So if I go speeding 20mph over the posted limit and hit nothing but still get caught, it isn't a crime?sravankb said:
OT: A classic legal/ethical dilemma. A law which must be upheld with at least some degree of interpretive/subjective evidence.
Amercian arrested for Child Porn by Canadian customs who found manga on his computer.
- Thread starter ph0b0s123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: A classic legal/ethical dilemma. A law which must be upheld with at least some degree of interpretive/subjective evidence.
Because possession of child pornography in any form in Canada is illegal. The main argument that was put up before is that it's art so it can't be considered illegal to have. However the same argument could be made that a murderer is an artist in the way that they kill their victims or a thief is an artist in the way that they steal. The same could be said for hacking, racism, anything. In every single way it's a paper-thin argument used by criminals and degenerates.Use_Imagination_here said:
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Ah, but the difference is that in the speeding case there's a chance you may injure someone, whereas by watching cartoon porn there's no chance of you harming anyone.Atmos Duality said:
OT: I don't really approve of lolicon or other animated underage pornography but I don't think people should be crimalised for owning drawings in which no-one was hurt to produce.
YOu haven't answered my question. Something being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. So tell me, why is it wrong.Harbinger_ said:
Because child pornography is disgusting and immoral. Care to disagree on that one? Also you said why does he deserve to face time not why is it wrong. I answered your question.Use_Imagination_here said:
No you didn't. I asked why does he DESERVE to face time. You merely told my why he mostly likely will. Facing time does not equal deserving to face time.Harbinger_ said:
And disgusting? Yes. Immoral? Not if it isn't hurting anyone. Which in this case it isn't.
The potential for victims does not automatically imply that there are victims.JoJoDeathunter said:
-I can go speeding and have a collision. There are victims as a result (myself at least, and whoever/whatever I damaged).
-I can go speeding and still maintain control of my vehicle, causing absolutely no damage. (No victims.)
Both scenarios exist, yet the law does not care about either; only that I am speeding.
Thus, his logic still fails as stated; there exists a scenario where there is a crime but no definitive victims.
But the thing is, those underage kids aren't real. They are drawings on paper.Harbinger_ said:
So people that possess fictional media that depicts illegal or harmful activity should be punished?
If we followed through that attitude to other genres of media, possessing or distributing violent video games, books, movies and music would be illegal.
I think that's a bit hypocritical. I'm sure many people here would agree with me when I say there is no sound evidence that someone who enjoys violent media (violent video games for example) will go out and commit violent acts. And I'm sure many will agree with me when I say that there is no sound evidence that someone who enjoys sexual media (pornography) will go out and commit sexually inappropriate or harmful acts. Yet suddenly, when you bring pedophilia into the picture, it's a completely different thing.
In fact, the arguments used to censor fictional child pornography are very similar to the ones used to censor other types of controversial media. People who enjoy violent video games are 'mentally sick'. Now people who enjoy fictional child pornography are 'mentally sick'. Apparently are society has deemed it largely acceptable to enjoy murdering tons of people in a video game, or watching a movie like Saw that includes many graphic, sadistic visuals, it's even somewhat acceptable for such violence to involve children. But suddenly if any of that is sexual and involves children, the person watching such media is mentally ill and is going to go out abuse kids.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
You're right that sravankb has badly worded the phrase, I'll rephrase it to what I think he meant:Atmos Duality said:
"If there are no possible victims for an activity, then it shouldn't be a crime."
Since fictional characters aren't sentient as far as I know, then cartoon porn causes no victims. As a writer I've killed off characters including children in my work before, should I arrested for murder or producing snuff?
Heh, another one of these threads.
1. The Victim-less crime argument fails for me on more than one level. First, that statement can't be proven, if there were just one occurrence that some perv that got bored of whackin it to lolicon moved up actual child porn, or worse molested a child that would absolutely invalidate that argument and I doubt that anyone making said argument could realistically assure that its never happened. Second, as others have pointed out, using the phrase victim-less crime as a defense of this crap seems to conveniently focus on the wrong word in that phrase.
2. For anyone saying BS until I see what it was that he had on him, that statement sounds a little ridiculous to me. I mean, obviously if it was a manga of ramna 1/2 or rurouni kenshin then they have no basis but I can't imagine them charging a dude with something as staining as child pornography over something like those. I know fans of manga can be a bit touchy about how manga can sometimes be lumped in with hentai or lolicon when those terms are not exactly interchangeable. But I have a hard time picturing someone leveling a charge of child porn at someone over something that'ts not clearly an image of an underage child in a sexual/erotic context.
