Amercian arrested for Child Porn by Canadian customs who found manga on his computer.

[Jabberwock xeno]

Remember, it's "freedom of speech", not "freedom of speech except for the things I find icky".

Heh, wanna talk about a cop-out arugment... freedom of speech? really?

The first amendment does not grant carte blanch freedom to all forms of "speech". It was orginally intended to ensure freedom of religious speech and political speech. exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander).

Child pornography is wrong, and obscene. Drawing it or animating it doesn't make it less so.

But it's not child porn, it's a PIECE OF PAPER WITH INK ON IT. It's not based on a real child, for aLll you know, the person in it could look over 99 years old, but the author could say their really underage, they just LOOK old, or etc.

And just because the person HAD such images does not mean they are a pedophile, nor does being a pedophile mean you are going to do anybody harm!

This is NO different from saying that if a person got caught with a book/movie/drawing or video game with murder in it, they should be arrested for murder.

And the entire argument that these will lead to behavior towards kids in real life is just as stupid as playing violent video games will lead to in real life violence, In fact, studies have shown that access to REAL child porn LOWERS it.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html

I'd assume that it's because it allows them to relive themselves without having to harm a real person.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Yes. Yes it is.
In your fictional dictatorship it is perhaps acceptable to restrict people's rights to think about whatever they like, but that is not the case in the real world.
I must say, I am glad the real world does not allow me to be jailed on the discretion of some stranger deciding which of my thoughts are "pure" and which are not.

Seconded...

Thought crimes always have one biggest, glaring, problem: The ever changing nature of human society. While someone might think the very act of having a thought, such as child porn as it is the obvious example right now, deserves punishment we can never cross that line. As soon as we do, we give the power of authority over what we think into the hands of someone who gets to decide what is and isn't 'pure thoughts.' This always slides into even darker places where more and more thoughts become banned, and with them the ability to speak what one might be thinking without threat of prosecution. Orwell was tame when it comes to living in such a society.

Take a look for yourself at all the other countries that have actively tried to police what their citizens think and ask yourself: Do you want to live in one of these countries where just whispering you had a thought that was 'impure' can lead to your death?

Because some of the thoughts you have, some of your dark kinks and fantasies, are going to be considered 'impure' to at least someone out there. Couple that with the fact that person who thinks you are impure can be given the power to jail and execute you for what you think. This doesn't sound like a good outcome for anyone, regardless of what starts the whole 'thought crime' mess. After all, every examples of thought crimes in human history end in this way; with witch hunts designed to eliminate political opponents based on a law that one can be convicted under without any physical evidence of wrong doing.

No matter what topic is being discussed: If you say someone should be locked up for a thought they may have had, with no illegal actions on said thought, then you have gone from defending a reasonable point to defend a completely bat-shit-insane one.

 

[JoJo]

I say that anybody who gets their jollys off on pictures of little children is not normal or stable they are fucked in the head. Its obvious that not everybody who looks at this stuff is going to go out and rape somebody but people who are interested in it are more likely to.

While it certainly isn't normal to be attracted to children, think about how many other weird paraphilias or fetishes there are out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

Including cars, trees, being crawled on by insects... arguably pedophilia is only worse than these because it has the potential to cause a victim if acted on in real life, the attraction itself is no weirder than many others which most people possess one of. I personally have a fetish for among others things torturing people, I would never actually torture someone or cause that to happen in real life though.

I never denied that you guys were against child abuse I just said that you were not against child porn. You do realise that child abuse and child porn do not always go together and that there is a difference between the two right? I think that is something that the majority of people here on the escapist are missing and it is really rather sad.

The way I see it here is no difference between a drawn picture of a naked girl and a photo of a naked girl because hey they are both pictures of a naked girl. If said girl is underage is it illegal and if said girl is not then its not. Obviously there are some exceptions to this rule just like everything else.

Sorry but I must condemn that attitude entirely. Real child porn is always disgusting child abuse, evidently not all child nudity is porn but all that crosses that boundary is certainly a degrading form of hurtfulness. How do you think the child would feel about being forced to lose their dignity just so some perverts can enjoy looking at them, even if they aren't raped on camera which often does happen.

 

[AhumbleKnight]

Who is victimized by this crime?

That "who is victimized" defense only works if you can provide conclusive evidence that no one is.

Asking an unanswerable question without proving anything to back it up is what every atheist who says "prove God exists" or every Christian who says "prove he doesn't" does.

It is never a requirement to prove a negative. This is because it is impossible.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

It is never a requirement to prove a negative. This is because it is impossible.

I hate this misconception as it is possible to prove a negative. It is often done by carrying out experimentations designed to prove the positive, repeatably and in multiple different ways, but still getting a negative result within these tests. For example: I take a test to prove I am not with child... the test proves I am not pregnant which is good because I am male and that would of been hard to explain.

