYuuYuu]

That would be a stupid thing to do, so no.

Your friend shouldn't have been arrested too, what the hell.

Spoiler

/s

 

[Chariot]

it's illegal in canada, the UK, and arguably the US. it's not a hypothetical situation. it is literally considered child pornography in those countries.

It shouldn't be. Murder in fiction doesn't equal snuff.

 

[Nowise10]

Of course not. If it is fiction, it should be legal.

 

[James Scott]

Here's a video on "why do you care about the rights of a fictional character" thing
https://youtu.be/Owa5KcQ9Mxc
Might be worth a watch to understand where people against it are coming from.

 

[Jeffolation]

Absolutely.

 

[Aaronology]

You can't blame people for hating against child porn

Except this is not about child porn any more than a discussion on the legality of violent video games would be about actual murder.

 

[Galang]

Depends on context. Berserk has a child rape scene which is horrific to read but it plays a big role in the character. Loli is a department I have no experience in to comment but child pornography that is glamorised or drawn for sexual entertainment should be dealt with as if it was illegal.

Came to say this exact thing. If it's for the sake of the story like in Berserk then I don't have a problem with it. Especially because in that case it does play an important role in the story. I can't imagine many situations where drawing a child naked otherwise is necessary. It shouldn't be drawn just because

 

[MHWilliams]

it's illegal in canada, the UK, and arguably the US. it's not a hypothetical situation. it is literally considered child pornography in those countries.

As the other poster pointed out, it's not considered child porn here in the US, but yes, you can be prosecuted for it.

 

[DeaviL]

From your own link, under Obscenity:

18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

It clearly says "involving minors" you don't create a human being when you draw.
You do involve a minor when you use them as a likeness for your drawing.

A drawing is in and of itself, nothing more than a drawing.

 

[Cereal KiIIer]

No.

Are they any victim of this? Then it shoudn't be a crime.