3. My stomach turns every time I see some post talking about how lolicon isn't bad. It's always the same argument. Its not real children, and its art, and blah blah blah. Its all rationalization and window dressing. Just like the victim-less crime argument. All of which is designed to do one thing, change the argument away from how vile and wrong it is to fantasize about prepubescent children. I don't care if not one image in your lolicon collection is of a real child. I don't care if you've never (yet) looked at a real image of child porn, and have no plan to do so. I don't care if you say "i'd never want to see a real child treated like that" or "I could never do that to a child", or "i'm not a pedophile, but I understand them" or blah blah blah, I wouldn't want you near any child, let alone any child of mine.
1. The Victim-less crime argument fails for me on more than one level. First, that statement can't be proven, if there were just one occurrence that some perv that got bored of whackin it to lolicon moved up actual child porn, or worse molested a child that would absolutely invalidate that argument and I doubt that anyone making said argument could realistically assure that its never happened. Second, as others have pointed out, using the phrase victim-less crime as a defense of this crap seems to conveniently focus on the wrong word in that phrase.
2. For anyone saying BS until I see what it was that he had on him, that statement sounds a little ridiculous to me. I mean, obviously if it was a manga of ramna 1/2 or rurouni kenshin then they have no basis but I can't imagine them charging a dude with something as staining as child pornography over something like those. I know fans of manga can be a bit touchy about how manga can sometimes be lumped in with hentai or lolicon when those terms are not exactly interchangeable. But I have a hard time picturing someone leveling a charge of child porn at someone over something that'ts not clearly an image of an underage child in a sexual/erotic context.
3. My stomach turns every time I see some post talking about how lolicon isn't bad. It's always the same argument. Its not real children, and its art, and blah blah blah. Its all rationalization and window dressing. Just like the victim-less crime argument. All of which is designed to do one thing, change the argument away from how vile and wrong it is to fantasize about prepubescent children. I don't care if not one image in your lolicon collection is of a real child. I don't care if you've never (yet) looked at a real image of child porn, and have no plan to do so. I don't care if you say "i'd never want to see a real child treated like that" or "I could never do that to a child", or "i'm not a pedophile, but I understand them" or blah blah blah, I wouldn't want you near any child, let alone any child of mine.
This DISGUSTS me.
It is a waste of that man's life, the time of the court, the money of the goverment to try him, and a waste of a jail cell that could be holding, I don't know, and ACTUAL murder or other threat to the public?!
He was ARRESTED for a DIGITAL copy of a piece of PAPER with ink on it.
Unless you provide proof, your statement sounds awfully biased and narrow minded. This ins't meant to be insulting, just letting you know you sound like that.
I could easily argue the opposite is true: Loli/Shota can provide a means for a person to relive themselves without abusing a real child. In fact, there ARE STUDIES of what I just said:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html
Now, I what I want to know: How was this man's computer able to be searched in the first place?
It is a waste of that man's life, the time of the court, the money of the goverment to try him, and a waste of a jail cell that could be holding, I don't know, and ACTUAL murder or other threat to the public?!
He was ARRESTED for a DIGITAL copy of a piece of PAPER with ink on it.
[sarcasm] Right, just like how playing violent video games are known to be a starting point for murderers, eventually the fake killing will no longer satisfy the person's urges and can lead to real deaths.[/sarcasm]TCPirate said:
Unless you provide proof, your statement sounds awfully biased and narrow minded. This ins't meant to be insulting, just letting you know you sound like that.
I could easily argue the opposite is true: Loli/Shota can provide a means for a person to relive themselves without abusing a real child. In fact, there ARE STUDIES of what I just said:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html
Now, I what I want to know: How was this man's computer able to be searched in the first place?
