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

[LittlePineWeasel]

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.

Ugh. really, all those words to boil down to the same old argument. I'm sorry but I've answered every one of your points several times already with other kiddie porn defenders have made the same invalid points.

Its not comparable to mainstream media, partially due to its explicit nature.

I really don't feel like saying the same things again to you, because the "arguments" you make lead me to believe that it would be a waste of my time. Make what you will of that.

If you want more answers to the questions you ask, scroll back and read the answers that I gave the other people who think its important to let people view kiddie porn.

 

[Holy_Handgrenade]

I just hope they are not pursuing some innocuous manga title and actually have found something of the loli variety.

I hope it gets thrown out, loli or not!

It's not fucking REAL.

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

You know, most incidents of speeding don't end up with any damage to property or person. Should only the few speeding incidents that result in death or injury be considered crimes?

It endangers the lives of others.

How does having manga depicting children in sexual acts put anyone in harm's way? What's so bad about it?

The real problem here is not wether or not it does any harm to people but that it can lead to more explcit material. Much like drugs you get tolerant to smaller doses I.E less explicit so you need more hardcore stuff to get the same kick. I'm not saying normal porn is wrong, it's great because no matter how far down the line you go there is no victim. On the other hand child porn may start animated then to get the same kick the viewer would watch real child porn then take it into the real world and it can just esculate from there.

 

[Jonluw]

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.

So it seems

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's where you're getting me wrong.
What I'm saying is that child porn isn't bad because it is child porn: it is bad because you can't make it without hurting children.
When there then is a version of child porn that can be made without hurting children, I see no reason why this shouldn't be legal.

It's the same way rape isn't illegal because it consists of sticking a penis in a vagina: it's illegal because by doing so you're hurting one of the parties involved.
Now if only there was some way to stick penises in vaginas without hurting neither the owner of the vagina nor the owner of the penis...

1. kiddie porn is kiddie porn even if its drawn.Right.
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.Right again.
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.Indeed.
4. that action is against the law.And that's what I'm arguing should not be the case under certain circumstances: e.g. When you can prove beyond a fraction of a doubt that noone was hurt or coerced in the making of it (which is impossible if it involves pictures of real children)
5. the person taking that action knows its against the law. (not that ignorance is a defense)Right.
6. that person makes the conscious decision to break the law and possess this material.Right.
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 the risk of punishment risked by breaking said law.The parts in italics are right. The underlined part is added by me.

Aside from your stubborn refusal to give up this silly notion that kiddie porn isn't kiddie porn if its drawn[footnote]We already know that's a misunderstanding.[/footnote], 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.

There's where you're right.
We do differ in those priorities. I don't think carpet bombing is a reasonable way to fight crime. If you put anyone who enjoys the Saw movies in jail, you are undoubtably putting away a few potential murderers, but the people you're imprisoning are still 20-99% innocent people.
Believe it or not, but the majority of the people who possess lolicon in some form most likely have never harmed, and are never going to harm a child.

 

[gphjr14]

And to think this could've been avoided if he just had regular porn on his laptop instead of drawings of children.

 

[Spawkuring]

I just hope they are not pursuing some innocuous manga title and actually have found something of the loli variety.

I hope it gets thrown out, loli or not!

It's not fucking REAL.

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

You know, most incidents of speeding don't end up with any damage to property or person. Should only the few speeding incidents that result in death or injury be considered crimes?

It endangers the lives of others.

How does having manga depicting children in sexual acts put anyone in harm's way? What's so bad about it?

The real problem here is not wether or not it does any harm to people but that it can lead to more explcit material. Much like drugs you get tolerant to smaller doses I.E less explicit so you need more hardcore stuff to get the same kick. I'm not saying normal porn is wrong, it's great because no matter how far down the line you go there is no victim. On the other hand child porn may start animated then to get the same kick the viewer would watch real child porn then take it into the real world and it can just esculate from there.

Your concern is a perfectly valid one. The biggest fear of any kind of media showing a crime is the idea that it might lead people to doing the real thing.

However, it's also a fear that so far hasn't been backed up with real evidence.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v046j3g178147772/fulltext.html

Most countries with lax laws on pornography actually tend to have lower rates of rape and molestation. This either means that having porn actually prevents people from crime, or perhaps the porn simply has no effect on a person's desire to commit crime.

 

[DracoSuave]

I suppose one could bring in the statistics for child abuse in Japan vs in Canada. But that'd be too easy.

 

[Jonluw]

I suppose one could bring in the statistics for child abuse in Japan vs in Canada. But that'd be too easy.

That one's hard to do, because not all child abuse is sexual, and far from all sexual child abuse is done by people that are actually attracted to children.

 

[xdom125x]

If no real child is being exploited, it should be legal. I find it creepy, but it shouldn't be illegal. Also, isn't the whole point of child pornography law to make sure real children aren't exploited/abused?
On this specific case, he should be charged with a crime because he broke the law. However, the law shouldn't be the way it currently is in regards to c.p. in Canada (meaning using imaginary characters, regardless of age, in pornography should be legal.) I'd like to reiterate, they are not real people.

I'd like to pre-emptively apologise if this has already been addressed, but I felt it necessary to question these points:

Well, if the Comic book legal defence fund wants to help this man, all power to them. I just cannot find myself in support of this man

I don't know how I feel on this. On the one hand, if it is drawings, it harms no one. However, if you have that thought on your mind, might it lead you to do things with actual children?

