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

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Of course a law isn't necessarily 'just' in another country but it's their law and it's not your place to object. You place yourself in a situation where the law affects you willingly and as such you have no right to complain.

To the contrary it is not only your place to object, but also the place of your nation's state department to support you in that objection. A nation's laws certainly govern the customs within that nation, especially for the citizens of that nation and long-term visitors, but for those too unfamiliar with the local custom (or recent changes regarding it, in this case) the dangers of an accidental misstep are too great. As are the dangers of politically influenced detainment[footnote]Consider the hikers on the Iranian border, the journalists who keep disappearing on the borders of North Korea and the other journalists on a China beat who cannot get access to their internet accounts (or get them hacked by Chinese agents).[/footnote] This sort of thing happens all the time.

In the contemporary era, the complexity of national codes make it impossible for a single person to be informed of all ways they can unwittingly break local law. Even here in the States, it's a problem when one crosses state lines[footnote]Fortunately, state sheriffs departments and highway patrols are usually inclined to merely warn people about their infringements when traveling, especially regarding protocols that bring much cause for violation (Oregon yields a lot more airborne pollen than does California, yet antihistamines are illegal in Oregon thanks to a robust meth trade). More amusingly, when my Aunt's family would come in from Woodfords and Markleeville to the Bay Area with rifles racked on the back window of her pickup and studded snow tires, it would make for interesting conversations with the local law enforcement. And that is all within California.[/footnote] let alone national borders.

Secondly, we have, through the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions established a certain bare minimum standard of care and regard for any human being anywhere, which is a good thing when laws such as the Uganda Bill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill] get passed. (Fortunately, it hasn't yet, and we hope never does.) These standards are not always enforced as they are, but the industrialized world has pretty much established that they should be, even regarding people we don't like such as suspected terrorists.[footnote]And no, that hasn't stopped the US from disregarding the rights of suspected unlawful combatants. Such is the messed-up clime of the War on Terror.[/footnote] This partially stems from the Roman tradition in which the rights of Roman citizens were enforced globally by Caesar's military might, no matter what infractions they committed abroad. Indeed, their point was the extension of Roman influence across the globe, and not humane protection for all, but it did make for safer travel for Romans.

Thirdly, in the modern era (that is after WWII), national law no longer stops at a nation's physical borders. The precedent set in the Nuremberg trials (allowing for the administration of one nation or a body of nations to hold members of another nation accountable for war crimes or crimes against humanity) posits the notion that some cultures are better than others.[footnote]This has actually become relevant in the contemporary era, since the GOP pushed laws through to ensure the Bush administration would be exonerated retroactively, were they ever charged with war crimes, or crimes against humanity by the United States, leaving it to Germany and its allies to charge them, if justice is ever to be seen regarding crimes during the War on Terror. After it was decided that George W. Bush's biography Decision Points could be used as evidence, both confessing inhumane policies were dictated from the top and that Bush continues to stand by them (i.e. showing no remorse or regret) Bush canceled trips abroad for concern of the possibilities of a successful extradition to Germany.[/footnote] Indeed, it is becoming more accepted throughout the civilized world that the degree of legal equality between individuals, the quality of provisions to those in need, and the range of liberty to which everyone is guaranteed access all serve as metrics by which to measure the civilization of nations, and the degree of international respect given to its laws.

I have to say though, if that was me and I had a hobby that was as...unpopular as that I'd have checked it out first.

Considering the post 9/11 political clime (largely influenced by US paranoia), I'd have to agree. Had he taken a plane, he could have been subject to a similar search by the US for copyright infringement violations (i.e. pirated media). Since he was traveling by car, though, I see how he'd expect out of habit an open-border policy, especially if he was simply waved through last year when traveling to the same convention.

238U.

 

[ZtH]

No, read "posession of material" and you can clearly see its a tangible thing, not throughts.

Of course you can be arrested for thoughts too... If you tell a doctor or counciller that you have such thoughts and they think you MAY follow through on them they are required by law to breach confidentiality report you to the police. (Different legislation, but yes, that exists too...)

Ah, I clearly just fail at reading comprehension. That other legislation is also quite frightening though. I don't think I'll ever move to Canada now. A bit too Orwellian for me.

