A question of Child Pornography and creative freedom.
- Thread starter Elfgore
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wonder if fictional child pornography--stories, cartoons, stuff like that--provides an outlet for pedophiles that helps prevent them from actually predating upon children by giving them options when it comes to sexual gratification, or if it instead serves as kind of an easing-in process for child abuse. The answer is probably something annoying like "Either, depending on the person," though.
If you get off to kiddies then I think you're breaking the law, even if it's fictitious or any of that, it's still wrong. I think it's possible that the punishments implemented be less severe if it's drawing or what have you but it should be a legal transgression no less.
I've had this conversation with my friends literally two days ago. IMO, as long as no one is harmed in the process of its creation, whether it be physically or psychologically, the work shouldn't be regarded as illegal.
But why is it wrong? If some man (or woman) gets off to drawn images of minors, why should anyone care? As long as they don't go out molesting *real* children, who are we to tell them what they should and shouldn't find attractive?Lt._nefarious said:
The fact is, people are going to be attracted to certain things. Furthermore, more people are attracted to underage material than any of us will ever know. The vast majority will never take action.
If no one is harmed by something, it should be legal. Period. This goes for everything from food to drugs to entertainment.
Once harm gets involved, sure, lets consider making it illegal. But stories and drawings? Nonsense.
To be honest, it sounds like the stories had little to do with actual evidence against him and more to do with convincing the jury he was evil and horrible.
EDIT: Also "Obscenity" laws need to drink some led based paint and die along with the rest of the 1500 puritans.
If no one is harmed by something, it should be legal. Period. This goes for everything from food to drugs to entertainment.
Once harm gets involved, sure, lets consider making it illegal. But stories and drawings? Nonsense.
To be honest, it sounds like the stories had little to do with actual evidence against him and more to do with convincing the jury he was evil and horrible.
EDIT: Also "Obscenity" laws need to drink some led based paint and die along with the rest of the 1500 puritans.
Why lolicon is ok ^_^
No real people are harmed all characters are completely fictional and have no basis in reality whatsoever, most lolicon depictions are drawn in such a way that an attraction to them is because of their inhuman qualities [large eyes].
Arresting/prosecuting someone over lolicon would be the same as sending someone to jail over watching a movie where a murder occurs [Saw] as both show illegal acts happening to fictional characters.
The law is created to prevent harm from coming to society and it?s people yet Lolicon harms no one therefore making it Illegal defeats the purpose of the law in the first place. There has been no proven connection between liking lolicon and taking real world illegal action in fact the opposite might be true.
For you see it is possible that Lolicon material Could / can be used to prevent / stop actual harm from occurring to under age children by stoping real life child molestation from being carried out upon them.
Child molestation occurs because people cannot control their urges and desires and if they act on their urges it?s NOT because any one thing [lolicon] pushed them over but an accumulative amount of things [the straw that broke the camel?s back] that aren?t all tangible.
However if they were able to vent their urges in a safe environment and in a way that didn't hurt anyone there is a chance that they would no longer need to take real world action in order to satisfy themselves ,in this way lolicon which doesn't involve real people could do this.
It?s not a choice but the way people are born due to being a particular sexual preference [These are not chosen as to why this will be explained] and is completely outside of their control [not their actions but their feelings].
Why would anyone purposely choose a sexual preference [in this case lolicon] were all it would do would cause them to be shunned from society and lead to pain and hardship, simply answer they would not therefore punishing people for something that they have no control over which helps nobody.
This cannot be cured as previous attempt to cure sexual have been shown to fail and only cause physiological damage which helps no one. In short by pursuing action against these people you are ruining their lives over something that harms no one, which they had no choice in the matter and which cannot be stopped.
No real people are harmed all characters are completely fictional and have no basis in reality whatsoever, most lolicon depictions are drawn in such a way that an attraction to them is because of their inhuman qualities [large eyes].
Arresting/prosecuting someone over lolicon would be the same as sending someone to jail over watching a movie where a murder occurs [Saw] as both show illegal acts happening to fictional characters.
The law is created to prevent harm from coming to society and it?s people yet Lolicon harms no one therefore making it Illegal defeats the purpose of the law in the first place. There has been no proven connection between liking lolicon and taking real world illegal action in fact the opposite might be true.
For you see it is possible that Lolicon material Could / can be used to prevent / stop actual harm from occurring to under age children by stoping real life child molestation from being carried out upon them.
Child molestation occurs because people cannot control their urges and desires and if they act on their urges it?s NOT because any one thing [lolicon] pushed them over but an accumulative amount of things [the straw that broke the camel?s back] that aren?t all tangible.
However if they were able to vent their urges in a safe environment and in a way that didn't hurt anyone there is a chance that they would no longer need to take real world action in order to satisfy themselves ,in this way lolicon which doesn't involve real people could do this.
It?s not a choice but the way people are born due to being a particular sexual preference [These are not chosen as to why this will be explained] and is completely outside of their control [not their actions but their feelings].
Why would anyone purposely choose a sexual preference [in this case lolicon] were all it would do would cause them to be shunned from society and lead to pain and hardship, simply answer they would not therefore punishing people for something that they have no control over which helps nobody.