Actually, this has happened in the US also.cjbos81 said:
I can't strongly disagree with any of that. The disconnect for me is I can't see what a year in jail is supposed to help in that situation. If they are so dangerous they need to be locked up to protect potential victims, it strains my credulity that just sitting in jail (for a relatively short time) will somehow eliminate those thoughts.LittlePineWeasel said:
He has done nothing of the sort. No-one is arguing in favour of child-pornography. Merely noting the idea that that same kind of attitude is -exactly- akin to how other forms of media have been demonized in the past and present based on nothing more than blind seething hysteria.Harbinger_ said:
And you know, I agree, this kind of material -should- be demonized. BUT: It is not a matter the law should be taking a hand in. Color, shape and form may indeed have the capacity to influence people emotionally, but until I see something more tangible than than an oft quoted 'slippery slope' I am not inclined to agree that such material -directly- can cause a person to act upon their more abhorrent proclivities.
Either violent or adult films, books or games influence people in the same way or they don't. If they do or don't, but you ignore such materials that -you- find particularly offensive in this equation as somehow being separate in that regard, then you I'm afraid are a hypocrite. And true too, if you uphold freedom of expression and thought but are willing to make exception after exception whenever your ire is risen, then you are not only a hypocrite, but weak of principles.
I advocate freedom of speech where no one is directly harmed in the creation or distribution of it. Child pornography that actually shows real children that are actually being abused should be illegal. But if the content is fictional, then I see no reason that it should be illegal.Harbinger_ said:
But thank you for misunderstanding my point and lumping me in the 'yay child pornography' camp instead of actually addressing anything I said. As long as people keep doing what you're doing, this issue will never be taken seriously, and censorship that doesn't protect anyone will continue.
You monster!BlindTom said:
LOOK OUT THIS DRAWING IS OFF A NINE YEAR OLD GIRL AND WHERE ARE HIS CLOTHES TE NINE YEAR OLD IS NAKED YOU PORNOGRAPHER HOW DARE YOU ABUSE THE POOR STICK MANN?!?!?!11
All of your kind should be put in jail!
Sigh. I remember conducting a poll on this site a while back. I asked whether admitted paedophiles who had never touched a child, and had no intent to do so in the future should be put in jail, institutionalized, forced to receive psychological help, or left to live their lives as human beings equal to the rest of us.
The results of the poll were depressing.
It wont eliminate those thoughts. Something like 40% of offenders who become recidivists do so within a year or release. Personally I don't think that Pedophiles are capable of being rehabilitated. You might be able to get some to suppress their thoughts and urges for a while, but my thought on rehabilitation for them is that its as laughable a notion as those who think that being gay can be rehabilitated out of a person. I'm not saying that every person who uses lolicon is a pedophile, but I am saying that doing anything to cultivate such fantasies could lead to it. In the case you mention about this guy gettin locked up for a year? I concur it probably wouldn't eliminate such thoughts from his mind. It might cause him to suppress them for a while, which couldn't be all bad and it definitely WOULD remove the possibility of him molesting a child, that's a good thing.4173 said:
Before anyone jumps in with the stupid videogame violence argument, about how I can dominate all day in black ops by murdering very efficiently why should I be able to walk the street? There IS a difference, violence in fantasy has always been socially acceptable to one degree or another. Over time that violence has gotten more graphic in its depiction but its always been around. I dunno about the people making this fatuous argument but I grew up on a steady diet of looney tunes which is terribly violent when you get down to it, but has always been socially acceptable. Prepubescent children in sexual context... never not ever once in American society (at least) has been socially acceptable, nor should any depiction of it be.
As far as honest to god convicted pedophiles go, I have a four step plan to "rehabilitation".
1. Incarcerate them.
2. Heat the oven.
3. Toss them in.
4. Order pizza.
It's ok we can all discuss it again when we're in jail for doing all sorts of thought crimes to the genitals of this poor nine year old hermaphrodite. Lord knows what they'll do if we continue to commit thought crimes with improvised line making devices or, god forbid, ORAL TRADITION!Jonluw said:You monster!BlindTom said:
LOOK OUT THIS DRAWING IS OFF A NINE YEAR OLD GIRL AND WHERE ARE HIS CLOTHES TE NINE YEAR OLD IS NAKED YOU PORNOGRAPHER HOW DARE YOU ABUSE THE POOR STICK MANN?!?!?!11
All of your kind should be put in jail!
Sigh. I remember conducting a poll on this site a while back. I asked whether admitted paedophiles who had never touched a child, and had no intent to do so in the future should be put in jail, institutionalized, forced to receive psychological help, or left to live their lives as human being equal to the rest of us.
The results of the poll were depressing.