Hm, new backup country required. Maybe Holland.

 

[Spawkuring]

Again, and as simply as I can put it. Being punished for possessing such materials is not being punished for thoughts, its being punished for acting upon those thoughts. A pedo can day dream all day about doing horrible things to children and I don't care. But If he acts upon that thought in any way including acquiring any kind of image or media depicting the same... Well to quote Walter Sobcheck, he's entering a world of pain.

That right there is pretty questionable logic. By your logic, I should be arrested, or at least put on suspicion, for violent assault and murder if I ever own a piece of action media because I'm "acting out" on my desire to see people beat/shoot each other up.

Usually most people define the term "acting out" to refer to actually harming someone, and not harming a fictional person. The whole reason why child porn was made illegal in the first place is because the production of it requires the abuse and/or coercion of real children. Seeing as how you can't harm a drawing, it's silly that governments would ever include outlaw the sexual depiction of fictional children. That's like outlawing every piece of media with violence because "technically it's assault/murder even if the people aren't real".

But in all honesty, the reason why I defend this viewpoint is because it's been repeatedly shown that simply watching a certain type of media doesn't drive a person to go out committing crimes. If someone were to suddenly provide 100% irrefutable proof that violent videogames turns people into murderers, then I would be all for banning or regulating it, but the evidence just isn't there. Same goes for lolicon and child molestation.

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

Let's take a step back here:
Child porn is illegal because children and/or their rights are hurt in the production of said porn. It is not illegal because it's ugly to look at. Noone is hurt in the case of drawings.
You can say a person owning such drawings is indicative of disturbing personal traits and a somewhat risky personality; and you'd be right. An admitted paedophile should probably be put on some sort of watch-list as a preventive measure. However, jail and fines is punishment, and when you're punishing people for harming noone, you're breaking down basic human rights.

And yes: I do find people 'preemptively arresting' others more vile and disgusting than non-offending paedophiles.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Child porn is illegal. You don't seem to be debating that. Possessing child porn is a crime, and you don't seem to be debating that. Being a pedophile is wrong and you don't seem to be debating that either...

So where that leaves me in interpreting your arguments is that kiddie porn isn't kiddie porn if its drawn by someone, and that you further argue based on that falacy, that since it isn't "real" (sorry it is real, it is not a figment of the possessors mind) then arresting someone for it is arresting them for having bad thoughts.

You just couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

1. kiddie porn is kiddie porn even if its drawn.
2. kiddie porn is not any less a real thing if it is ink on paper instead of a photograph, it is still a tangible thing that exists. This goes for digital images as well.
3. Possession of it doesn't "just happen" one has to take action upon an impulse to see such material in order to come into possession of it.
4. that action is against the law.
5. the person taking that action knows its against the law. (not that ignorance is a defense)
6. that person makes the conscious decision to break the law and possess this material.
7. that person right there in that moment makes it clear that they do not care what society thinks about right or wrong in this discussion and also makes it clear that their impulse to see such imagery was stronger than their aversion to punishment risked by breaking said law.

Aside from your stubborn refusal to give up this silly notion that kiddie porn isn't kiddie porn if its drawn, we differ also in that my priority, along with the rest of normal society i'd wager, would be in the protection of children. As opposed to protecting the "basic human right" (lol) of some perv to posses kiddie porn.

 

[DracoSuave]

Some things of note:

Possession of said material is stricken down in Canada as a result of the wording of the law making pictures of your kids in the bathtub being included in the definition. He would be included under the trafficing sections which actually include intent.

However, because there's no evidence of harm coming to a child, the law might not take effect because its intent is to fight the trafficking of child abuse. Depictions of fictional child abuse are a little different, as criminalizing that may criminalize other media that do not include pornography, including afterschool specials.

This is one of those instances where the law needs to be rigorously defined so that innocent people do not get charged without criminal intent.

As for the 'is it art?' question, yes it is. It's meant to convey an emotion, and it does. Pornography is probably one of the most honest of art forms. And it IS an art form.

The question should not be about whether it is art or not; that argument always shifts to a question of taste, ignoring the fact that artistic merit is not a defining characteristic of art, but rather a critical standpoint. Instead, it should be determined whether that art causes harm to non-consenting individuals.

