Support NeoGAF

[stump sock]

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

hence the "arguably," but we went over this the last time this came up.

 

[Aureon]

Unless real children are being abused to produce said drawings, no.

Spoiler

I'd freely admit it WOULD be nice though. To be free of that scourge.

 

[Jenov]

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.

This is a good argument against. The point is not to normalize the ideas behind drawing child porn.

 

[BocoDragon]

This is a good argument against. The point is not to normalize the ideas behind drawing child porn.

Which is also a Jack Thomson style argument against GTA.

 

[Azriell]

As everyone else said, no. It's gross and pretty immoral IMO, but it doesn't hurt anyone.

I wonder what effect this type of material would have on child abuse occurrences. We've all heard that readily available pornography reduces the number of rapes. Is it possible this material might give some people a release that prevents them from taking real action against real children? My first thought was that exposure to this material could potentially create more predators, but I think you already have to have those pedophilic inclinations to view it and be aroused by it. Is it possible this material could benefit society?

 

[SugarDaddy]

Unless a real child is involved, no. That's just censorship for the sake of censoring, at the end of the days it's just a fucking drawing.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

If the porn industry can sexualize eating ass, then they can sexualize children and I don't think it's safe. Drawing children for yourself, OK, can't really ban people for what they write in their diary or think in their head. But you shouldn't be allowed to show it to other people.

 

[Jenov]

Which is also a Jack Thomson style argument against GTA.

Sexualizing drawn children vs video game violence. Violent video games have been studied and not proven to create more violence, but where are the studies for the spread of loli and drawn child porn?

 

[Speevy]

Which is also a Jack Thomson style argument against GTA.

If you want to drive down a video game street killing civilians and cops, then the creators of the game must have made that activity fun, right? However, immediately after, you realize that you can't do such things in real life.

If you want to have sex with a video game child, then the creators of the game must have made that activity fun, right? Well, right after, obviously you don't go out and do that, because you also realize it's wrong.

What's the difference then? In the second example, you internalize it. Murder doesn't creep into your consciousness like sex does. 99.9999% will never commit a sex crime, but if you have a bunch of grown men even thinking about sexing children or talking about sexing children, isn't that worth stamping out?

 

[Joyful]

This is a good argument against. The point is not to normalize the ideas behind drawing child porn.

entertaining video but it lost me about 5 mins in
first off liking loli does not make someone a pedo (2d is not 3d)
second his idea against "normalizing" sounds like censorship
if someone watches Kodomo no Jikan and then rapes a kid is it the shows fault
or the rapist

 

[Kangi]

No. It's a drawing.

The very idea of practically applying and enforcing a law against "underaged drawings" sounds like an absurd nightmare, even ignoring how on earth you apply an age to a drawing in the first place.

Cracking down on stuff like the loli doujin market and limiting its sale and pervasiveness is absolutely fine by me. But the second we're considering a tweenage girl scribbling smut of her favorite cartoon character in her notebook a child pornographer, I'm out. I'll never support that thought-crimey line of thinking, no matter how much the content unsettles me.

 

[ChouGoku]

Lol fuck no, its a drawing. Are you going to put away kids who shoot others with finger guns?

 

[Sheroking]

As disturbing as I find it, I get SUPER uncomfortable when we talk about prosecuting people for drawing pictures.

That's probably infringing on freedom of expression a little too much.

 

[Chezzymann]

This is a good argument against. The point is not to normalize the ideas behind drawing child porn.

The problem is that when you start outlawing child porn drawings for the sake of keeping it from being normalized the waters get very murky on whether the character is a kid or an adult, depending on the style it was drawn in. I seriously have no idea how you could enforce this besides arbitrarily saying that its a kid which could lead to far worse problems than what he's trying to prevent

 

[Symphonia]

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.

OK, change it to it shouldn't be illegal. If we're going to start charging people for drawing loli, then we should start charging people who paint sexual scenes that depict rape, or arrest authors of murder novels for inciting snuff. There's a very fine line between illegal and immoral. Drawing loli is on the latter side of the line.