This cannot be cured as previous attempt to cure sexual have been shown to fail and only cause physiological damage which helps no one. In short by pursuing action against these people you are ruining their lives over something that harms no one, which they had no choice in the matter and which cannot be stopped.
he most likely wasn't tried because of the stories the fact that he A) looked at pictures and B) did some photoshopping with some pictures and more than likely distributed this material is the reason why he got sentenced to prison (that is assuming it was real kids)
and rightly so, CP (i'd rather not use those two words together) is a disgusting act, forced on these children by older people, they might agree to it but regardless of what they might say they are still children and being children they are not old enough to be encouraged to be participate in this act
especially when its older with younger.... (i personally believe they have their genitalia removed if they do this male or female)
note i'm not talking about fictional CP, fictional writing or pictures of real life is not right in my opinion
although i cannot say i speak for everyone and thus its legal/illegal depending on country/person
and rightly so, CP (i'd rather not use those two words together) is a disgusting act, forced on these children by older people, they might agree to it but regardless of what they might say they are still children and being children they are not old enough to be encouraged to be participate in this act
especially when its older with younger.... (i personally believe they have their genitalia removed if they do this male or female)
note i'm not talking about fictional CP, fictional writing or pictures of real life is not right in my opinion
although i cannot say i speak for everyone and thus its legal/illegal depending on country/person
What i'm wondering as i read through the OP was: Did the stories include real children that he referred to by name? And: does that make a difference?
There's way too much gray area in these cases, i think. I mean i watched the new Fate/ anime series and technically if posessing any video in which a minor(fictional or not) has underwear shown or is shown in a nude setting then i should technically be put on a register of some sort, and so should anyone who's ever bore witness to a Mahou Shojou anime.
There's way too much gray area in these cases, i think. I mean i watched the new Fate/ anime series and technically if posessing any video in which a minor(fictional or not) has underwear shown or is shown in a nude setting then i should technically be put on a register of some sort, and so should anyone who's ever bore witness to a Mahou Shojou anime.
Its real easy for me to simply put it as child porn being porn in which children are being expoloted sexually. Thus, anything in which no actual children are being exploted sexually, such as anime porn or written fiction shouldnt be considered such.
But at the same time, I dont feel complety right about it..
But at the same time, I dont feel complety right about it..
The title is a bit misleading given the question you asked us - where does 'creative freedom' come in here? I doubt any judge is going to withhold from sentencing someone for possession of child pornography on grounds of it being the defendant's 'creative freedom' - they will only decide whether what they possess constitutes child pornography or not based on a set of legal criteria, which will themselves be based largely on precedent (what was ruled in similar past cases).
It seems like you wanted to implicitly ask the separate question of whether writing stories or drawing should be protected by some legal notion of creative freedom; I would say no - the law wouldn't want to imply that say, the art of brewing has value which can be freely practiced in order to be appreciated in a time of prohibition, for example. If alcohol is prohibited, being the person to produce it doesn't afford one special protection; likewise with child pornography.
You could maybe make an argument that, if this person didn't share these stories or images with anyone publicly, that he could be protected under a 'right to conscience' (the right to think whatever he likes privately), but that's a whole other discussion.
It seems like you wanted to implicitly ask the separate question of whether writing stories or drawing should be protected by some legal notion of creative freedom; I would say no - the law wouldn't want to imply that say, the art of brewing has value which can be freely practiced in order to be appreciated in a time of prohibition, for example. If alcohol is prohibited, being the person to produce it doesn't afford one special protection; likewise with child pornography.
You could maybe make an argument that, if this person didn't share these stories or images with anyone publicly, that he could be protected under a 'right to conscience' (the right to think whatever he likes privately), but that's a whole other discussion.
Personally, I dont see this being used as a defense for it in any legitimate way any time soon.
That type of shit is (rightfully so) a SERIOUS no-no, and while I certainly believe that this can sometimes get a bit out of hand, I'm ok with this being admissible evidence against sickos like that.
That type of shit is (rightfully so) a SERIOUS no-no, and while I certainly believe that this can sometimes get a bit out of hand, I'm ok with this being admissible evidence against sickos like that.
In my opinion it is not child porn. There are a variety of different points that need to be addressed on this issue as it's a complex issue.Elfgore said:
Firstly let me say it outright: child pornography is very, very wrong. No child deserves to experience being exploited this way. It is exploitation because even if they think they want to do it, they really do not understand what it is they are getting themselves into.
That being said... anyone who has sexual desires has almost certainly been attracted to someone under the legal age. You may not even know - that short, busty young chick you saw the other day? She could have been a 14 or 15 year old girl who looks older than she is. With the way kids act and dress these days mistakes like these are very common. So you can see how this is a very gray area.
Now addressing stories and anime. I believe it is not child porn because it is fictional. If possessing a piece of fiction that showed a crime was itself a crime, there would be almost no fiction. How much fiction contains violence? Rape? Drug use/production? Therefore pictures and stories of child nudity or even children being raped is not a crime. If the author(s) want to tell a story that involves these things, go right ahead. It doesn't mean they engage in this activity themselves, and it certainly does not mean that the audience does either.