The pleading of ignorance to a law is normally successful in that kind of case though, it's not like someone's expected to have a complete knowledge of the laws, they'll either be warned or ejected rather than having to serve a sentence. I very much doubt this guy will end up in prison but in all good conscience I couldn't let him ride roughshod over Canada's laws because the US has different laws. Any protest to a law should be done at the national level rather than some guy who fell foul of it arguing that it's unfair.

That right there is actually a key point in cases like these. Due to the defendents ignorance of the law they are often just banned from entering that country ever again. I suspect that is what is most likely to happen in this case.

That can work for minor offenses. Child pornography is considered far more serious. Ignorance of the details of the law are not considered to be a defense against what the public considers to be the result of unconscionable offenses.

The real question here is, has an unconscionable offense occured?

Aside from your stubborn refusal to give up this silly notion that kiddie porn isn't kiddie porn if its drawn, we differ also in that my priority, along with the rest of normal society i'd wager, would be in the protection of children. As opposed to protecting the "basic human right" (lol) of some perv to posses kiddie porn.

Except, in the depiction of fictional characters being abused, no child is actually being harmed, any more than playing a violent videogame makes you a mass murderer.

In this case, you have to weigh the protection of a fictional character vs the protection of free speech. Your obvious disgust for the medium and its users is laudable, and you are entitled to your critical opinion. However do not confuse your distaste for the protection of children, for no children are actually protected by the banning of fictional works that are not in the hand of children.

Unless you can prove, of course, that depictions of sex and violence in the media are causal to the impulses of their consumers, rather than the desires of their consumers being causal to the consumption of the media.

A return question: Does an action movie fan like to watch explosions because he saw a Michael Bey movie, or does he watch a Michael Bey movie because he likes explosions?

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

Again, and as simply as I can put it. Being punished for possessing such materials is not being punished for thoughts, its being punished for acting upon those thoughts. A pedo can day dream all day about doing horrible things to children and I don't care. But If he acts upon that thought in any way including acquiring any kind of image or media depicting the same... Well to quote Walter Sobcheck, he's entering a world of pain.

That right there is pretty questionable logic. By your logic, I should be arrested, or at least put on suspicion, for violent assault and murder if I ever own a piece of action media because I'm "acting out" on my desire to see people beat/shoot each other up.

Incorrect. You're (like so many) working on the fallacy that there is some correlation between kiddie porn and "action media". There really just isn't. One is acceptable to society and is therefore legal, the other society rejects as obscene and thus is illegal. Since there is no kiddie porn fairy that magically deposits it under your pillow, that means you (pay attention here) acted upon, which is quite different from "acting out" your desire to see something obscene that is prohibited by law, knowing the risks.

Anyone who is willing to risk that, anyone who is that hung up on kiddyporn, I want treated, after they are arrested for breaking the law. Also I want them registered and kept away from children, just in case treatment is as effective as it usually is on these pervs.

 

[4173]

Let's take a step back here:
Child porn is illegal because children and/or their rights are hurt in the production of said porn. It is not illegal because it's ugly to look at. Noone is hurt in the case of drawings.
You can say a person owning such drawings is indicative of disturbing personal traits and a somewhat risky personality; and you'd be right. An admitted paedophile should probably be put on some sort of watch-list as a preventive measure. However, jail and fines is punishment, and when you're punishing people for harming noone, you're breaking down basic human rights.

And yes: I do find people 'preemptively arresting' others more vile and disgusting than non-offending paedophiles.

Aside from your stubborn refusal to give up this silly notion that kiddie porn isn't kiddie porn if its drawn, we differ also in that my priority, along with the rest of normal society i'd wager, would be in the protection of children. As opposed to protecting the "basic human right" (lol) of some perv to posses kiddie porn.

I'm curious. Do you think a distinction can be made between cartoon kiddie porn made by a person for personal use, and a person going in search of cartoon kiddie porn made by others?

To me, it seems the former is much closer to thought than the latter.*


*Yes, I know that there is a 99.99% chance this question is irrelevant for the original case at the Canadian border. Just curiosity.

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

I'm curious. Do you think a distinction can be made between cartoon kiddie porn made by a person for personal use, and a person going in search of cartoon kiddie porn made by others?