 

[Cranster]

I'd rather have authorities focus on people who actually do harm to real children.

 

[rpmurphy]

Can drawn characters have consent?

 

[James Scott]

This is a good argument against. The point is not to normalize the ideas behind drawing child porn.

Yeah, the point should be that fapping off to it or making it to fap off shouldn't be acceptable. If people make a lot of this content and a lot of people consume it one could think that they're normal with their destructive thoughts.
I guess this argument wouldn't call for the banning of said content, but that it's not ok. No need to defend it as "art" or anything.

 

[Metal-Geo]

What people draw in their own (private) time is none of my concern.

Distributing those drawings, however.... Hmmm I dunno.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

No, I'd rather not have legal systems wasted on something so incredibly fucking stupid. If these drawings don't involve real children being harmed in any way then there is NOTHING wrong with what the artists are doing.

Drawing violence doesn't injure actual people, drawing sex doesn't rape actual people, and drawing children doesn't harm actual children.

I don't think some of you quite understand why child porn is so fucked up, even for someone just viewing it. Because to create it real children are exploited and harmed.

 

[Jenov]

The problem is that when you start outlawing child porn drawings for the sake of keeping it from being normalized the waters get very murky on whether the character is a kid or an adult, depending on the style it was drawn in. I seriously have no idea how you could enforce this besides arbitrarily saying that its a kid which could lead to far worse problems than what he's trying to prevent

It's already being enforced in countries like Canada and the UK? I fail to see any problem or huge outcry because of such laws. There is room for literary interpretation and "art" (as blurry as that can be).

Someones personal artwork/drawing that isn't being distributed around for sexual enjoyment may still be considered obscene, but it's mostly unknown and not affecting others.

However, creating a series of drawn explicit child porn books or cartoons and selling them and perpetuating such an idea because "it's legal so it's okay" is a bit more slippery on the morality slope. There haven't been any studies on the negative consequences though, so I cannot say for sure... but considering the subject matter I think i would rather err on the side of caution and agree with countries like the U.K and Canada that ban it.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Sounds like an amazing waste of both time and money that would be better spent fighting actual child abuse.

 

[Nose Master]

Nah. It's an outlet for pedos that doesn't harm children.

 

[BocoDragon]

Sexualizing drawn children vs video game violence. Violent video games have been studied and not proven to create more violence, but where are the studies for the spread of loli and drawn child porn?

That would be useful to know.

If you want to drive down a video game street killing civilians and cops, then the creators of the game must have made that activity fun, right? However, immediately after, you realize that you can't do such things in real life.

If you want to have sex with a video game child, then the creators of the game must have made that activity fun, right? Well, right after, obviously you don't go out and do that, because you also realize it's wrong.

What's the difference then? In the second example, you internalize it. Murder doesn't creep into your consciousness like sex does. 99.9999% will never commit a sex crime, but if you have a bunch of grown men even thinking about sexing children or talking about sexing children, isn't that worth stamping out?

I'll take your argument to be that sexual content is more philic and can lead to mental fetishes more readily than violence.

But regardless of this distinction you are making, crime and violence certainly has its appeal, many people are prone to engaging with it, and it has been asserted many times that violent media encourages, or at least normalizes it.

I'd rather be consistent in my approach to both of them. Sexual and violent taboos in fiction have their appeal to people who would not actually engage in such activity. Their effect on real world instances of the act is negligible, and fringe. Fiction should not be criminalized.

Or, if we are criminalizing fictional acts of pedophilia, I think fictional acts of violence are logically on the table too. It's consistent.

 

[Sou Da]

Nope, I do wonder about the gray areas of this though. For instance:

There's a really skeevy dude that gets commissioned to do porn of people. Usually people the commissioner doesn't like such as Zoe Quinn, he's recently starting doing comissions of children as well.

There's also an infamous game created by a German imageboard in which you're a police officer who can end up having sex with drawn versions of real child models.