Sorry for going off topic but it just gets to me when I see the line 'impossible to prove a negative.'

To bring it back on topic I actually agree with you in this case, they have to provide examples where this sort of pornography was developed while harming a child for their argument to be valid. I say developed while harming a child because the argument 'they might look at this and then go rape a child' doesn't take into account the theoretical person might go out and rape a child even if they had not seen this. It is injecting another variable into the equation, designed to make it easy to get the result they want, which does not fit the scientific method.

PS pro-jail this guy crowd: Don't take this as some sort of pro-child raping statement... it is just a statement that your argument is not scientifically sound if the only evidence you can bring forth is 'prove they didn't rape a child while drawing this smut.'

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

Yea, sorry. I might be stone-aged but there's no justification for being attracted to prepubescent children. And if you're not, there's not much reason to be in possession of lolicon.

All of you oh so very vocal defenders of this filth, can stand up as many straw men and fallacies as you want to distract from the issue. I wont be swayed by any of them. It's not a thought police issue, its not a free speech issue, its not an issue about who's the victim. It really simply boils down to the fact that if you are turned on by lolicon, you are fantasizing about a prepubescent child, and that marks you out. Society rightly rejects the notion that being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child is acceptable.

Thanks to whoever posted that ridiculous link to that laughable "study". The comments field did a very nice job of bolstering my opinion that I'm really not as alone on this as the closet pedos on this forum would like me to think.

What is lolicon? lets ask wikipedia. Lolicon (ロリコン?), also romanised as lolikon or rorikon,[1] is a Japanese portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex". In Japan, the term describes an attraction to underage girls (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent)[2][3] or an individual with such an attraction.[4][5] It is also commonly used when referring to lolicon manga or lolicon anime, a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are often depicted in an erotic manner.

I'd like to address that first one. Because its really the crux of the issue. This is where the problem is. Its not healthy or normal or acceptable behavior. And You're damned right you need a better reason than "you're not the boss of me" to rationalize it as acceptable.

Say whatever you will about "the slippery slope" of so-called thought police, or the supposedly victimless nature of this crime, or trumped up laughable studies paid for by some very shady organizations, none of those distractions being heaped upon this issue by the so-called "enlightened" make anyone who would view/possess or defend such material anyone that I would trust with any child.

 

[JoJo]

Sorry but I must condemn that attitude entirely. Real child porn is always disgusting child abuse, evidently not all child nudity is porn but all that crosses that boundary is certainly a degrading form of hurtfulness. How do you think the child would feel about being forced to lose their dignity just so some perverts can enjoy looking at them, even if they aren't raped on camera which often does happen.

There you go again with everybody else forgetting what child porn actually is. It is obvious that a lot of child porn is indeed abuse but dont forget that if a 15yr old girl takes a picture of herself naked its still considered child porn.

I admit that technically that isn't abuse, but that's an oversight of the law more than anything else and is in the minority, I'm really don't want to have to google the statistics of child porn (I think you can find those on wikipedia if you really want to check) but I remember reading a BBC news article on the subject recently and apparently over 90% of all online child porn is female under 12, and only 1% of all those caught possessing porn had "level 1" only (nude or sexual posing). Anything above level 1 contains contact abuse.

The fact is that child porn is almost always a form of child abuse and an often overlooked one too, and the primary goal of the anti-child porn laws to prevent the abuse of children, in fact nowadays many professionals refer to it specially as "child abuse images" as calling it porn can make it seem not as bad as it compares it to legal material. There are only a limited number of jail cells availible and I think that they should be specially reserved for the real scum of this world who hurt little kids directly in any way or indirectly through child abuse media, rather than those who enjoy looking at drawings.

 

[Jonluw]

Yea, sorry. I might be stone-aged but there's no justification for being attracted to prepubescent children. And if you're not, there's not much reason to be in possession of lolicon.

All of you oh so very vocal defenders of this filth, can stand up as many straw men and fallacies as you want to distract from the issue. I wont be swayed by any of them. It's not a thought police issue, its not a free speech issue, its not an issue about who's the victim. It really simply boils down to the fact that if you are turned on by lolicon, you are fantasizing about a prepubescent child, and that marks you out. Society rightly rejects the notion that being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child is acceptable.

Thanks to whoever posted that ridiculous link to that laughable "study". The comments field did a very nice job of bolstering my opinion that I'm really not as alone on this as the closet pedos on this forum would like me to think.

What is lolicon? lets ask wikipedia. Lolicon (ロリコン?), also romanised as lolikon or rorikon,[1] is a Japanese portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex". In Japan, the term describes an attraction to underage girls (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent)[2][3] or an individual with such an attraction.[4][5] It is also commonly used when referring to lolicon manga or lolicon anime, a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are often depicted in an erotic manner.