To me, it seems the former is much closer to thought than the latter.*


*Yes, I know that there is a 99.99% chance this question is irrelevant for the original case at the Canadian border. Just curiosity.

I think who drew it is pretty much irrelevant. Either way you'd still be in possession of it.

 

[Spawkuring]

Again, and as simply as I can put it. Being punished for possessing such materials is not being punished for thoughts, its being punished for acting upon those thoughts. A pedo can day dream all day about doing horrible things to children and I don't care. But If he acts upon that thought in any way including acquiring any kind of image or media depicting the same... Well to quote Walter Sobcheck, he's entering a world of pain.

That right there is pretty questionable logic. By your logic, I should be arrested, or at least put on suspicion, for violent assault and murder if I ever own a piece of action media because I'm "acting out" on my desire to see people beat/shoot each other up.

Incorrect. You're (like so many) working on the fallacy that there is some correlation between kiddie porn and "action media". There really just isn't. One is acceptable to society and is therefore legal, the other society rejects as obscene and thus is illegal. Since there is no kiddie porn fairy that magically deposits it under your pillow, that means you (pay attention here) acted upon, which is quite different from "acting out" your desire to see something obscene that is prohibited by law, knowing the risks.

Anyone who is willing to risk that, anyone who is that hung up on kiddyporn, I want treated, after they are arrested for breaking the law. Also I want them registered and kept away from children, just in case treatment is as effective as it usually is on these pervs.

So now you defend your poor logic with even worse logic. "Society says this is wrong, therefore it's wrong". Thankfully people didn't listen to you when they fought for minority rights when the majority opinion felt that minorities didn't deserve rights.

And I also find it funny that you make such a big deal over people risking to break the law. You do realize that pretty much everyone, probably including yourself, break the law on an almost regular basis. Music piracy (which can ruin your life if you get caught), game piracy (same), jaywalking, people are quite willing to break laws if they feel that they are unjust. And that's how it should be. Nobody should just lie there and let the government do whatever it wants because of silly notions like "it's the law" or "the majority says so".

And yes, I find it a much greater priority to not support a law if I feel that it's not doing its job. "Defend the children" doesn't work because you aren't defending children by giving government unnecessary power to lock up people who haven't harmed another, nor have even been proven to have the potential to harm another through their "crime". If anything, that kind of thing harms children in the long run.

 

[DracoSuave]

Incorrect. You're (like so many) working on the fallacy that there is some correlation between kiddie porn and "action media". There really just isn't. One is acceptable to society and is therefore legal, the other society rejects as obscene and thus is illegal.

The debate is whether or not a specific thing should be illegal. The argument 'It is illegal therefore it should be illegal' is inherently circular and is an invalid argument. His point is actually correct, and presenting the parellel argument to prove its fundamental fallacy is a perfectly reasonable counterargument. Retorting with a circular argument is not a valid rebuttal.

Instead, try a different, valid or cogent, argument. The old one has been defeated.

Since there is no kiddie porn fairy that magically deposits it under your pillow, that means you (pay attention here) acted upon, which is quite different from "acting out" your desire to see something obscene that is prohibited by law, knowing the risks.

Where do I sign up for the action game fairy that your rebuttal implies must therefore exist.

Anyone who is willing to risk that, anyone who is that hung up on kiddyporn, I want treated, after they are arrested for breaking the law. Also I want them registered and kept away from children, just in case treatment is as effective as it usually is on these pervs.

And again, I put forth to you, that consumers of fictional depictions of child abuse are no more complicit in actual child abuse than consumers of fictional depictions of violence and murder are complicit in actual depictions of violence.

I respect your distate for the media, and their consumers. What I do not respect is you attempting to criminalize them for something when you cannot even provide correlation between consuming the fictional depiction of underage sexuality, and consuming actual depictions of real underage sexuality.

The latter involves the actual abuse of children. Absolutely that must be stamped out, because of the non-consenting nature of the subject.

A similiar example, to put it in perspective:

Let's say you're watching a movie, and in it is depicted an act of rape. Does that mean people who watch that movie are complicit in rape? Does it even mean they desire to rape? Does it even mean they APPROVE of rape?