How do the people that view this as 2d =/= 3d feel about these types of situations?

 

[Chezzymann]

It's already being enforced in countries like Canada and the UK? I fail to see any problem or huge outcry because of such laws.

Someones personal artwork/drawing that isn't being distributed around for sexual enjoyment may be still be considered obscene, but it's mostly unknown and not affecting others.

However, creating a series of drawn explicit child porn books or cartoons and selling them and perpetuating such an idea because "it's legal so it's okay" is a bit more slippery on the morality slope. There haven't been any studies on the negative consequences though, so I cannot say for sure... but considering the subject matter I think i would rather err on the side of caution and agree with countries like the U.K and Canada that ban it.

How do you even tell if it's a kid or not if the artist doesn't say how old they are? How big their head is? Their height? Are officials just looking across the web and arresting people because they think the people they're drawing nude are children? I honestly don't see how you could do this right unless you mostly just focus on the popular loli stuff coming from Japan or whatever the western equivalents are

 

[Simply Sarah]

Well, if we're talking about in the U.S. in a legal sense then, as others have already show, drawings of minors in sexual situations can't be illegal purely on those grounds. They'd need to be judged obscene first, since that's one of the few First Amendment exceptions that exist. Laws can be made against obscene images and the previously pointed out 18 U.S.C. § 1466A exists (although I honestly feel it's bad law).

From a personal standpoint, I don't think making or possessing drawings themselves should be made illegal. I don't like obscenity laws in general. For one, they tend to be extremely arbitrary and subjective unless they're made rather draconian. I also have very broad ideas about protecting speech.

All that said, just because something isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal doesn't mean we can't judge people for it. Being turned on by sexual images of little kids, even if they're drawn, is still super creepy and isn't something I'd just overlook. I'd be wary about leaving kids with such a person even if I don't think they should be in jail.

 

[IISANDERII]

Imagination shouldn't be censored or banned in any way. So no

Serial killers who captured their victims and meticulously tortured them to death didn't come up with their plan spontaneously most of the time.

 

[Empty]

drawing child porn isn't something that causes any direct harm, if anything it takes money away from the creation of real life child porn that inherently violates children in its creation and provides an outlet for pedophiles that's safe

you can't just pretend that pedophilia doesn't exist in the population and legislate against everything related to it because it makes you feel icky and you want to forget about it, ultimately that doesn't help protect children, which is fundamental, or protect people with a very horrible mental illness from themselves (everyone should be treated with dignity). it's just gesture politics. look how against pedos i am aren't i so moral. you need to face it genuinely and seriously.

 

[Pegosaurus]

drawing child porn isn't something that causes any direct harm, if anything it takes money away from the creation of real life child porn that inherently violates children in its creation and provides an outlet for pedophiles that's safe

you can't just pretend that pedophilia doesn't exist in the population and legislate against everything related to it because it makes you feel icky and you want to forget about it, ultimately that doesn't help protect children, which is fundamental, or protect people with a very horrible mental illness from themselves (everyone should be treated with dignity). it's just gesture politics. look how against pedos i am aren't i so moral. you need to face it genuinely and seriously.

whilst i agree with your general sentiment, why is Pedophilia a mental illness? Is being attracted to dead people a mental illness? Is being attracted to harming or being harmed by someone else a mental illness?

As far as I'm concerned, being attracted to children is just a fetish that happens to have negative real life consequences, so any alternatives to real children are a ok in my book.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Serial killers who captured their victims and meticulously tortured them to death didn't come up with their plan spontaneously most of the time.

His point still stands and yours is still no more valid...you can't judge people based on thoughts. It's ridiculous and would set a dangerous Minority Report-esque precedent

 

[sensui-tomo]

What people draw in their own (private) time is none of my concern.

Distributing those drawings, however.... Hmmm I dunno.

Distributing in this case = Uploading to the internet/blogs/whatever. (which was for the Rebecca sugar case when she was younger*)

 

[MHWilliams]

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.