However I can see why some people would be uncomfortable with this. These images and stories can be used for sexual gratification. People see images taken out of context and assume it's just for dirty old men jacking off while thinking of the kids down the road. They're not necessarily wrong - there are people who will use these images and stories for that. However I highly doubt that most of the audience is this way. They appreciate the story or find it entertaining. Maybe they just like the art style. Banning material like this would be punishing the many for the actions of the few.
Now if the material was created purely for sexual gratification... I'm a little conflicted. If that's what you're attracted to though and no actual children were involved, I cannot object against it in good conscience. To me it feels very similar to objecting to gay porn because you find it repulsive as a heterosexual (or vice versa).
Stuff like this is a tricky situation... what isn't blatantly illegal is a grey area.
On the one hand, the stories are 100% fiction and don't name real children (I'm assuming so anyway) then its not really harming anyone. But on the other hand, we're not gaining anything culturally from it, and it would probably fit along the same lines as murder, arson, or rape fantasies, while it may not be harming anyone it's still a sign of a disturbed mind.
You could argue that the stories are a safe outlet to use, so that the person can "vent" their desires rather than act on them, preventing them from going any further with their desires. Then again you could also argue that its a slippery slope, that they may get more excited by it, build off of what they're imagining, and lose interest in the fakes (deciding that they want the real thing).
TL;DR I dont know what my answer would be so I'm just going to waste your time by posting this.
EDIT: One thing I did think of that I can contribute relating to the "question of Child Pornography and creative freedom" is that it has been discussed before and even gone to court regarding it, not so much about written stories, but two photographers I know of pushed these boundaries before (Gary Gross and Sally Mann). As far as I know the courts decided that they were not porn, but im not sure... my memory isnt the greatest
On the one hand, the stories are 100% fiction and don't name real children (I'm assuming so anyway) then its not really harming anyone. But on the other hand, we're not gaining anything culturally from it, and it would probably fit along the same lines as murder, arson, or rape fantasies, while it may not be harming anyone it's still a sign of a disturbed mind.
You could argue that the stories are a safe outlet to use, so that the person can "vent" their desires rather than act on them, preventing them from going any further with their desires. Then again you could also argue that its a slippery slope, that they may get more excited by it, build off of what they're imagining, and lose interest in the fakes (deciding that they want the real thing).
TL;DR I dont know what my answer would be so I'm just going to waste your time by posting this.
EDIT: One thing I did think of that I can contribute relating to the "question of Child Pornography and creative freedom" is that it has been discussed before and even gone to court regarding it, not so much about written stories, but two photographers I know of pushed these boundaries before (Gary Gross and Sally Mann). As far as I know the courts decided that they were not porn, but im not sure... my memory isnt the greatest
Well, this is a bit of a grey area. One problem is that there is no official definition of pornography and other such things. I believe the explanation given in some major court cases was, in essence: "I don't know how to describe it, but I'll know it when I see it."
Which can be a problem in these types of discussions. There no clear definition.
However, I think the general rule of child porn is thus:
~The people involved in the acts as recorded are guilty for actually creating it.
~Those who view it are just as guilty as they drive the production and distribution. Without them, it would not exist.
Now, if we're discussing sexualized young people in film and art, that's not quite as easy. For one, no one is being harmed. However, as far as I know, there is nothing in anime, manga, or games (not counting hentai) that would qualify as child porn. For one, they don't have sex with anyone and aren't shown naked in sexual ways. The only nudity I can even think of tends to be incidental due to bathing or such.
I'm not going to say that using some questionable things from legitimate sources as evidence when a person has child porn is bad. It shows a interest in that sort of thing. And helps to paint a picture.
That being said, reading a manga that sexualizes a 15 year old, or even a loli, a little isn't grounds for Child Porn accusations. It would just paint a bigger picture. Maybe the person was interested in it due to the interest in the porn. But it wouldn't work to say the porn was a result of that interest in the anime/manga. If that makes sense.
Which can be a problem in these types of discussions. There no clear definition.
However, I think the general rule of child porn is thus:
~The people involved in the acts as recorded are guilty for actually creating it.
~Those who view it are just as guilty as they drive the production and distribution. Without them, it would not exist.
Now, if we're discussing sexualized young people in film and art, that's not quite as easy. For one, no one is being harmed. However, as far as I know, there is nothing in anime, manga, or games (not counting hentai) that would qualify as child porn. For one, they don't have sex with anyone and aren't shown naked in sexual ways. The only nudity I can even think of tends to be incidental due to bathing or such.
I'm not going to say that using some questionable things from legitimate sources as evidence when a person has child porn is bad. It shows a interest in that sort of thing. And helps to paint a picture.
That being said, reading a manga that sexualizes a 15 year old, or even a loli, a little isn't grounds for Child Porn accusations. It would just paint a bigger picture. Maybe the person was interested in it due to the interest in the porn. But it wouldn't work to say the porn was a result of that interest in the anime/manga. If that makes sense.