Another example: What if two consenting adults have sex, and one of them pretends to be a school girl while the other pretends to be a teacher? That's a fictional enactment of an act of child abuse, but should that be deemed child abuse under the same logic?

The argument is not as black and white as you make it out to be, and when you cannot produce a child harmed by the act, it becomes a lot more grey as to whether or not it can be harmful to children.

 

[Fappy]

Some of the people in this thread really need a crash-course in media law. DX

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

Again, and as simply as I can put it. Being punished for possessing such materials is not being punished for thoughts, its being punished for acting upon those thoughts. A pedo can day dream all day about doing horrible things to children and I don't care. But If he acts upon that thought in any way including acquiring any kind of image or media depicting the same... Well to quote Walter Sobcheck, he's entering a world of pain.

That right there is pretty questionable logic. By your logic, I should be arrested, or at least put on suspicion, for violent assault and murder if I ever own a piece of action media because I'm "acting out" on my desire to see people beat/shoot each other up.

Incorrect. You're (like so many) working on the fallacy that there is some correlation between kiddie porn and "action media". There really just isn't. One is acceptable to society and is therefore legal, the other society rejects as obscene and thus is illegal. Since there is no kiddie porn fairy that magically deposits it under your pillow, that means you (pay attention here) acted upon, which is quite different from "acting out" your desire to see something obscene that is prohibited by law, knowing the risks.

Anyone who is willing to risk that, anyone who is that hung up on kiddyporn, I want treated, after they are arrested for breaking the law. Also I want them registered and kept away from children, just in case treatment is as effective as it usually is on these pervs.

So now you defend your poor logic with even worse logic. "Society says this is wrong, therefore it's wrong". Thankfully people didn't listen to you when they fought for minority rights when the majority opinion felt that minorities didn't deserve rights.

And I also find it funny that you make such a big deal over people risking to break the law. You do realize that pretty much everyone, probably including yourself, break the law on an almost regular basis. Music piracy (which can ruin your life if you get caught), game piracy (same), jaywalking, people are quite willing to break laws if they feel that they are unjust. And that's how it should be. Nobody should just lie there and let the government do whatever it wants because of silly notions like "it's the law" or "the majority says so".

And yes, I find it a much greater priority to not support a law if I feel that it's not doing its job. "Defend the children" doesn't work because you aren't defending children by giving government unnecessary power to lock up people who haven't harmed another, nor have even been proven to have the potential to harm another through their "crime". If anything, that kind of thing harms children in the long run.

Wow really? Comparing child pornography law to slavery law?? lol. just lol. I mean I've seen some pedo-defenders make some pretty big stretches in a bid to sound logical but damn.

then you go on to compare child pornography to... music piracy, jaywalking?? why not throw in speeding while your at it, or prohibition or some other completely random and unrelated law...

Sorry, these arguments are just laughable to me. First you compared kiddie porn to 'action media" whatever that is... then you compared the laws and breaking them to jaywalking/piracy and went on a diatribe about how you only support laws you believe in and blah blah blah...

All that just to defend kiddie porn...

so sad. You and I we're done. You haven't proven you can make an argument worth further replies.

 

[DracoSuave]

Some things of note:

Possession of said material is stricken down in Canada as a result of the wording of the law making pictures of your kids in the bathtub being included in the definition. He would be included under the trafficing sections which actually include intent.

Incorrect. You kid in the tub is NOT child porn if its just a naked kid. However if the pictures appeared sexualized (for example lots of genital focus and mostly "obscene" looking poses) then it would be crime. Naked kids are not banned, sexual imagry is.

Actually the way the law was originally written (and why possession itself was struck down) was whether someone could find it to be sexual, not whether the image itself was depicted as sexual.

Canadian law is based on a concept called 'mens rea' which makes sure intent is written in to these sorts of things. The wording was too broad, however, and failed to address the intent of the pessessor. As well, by the wording at the time, you could make a picture of your kids in the bathtub just fine, as you did not intend to create it for sexual purpose, but the law on possession, being unconcerned with your personal intent and rather with whether someone else could, would mean that making it was legal but having it was illegal.

It was a big deal when the law got stricken down. And for good reason: The kid in the tub is, by your own admittance, not child porn.