Perhaps you should look up the related case I linked. Maybe those gentlemen were prosecuted because the judges misunderstood too?

Once again:

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.

Hell, I even linked two cases:

Handley's Case

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/2...f-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/

Gaiman's currently supporting the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund's fight to defend Handley, who was arrested in Iowa for possession of obscene material based on his private collection, which included lolicon and yaoi manga. Lolicon focuses on the Lolita complex, where yaoi features male homosexual romance for a primarily female audience.

"They found his manga, and found some objectionable panels," Gaiman said. "He's been arrested for having some drawings of rude things in manga. I'm sorry, but if you went through my comic collection, you could arrest me if you're going to start doing that. It's just wrong."

"There is explicit sex in yaoi comics," Handley's lawyer Eric Chase told MTV. "And the men are drawn in a very androgynous style, which has the effect of making them look really young. There's a real taboo in Japan about showing pubic hair, so they're all drawn without it, which also makes them look young. So what concerned the authorities were the depictions of children in explicit sexual situations that they believed to be obscene. But there are no actual children. It was all very crude images from a comic book."

"Do you remember there was a law passed prohibiting making things that simulated child pornography, even if the things actually weren't?" Gaiman asked, referring to part of the PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1466A). (As in situations where an of-age female is in a pornographic situation, but "where she's being presented as if she were 13.") "They said, 'For heaven's sake, we're not talking about art. We're only talking about stuff where you're leading people to believe they're looking at real child porn,'" said Gaiman.

Still, despite the argument that there was no actual children portrayed in the manga, Handley faces felony obsenity charges, including the receipt and possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children. The case is going to trial on December 2. The jury will determine whether the manga is obscene or if it has artistic value. If found guilty of the charges against him, Handley faces a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-10-10/iowa-collector-charged-for-allegedly-obscene-manga

CBLDF's United Defense Group team, led by Eric Chase, has successfully petitioned District Judge Gritzner to drop some of Handley's charges and rule parts of a controversial law unconstitutional. Handley was initially charged under the United States Code, which was amended by section 504 of the PROTECT Act to prohibit distribution or possession of "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting," that —

• ‘(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
• ’(B) is obscene; or

• '(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

• '(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

Gritzner ruled that the last two clauses were unconstitutional as they restricted protected speech. Handley still faces charges under the obscenity clause, if the court determines that the material meets the Supreme Court's Miller Test. The Miller Test dictates that material is only obscene if a jury determines that it meets all of the following three criteria:

whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

And the results:

Christopher Handley, the Iowa man on trial for possessing manga "drawings of children being sexually abused," was sentenced on Thursday to six months in prison. Following this sentence, Handley must serve three years of supervised release and five years of probation. Both of these terms will start upon his release from prison and will run concurrently. Handley also agreed to forfeit all seized materials, including his computer. During Handley's supervised release and probation, Handley must also "participate in a treatment program, to include psychological testing and a polygraph examination, as directed by the U. S. Probation Officer." According to earlier court documents, this last provision is "intended to provide [Handley] with diagnosis and treatment for sexually and/or gender identity or other mental health issues."

Handley pleaded guilty to his charges in May 2009.

Items Seized
Included in the court documents is the list of the seven books that Handley had shipped to him and that U.S. Post Office officials seized in May 2006. The seizure led to a warrant to search Handley's home and eventually being charged for possession of obscene materials. The seven books are:

• Mikansei Seifuku Shōjo (Unfinished School Girl) by Yuki Tamachi (LE Comics)
• I [Heart] Doll by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
• Kemono for ESSENTIAL 3 (THE ANIMAL SEX ANTHOLOGY Vol.3) by Masato Tsukimori et al (Izumi Comics)
• Otonari Kazoku (Neighboring House Family) by Nekogen (MD Comics)
• Eromon by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
• Kono Man_ ga Sugoi! (This Man_ is Awesome!) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)
• Hina Meikyū (Doll Labyrinth) by Makafusigi (Seraphim Comics)