I'd like to address that first one. Because its really the crux of the issue. This is where the problem is. Its not healthy or normal or acceptable behavior. And You're damned right you need a better reason than "you're not the boss of me" to rationalize it as acceptable.

Say whatever you will about "the slippery slope" of so-called thought police, or the supposedly victimless nature of this crime, or trumped up laughable studies paid for by some very shady organizations, none of those distractions being heaped upon this issue by the so-called "enlightened" make anyone who would view/possess or defend such material anyone that I would trust with any child.

You're still not understanding how debate works.
You're still not presenting any arguments. All you are doing is saying "Thinking like this is bad, and you should be put in jail if you think this way because I say so dammit!"
You are not defending your position with reason or facts.
You have yet to present a compelling argument as to why drawing an image of a nine year old having sex should be illegal.

Every argument you've made could be made against homosexuals as well.
[sub]Of course, I'm not saying being a paedophile is at the same level as being a homosexual (children can't consent; men can).[/sub]

 

[Booze Zombie]

If there are no victims for an activity, then it isn't a crime. End of discussion.

EDIT: Yes, there's stuff like speeding or attempted murder, but those crimes are clearly capable of causing harm to someone else. This, on the other hand, has neither the cause nor the potential for harming another individual.

Wow, I hate coming into a thread and finding my words already standing there. Le sigh.

 

[Jonluw]

Sorry but I must condemn that attitude entirely. Real child porn is always disgusting child abuse, evidently not all child nudity is porn but all that crosses that boundary is certainly a degrading form of hurtfulness. How do you think the child would feel about being forced to lose their dignity just so some perverts can enjoy looking at them, even if they aren't raped on camera which often does happen.

There you go again with everybody else forgetting what child porn actually is. It is obvious that a lot of child porn is indeed abuse but dont forget that if a 15yr old girl takes a picture of herself naked its still considered child porn.

I would say that's illegal because there is no guarantee that the girl was not forced to take that picture.
And because the girl is a minor and therefore not able to consent to pornographic pictures of herself being spread like that.
Neither of these are issues with lolicon.

 

[JoJo]

Yea, sorry. I might be stone-aged but there's no justification for being attracted to prepubescent children. And if you're not, there's not much reason to be in possession of lolicon.

All of you oh so very vocal defenders of this filth, can stand up as many straw men and fallacies as you want to distract from the issue. I wont be swayed by any of them. It's not a thought police issue, its not a free speech issue, its not an issue about who's the victim. It really simply boils down to the fact that if you are turned on by lolicon, you are fantasizing about a prepubescent child, and that marks you out. Society rightly rejects the notion that being sexually attracted to a prepubescent child is acceptable.

Thanks to whoever posted that ridiculous link to that laughable "study". The comments field did a very nice job of bolstering my opinion that I'm really not as alone on this as the closet pedos on this forum would like me to think.

What is lolicon? lets ask wikipedia. Lolicon (ロリコン?), also romanised as lolikon or rorikon,[1] is a Japanese portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex". In Japan, the term describes an attraction to underage girls (whether prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent)[2][3] or an individual with such an attraction.[4][5] It is also commonly used when referring to lolicon manga or lolicon anime, a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are often depicted in an erotic manner.

I'd like to address that first one. Because its really the crux of the issue. This is where the problem is. Its not healthy or normal or acceptable behavior. And You're damned right you need a better reason than "you're not the boss of me" to rationalize it as acceptable.

Say whatever you will about "the slippery slope" of so-called thought police, or the supposedly victimless nature of this crime, or trumped up laughable studies paid for by some very shady organizations, none of those distractions being heaped upon this issue by the so-called "enlightened" make anyone who would view/possess or defend such material anyone that I would trust with any child.

We aren't arguing that someone being interested in young children is healthy or typical, rather we are saying we don't think a few icky drawings are worth sending someone to jail and blighting their life with a child porn charge over it. Denying them lolicon won't make them any less attracted to children. When there are only a limited number of jail cells around, leave them free for the real predators: those who molest real living children, to be stored in.

 

[Uncreation]

What the hell Canada, i though you used to be cool? Damn, this is just ridiculous. The guy was charged because he had some comics. Comics with pictures of kids in sexual poses are still comics you know.

 

[Terminate421]

So what constitutes Child Porn in a Manga then? I mean, just being "underage" doesnt really count, and as far as im concerned, Manga do not contain Porn. Well Ecchi perhaps (accidental boobgrab, pantyshots etc) but thats about it and even those dont really contain children

I'd wish People would start seeing the difference between Hentai (Drawn Porn) and Manga (Drawn but not Porn) already. Else you just mention you read Manga to anyone and they think you are into some sick perversion or whatever.

I bet it depends on breast size

The first thing most people (usually men) notice if their are more feminine or more woman-like is the size of their breasts.

