stump sock
Member
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.
As the other poster pointed out, it's not considered child porn here in the US, but yes, you can be prosecuted for it.
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.
Which is also a Jack Thomson style argument against GTA.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.
Which is also a Jack Thomson style argument against GTA.
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 preventThis is a good argument against. The point is not to normalize the ideas behind drawing child porn.
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.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.
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.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
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?
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?
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.
Serial killers who captured their victims and meticulously tortured them to death didn't come up with their plan spontaneously most of the time.Imagination shouldn't be censored or banned in any way. So no
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.
Serial killers who captured their victims and meticulously tortured them to death didn't come up with their plan spontaneously most of the time.
What people draw in their own (private) time is none of my concern.
Distributing those drawings, however.... Hmmm I dunno.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.'"
- 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)
this is what it says in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorderswhilst 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.
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 societys disapproval;
or
have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another persons psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal
consent.
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.
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')
specifically it says "indistinguishable from an actual minor"
So, I wonder if very realistic CGI child porn would be deemed illegal.
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.
What if you've got a kid posing for you?
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.
Only a fucked up mind could make this show. /s
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.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.
I think she would have liked life in a re-education camp more.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.
this does happen, pedophiles do use child porn comics to entrap and groom childrenBut, 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?
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.Sure, in the same way that videogames could entice someone to go on a shooting spree.