Each of these volumes of manga, according to court documents, contained minors engaged in sexual acts, sexual abuse on minors from adults, or minors engaged in bestiality. In addition, when law officials searched Handley's home, they seized more than 1,200 items, including manga and other documents. However, most were returned to Handley after they were determined to not "constitute or contain contraband." More than 80 books were retained. Court documents revealed that many of the books retained were from the anthology Comic LO (LO meaning "Lolita Only"). Handley admitted to buying the aforementioned seven books from a place called "cosplay café," and told officials he had ordered "similar materials earlier from 'Jlist' in Japan and 'Mand[a]rake.com.'"

I understand your feelings on the matter, but at least deal with the reality of the case law, not your narrow interpretation.

Once again, why doesn't this happen more often? Because there's other stuff to worry about. But yes, you can be prosecuted for it. And the likelihood of the law changing anytime soon is pretty low, since those for it will just throw up some loli and watch elected officials faces scrunch up. (See: the lack of LGBT protections being shot down in Houston because 'I don't want men in a women's bathroom')

 

[Empty]

whilst i agree with your general sentiment, why is Pedophilia a mental illness? Is being attracted to dead people a mental illness? Is being attracted to harming or being harmed by someone else a mental illness?

As far as I'm concerned, being attracted to children is just a fetish that happens to have negative real life consequences, so any alternatives to real children are a ok in my book.

this is what it says in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

Most people with atypical sexual interests do not have a mental disorder. To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests:
• feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval;
or
• have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal
consent.

basically whether it causes you distress or makes you a threat to other people. which is what i'd agree with.
though the dsm is not without controversy for where it stands on the line between atypical personal interests and mental disorder, so it's not a simple issue.

 

[Not]

I was just thinking about this the other day, and yeah. It should be reportable to the authorities. I don't care if no "actual" kids are involved. That shit shows a fucked up mind that needs to get help.

 

[sensui-tomo]

I was just thinking about this the other day, and yeah. It should be reportable to the authorities. I don't care if no "actual" kids are involved. That shit shows a fucked up mind that needs to get help.

Only a fucked up mind could make this show. /s

 

[Simply Sarah]

Perhaps you should look up the related case I linked. Maybe those gentlemen were prosecuted because the judges misunderstood too?

Once again:



Hell, I even linked two cases:

Handley's Case

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/2...f-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/


http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-10-10/iowa-collector-charged-for-allegedly-obscene-manga


And the results:



I understand your feelings on the matter, but at least deal with the reality of the case law, not your narrow interpretation.

Once again, why doesn't this happen more often? Because there's other stuff to worry about. But yes, you can be prosecuted for it. And the likelihood of the law changing anytime soon is pretty low, since those for it will just throw up some loli and watch elected officials faces scrunch up. (See: the lack of LGBT protections being shot down in Houston because 'I don't want men in a women's bathroom')

Well, the parts of the law involving images deemed obscene were upheld by the judge in the case while he tossed out the parts that didn't require obscenity. So yes, you can be charged and arrested for it, but not simply because it's drawn sexual imagery of kids. Granted, a lot of people would argue that any drawn sexual imagery of kids is obscene, but that's a separate question.

 

[Northeastmonk]

specifically it says "indistinguishable from an actual minor"

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

I thought the same thing. Pixar animators in an alternate universe are incredibly powerful, perverse, and talented.

You give an artist a lot of power if you make it illegal. What if you had a talented artist get a hold of your notebook and they start drawing very graphical depictions of children. Then they happen to put that book back and you go and pick it up. Someone happens to see your book when you open it up and they call the police.

You're now charged because this talented artist took a pen or a pencil and decided to depict whatever they wanted.

We already have naked animated character assets and so forth and I am almost certain there's an asset for kids somewhere. Size and scale can make anything happen.

 

[Jenov]

whilst i agree with your general sentiment, why is Pedophilia a mental illness? Is being attracted to dead people a mental illness? Is being attracted to harming or being harmed by someone else a mental illness?