However, because there's no evidence of harm coming to a child, the law might not take effect because its intent is to fight the trafficking of child abuse.

As previously quoted, the law, as validated by the Canadian Supreme Court, disagrees with you. Fictional depictions with no real child being harmed are equally illegal. (Probably shouldn't be...but they are)

That's why it should go to courts, so the argument can be heard. The courts can change their minds on things. Precedents are precedents, but things can change as society's priorities, or the quality of the argument does.

This is one of those instances where the law needs to be rigorously defined so that innocent people do not get charged without criminal intent.

This is an old law now, its as well understood as any law.

And yet there is a contraversy existing over it. The 'old law' thing you talk about is not universally agreed upon in this country. It's still a matter for discussion. The law has not been as thuroughly tested as you claim.

As for the 'is it art?' question, yes it is.

Art is not the issue. Child porn with real kids could be considered art. The legislation requires the defendant to prove that it would be widely held as having broad artistic merit.

The difference is that Child porn with real kids qualifies as sexual abuse of those children. Whether or not it is art is irrelevant to the fact that something sexual has occured without their legal consent.

Artistic merit isn't a legal defense to that, and its willing consumption is aiding and abetting in their abuse.

In this case, you have to weigh the protection of a fictional character vs the protection of free speech. Your obvious disgust for the medium and its users is laudable, and you are entitled to your critical opinion. However do not confuse your distaste for the protection of children, for no children are actually protected by the banning of fictional works that are not in the hand of children.

Unless you can prove, of course, that depictions of sex and violence in the media are causal to the impulses of their consumers, rather than the desires of their consumers being causal to the consumption of the media.

The Canadian Supreme Court disagrees. We don't have the same "OMG nothing can stop free speach" type decisions. We did't even really have free speach guarantees until this fairly recently and the Charter that brought us those rights includes a "greater public good" clause that makes it very clear that the rights have limits, more limits than in the US, for example.

The burden of proof is still on the crown to prove that there is societal harm in this case. It isn't the same as the crimes of advocating genocide, for example.

A return question: Does an action movie fan like to watch explosions because he saw a Michael Bey movie, or does he watch a Michael Bey movie because he likes explosions?

splosions.

kaboom

 

[Spawkuring]

Wow really? Comparing child pornography law to slavery law?? lol. just lol. I mean I've seen some pedo-defenders make some pretty big stretches in a bid to sound logical but damn.

Instead of obsessing what I'm comparing X and Y to, you should instead look at the LOGIC behind the comparison.

Your arguments are resting on the following two statements:
1. X is wrong because society dislikes it.
2. X is wrong because it is illegal.

Both statements are things that I've provided rebuttals for in previous posts. You may not like the fact that I compared lolicon to slavery law, and that's fine, but the logical comparison is still sound: saying something is wrong because society says so is a bull!@#$ argument. The second statement is also wrong because a simple look at history shows that plenty of things have been made illegal that are usually harmless.

then you go on to compare child pornography to... music piracy, jaywalking?? why not throw in speeding while your at it, or prohibition or some other completely random and unrelated law...

Your argument was that people who take the risk of breaking a law are dangerous and deserve treatment. I pointed out that people do that type of stuff all the time, for crimes that are potentially just as damaging. Getting caught for piracy can destroy you financially, but that doesn't stop almost everyone from doing it.

Sorry, these arguments are just laughable to me. First you compared kiddie porn to 'action media" whatever that is... then you compared the laws and breaking them to jaywalking/piracy and went on a diatribe about how you only support laws you believe in and blah blah blah...

Your kidding right? You don't even know what I mean by action media? Good lord, a five year old could answer that question.

All that just to defend kiddie porn...

so sad. You and I we're done. You haven't proven you can make an argument worth further replies.

To defend people viewing harmless material without fear of getting sent to jail? Yes, I feel that's worth defending. If you can't give REAL reasons as to why that's wrong, then you're setting yourself up as a coward who has to resort to cop-outs to avoid argument.

 

[DracoSuave]

That said, yes, customs can check your laptop.

They're not police officers enacting probable cause, they're border officers with the express duty of defending a border against undesirables. They're not held to the same standard as a cop, because they're not cops.