When I look at hentai, the size of the girl and breasts usually determines if I go further into it.

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

You're still not understanding how debate works.
You're still not presenting any arguments. All you are doing is saying "Thinking like this is bad, and you should be put in jail if you think this way because I say so dammit!"
You are not defending your position with reason or facts.

You think we're debating? LOL.

I'm sorry, but I am stating fact. Society rejects being attracted to a prepubescent child as wrong. This is fact. Thinking otherwise is just denying reality. I'm not making arguments to your "points" (lol again) because the fact that this shit is wrong doesn't need to be argued to people who have common sense and decency. They accept it as the fact that it is.

Heh, debating. that would be like if I were saying the earth is round and you wanted to be like NUH UH!! YOU CANT MAKE ME THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!!! lol

Debate.... ROFL.

 

[Jonluw]

You're still not understanding how debate works.
You're still not presenting any arguments. All you are doing is saying "Thinking like this is bad, and you should be put in jail if you think this way because I say so dammit!"
You are not defending your position with reason or facts.

You think we're debating? LOL.

I'm sorry, but I am stating fact. Society rejects being attracted to a prepubescent child as wrong. This is fact. Thinking otherwise is just denying reality. I'm not making arguments to your "points" (lol again) because the fact that this shit is wrong doesn't need to be argued to people who have common sense and decency. They accept it as the fact that it is.

Heh, debating. that would be like if I were saying the earth is round and you wanted to be like NUH UH!! YOU CANT MAKE ME THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!!! lol

Debate.... ROFL.

It seems you're not understanding what we are discussing.
[sub]The escapist is intended for discussion and debate. If you can't do that, you're not going to last for very long here.[/sub]
I am not arguing that society doesn't see being attracted to children as wrong. That's fact: At the moment, society's general consensus is that being attracted to children is bad.
[sub]I just really want to post my facepalm compilation gif now...[/sub]

What I'm arguing is that you shouldn't be put in jail because an aspect of your person is considered "bad", so long as you do not act upon this aspect in a way that negatively affects other people (i.e. do not touch children inappropriately).

 

[Karilas]

Do we really want to defend someone with drawings like that

Freedom of speech is important, but is it really that important? Not all expression is worthy of protection, this is an example of that.

Yes it is. From the people who draw offensive rule 34 images on the various chans, to the asshole's who protest soldiers funerals for no reason, to the guys who made Duke Nukem Forever, to the people who think Hitler had some good ideas. Either it's all ok or none of it is. If you really want free speech then you have to be willing to pay the price of letting people act like complete and utter twats if they so choose. Trust me, it's a very small price to pay. I may not agree with your views but I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your right to be a massive tool.

Pretty much says it all for me.

 

[direkiller]

It's a tough one... On one hand, they are JUST drawings and there is no intent to cause harm to anybody and no body is harmed.

On the other, it has been known to be a starting point for paedophiles. Not hentai, necessarily, but eventually the fake images will no longer satisfy the person's urges and can lead to real paedophilia.

I'm not sure if this source is 100% but this is what I found.

"Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct..."
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

Then again this is only american law. I'm not sure if Canadian laws are the same. And it also doesn't state if hand drawn images count.
But I would recommend this guy get counselling.

P.s. please note there is a difference between Hentai and Manga.
If you mean Hentai then it is Anime/Manga styled pornography.
If you mean Manga then it's a merely a means on entertainment and should not be constrewed as pornography in any way.

you missed the second half of that law that the court would fight over(if the material has artistic value)

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 such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

anyway i imagen the case will get tossed out assuming Canada has a similar law(else they better have someone arresting everyone that walks out of the upcoming romeo and Juliet movie)

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

We aren't arguing that someone being interested in young children is healthy or typical, rather we are saying we don't think a few icky drawings are worth sending someone to jail and blighting their life with a child porn charge over it. Denying them lolicon won't make them any less attracted to children. When there are only a limited number of jail cells around, leave them free for the real predators: those who molest real living children, to be stored in.

Nope, arrest them too. Having Lolicon on your person is enough to bring suspicion of having such attractions. Its well within societies rights, if you're breaking the law, to incarcerate you, hell, it might even be good for him, maybe just maybe he might get some help. I hear that occasionally sex offenders don't immediately become recidivists upon release so maybe our American programmer will get some help seeing the error of his attractions while he's behind bars. As far as blighting their life with a child porn charge, probably something he should have thought of before possessing images that could even be remotely confused with child porn.

Not that I believe that. I don't think for one min that Canadian authorities would level that charge over something harmless like ramna or whatever. I could care less about this guys blighting of his life... good for society to know he has such attractions, that way he can be kept separate from positions in life that would give him access to children.

 

[ecoho]

ok if this is hentai then yeah stupid should be punished. If its just manga then i hope they make those very friendly people up north weep.....wait somethings wrong with that thought...........