As far as I'm concerned, being attracted to children is just a fetish that happens to have negative real life consequences, so any alternatives to real children are a ok in my book.

Actually, it is a mental disorder, as defined by the medical community:
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf

Pedophilia is classified as a type of paraphilia. It is not considered a fetish because of its dangers to the well-being of others.

 

[markofhavoc]

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

What if you kill someone and then draw the picture of their corpse, should that be illegal too?

 

[ItIsOkBro]

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.

You don't have to do anything illegal to end up on a terrorist watchlist.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

We've been having these threads a lot more than usual.

No they shouldn't be charged if no one was harmed/exploited to create it, a victimless "crime". A big thing is that it would basically be a thought crime. It would also be impossible to actually dictate what a child is in a drawing (or any other stylized work), too many variables that can easily be worked around, as is evident with the 9000 year old dragon joke.

 

[Not]

Only a fucked up mind could make this show. /s

What the hell are you talking about? Did Rebecca Sugar draw child porn? Because that's literally all I can think you might be saying, sarcasm or no.

Jeeez, some of you make, like, no sense.

 

[Kangi]

What the hell are you talking about? Did Rebecca Sugar draw child porn? Because that's literally all I can think you might be saying, sarcasm or no.

Jeeez, some of you make, like, no sense.

She drew Ed Edd 'n' Eddy smut at one point, I believe. Not sure about other stuff, but it's likely not the only stuff she drew.

So... yes or no, depending on what you're going to call "child porn".

 

[rpmurphy]

Only a fucked up mind could make this show. /s

I think she would have liked life in a re-education camp more.

 

[Sou Da]

That rumor really spun out of control huh, she was a storyboard on EE&E and she drew some yaoi, it being any type of hardcore porn is news to me.

 

[sensui-tomo]

What the hell are you talking about? Did Rebecca Sugar draw child porn? Because that's literally all I can think you might be saying, sarcasm or no.

Jeeez, some of you make, like, no sense.

she drew ed edd and eddy yaoi porn a while back, by the logic shown here, she should be prosecuted for making porn of children ... since the characters are minors. (note I could give 2 shits on what she drew.. but she drew an edd fucking an eddy..... thats weird to type) (again i dont give a fuck what she did as its stupid and didnt harm anyone... but its sex with cartoon minors .. also love SU )

 

[Two Words]

This argument tends to form two groups.

Group A believes it is wrong to imprison somebody over a drawing. Society does not gain anything from locking people up for making particular combinations of lines and curves on a piece of paper.

Group B believes that these drawings are sick and that anybody who draws it is sick and should be thrown in jail because it is sick and don't care about what is actually being done to benefit society. In their mind, people who are sick are guilty of being sick and must be persecuted for it.

 

[Odrion]

But, and I'm playing devils advocate here, could a drawing be used to glorify sex with children? Then in turn enticing someone to hurt a real child?

this does happen, pedophiles do use child porn comics to entrap and groom children

Sure, in the same way that videogames could entice someone to go on a shooting spree.

false equivalency. the only way this would be comparable is if violent videogames exclusively appealed to people who have a natural compulsion to murder everyone around him. stop comparing this, it's a bad comparison.

and on one hand, throwing artists in prison for what they're depicting on paper seems a little to hard of a swing towards censorship. on the other hand once you've drawn a picture are you not in possession of it? maybe there's something in law already that separates the two.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I don't know. Despite what GAF says, there is actually a pretty strong statistical correlation between violent media and the incidence of violence (it's not as high as smoking and cancer, but it's still pretty high). The media we consume does influence our perspectives, perhaps to normalize a lot of phenomena to us (and of course it does) and maybe that's a scary thought when it comes to child pornography even if no children are actually harmed. Yet it seems like sexual repression has disastrous consequences, too, so honestly I have no idea, and I'm no way informed about the kind of therapy we offer to people with unwanted or dangerous sexual urges. Whatever the solution is it probably isn't very easy or obvious.