One thing I am sure is that it would be hard to claim that this is art. As a friend of mine once put it:

It's intent. I'm an artist too, and the difference is that I draw stuff for the sake of art. A picture of a ninja stabbing a guy (for example) isn't a blueprint for my future endeavors, it's a picture of a ninja doing what ninjas do. (Name ommited), you draw pictures to jerk off and that?s wrong bro. You don?t walk into the museum, take a look at Picasso's ?Des Mademoiselles D?Avignon?, pull down your pants and play with your paintbrush. Why? Because intent is half of art, and the greats did what they did to express emotion, stories, real life, the abstract, etc. There intent was never to get some guy in his basement to have a hard on. You intended for people to get off to your drawings and that?s the difference.

So it is only art if it was created for the sake of art? Does that mean that people that make art just to get paid aren't really artists? If so, I guess the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel isn't art anymore.

Also from you:

Well, if the Comic book legal defence fund wants to help this man, all power to them. I just cannot find myself in support of this man

I don't know how I feel on this. On the one hand, if it is drawings, it harms no one. However, if you have that thought on your mind, might it lead you to do things with actual children?

Couldn't this argument easily be used against video games? Using this logic violent video games might lead you to do actual violence. I think it's hypocritical to think he should be jailed for enjoying fictional depictions of illegal acts as a gamer. Pardon me if you do not think this way.

Just a thought.

You raise a good point. I guess I didn't think of it that way

My hat is off

But I don't understand why everyone is rallying behind him. Free Speech? Give me a break.
Saying that not protecting him will lead to more free speech violations is like saying that not fighting the government on not being allowed to own a Uzi will lead to Second Amendment violations (And let?s not get into gun ownership as a debate, it was simply a point). There can be a fair line between what we should and should not accept as a society. I find it hard to stand behind a man who had drawings of underage children in such a way. Sorry.

It isn't so much that we believe not protecting him will lead to violations of free speech, it is that him not being protected here is itself a violation of his freedom of speech.

 

[Wintermoot]

not to defend pedo,s but isn't their a big difference between loli doujinshi and child porn?

 

[Small Waves]

not to defend pedo,s but isn't their a big difference between loli doujinshi and child porn?

Doujinshi refers to fanworks or independent releases, ranging from manga, music, novels, games, art collections, and so forth. They are self-published works that usually appeal to a niche crowd of people who share the same interests. The only people that can be harmed for it are the publishers themselves, as selling their product could either result in a panning or have them lose money by not selling enough of their product. Loli and shota hentai are drawings of fictional children (who do not exist and do not look like actual people). Standard fap fodder that is, by itself, harmless.

Child pornography is the sexual exploitation of children. This can come in a variety of forms, ranging from provocative pictures or videos of children nearly naked or in the nude to prostitution to rape, sexual harassment, assault, and in a worst case scenario, a snuff film. It violates basic human rights principles by treating children as tools for sex. A social disease.

 

[Leg End]

not to defend pedo,s but isn't their a big difference between loli doujinshi and child porn?

Doujinshi refers to fanworks or independent releases, ranging from manga, music, novels, games, art collections, and so forth. They are self-published works that usually appeal to a niche crowd of people who share the same interests. The only people that can be harmed for it are the publishers themselves, as selling their product could either result in a panning or have them lose money by not selling enough of their product. Loli and shota hentai are drawings of fictional children (who do not exist and do not look like actual people). Standard fap fodder that is, by itself, harmless.

Child pornography is the sexual exploitation of children. This can come in a variety of forms, ranging from provocative pictures or videos of children nearly naked or in the nude to prostitution to rape, sexual harassment, assault, and in a worst case scenario, a snuff film. It violates basic human rights principles by treating children as tools for sex. A social disease.

Basically, this. Not much else you can add.

Though, I will if I think of something. Doubt it though.

 

[The Wooster]

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

But what about the indignant feelings of contempt held by the respectable masses? What is life imprisonment for one man compared with mild offence to millions of innocent Daily Mail readers?

Yeah, I couldn't get through that without spitting.

Anyway, I've linked it before, but I don't think there are any situations where monkey dust ISN'T appropriate.

"By the power invested in me by mawkish documentaries presented by Martin Bashir..."

 

[jakefongloo]

First off, since when does customs have the right to go through your laptop? I have never traveled out of the country but this is the first time I have heard of an agent doing this.

I'm thinking this why the fuck would an agent who's primary concern is smuggling goods in and out of the country care about computer files?

 

[Herbsk]

That's what he gets for reading manga, busted by the Crap Art Police. But if it's illegal, he shouldn't be in possession of it. Only a tasteless creep would read that stuff in the first place, so it's hard to find sympathy for him.

I'd say his biggest fault was not knowing the law where he is going - under the practices mentioned by Canadian Customs officials - I can see Manga like Love Hina or Negima being seized. I'm assuming its worse if they want to label him as a sex offender, but you never know - they could just be backed by religious zealots (i.e. politicians) on a moral crusade.

See how well that worked out with Prohibition? ....oh wait - it didn't work!

 

[Holy_Handgrenade]

I just hope they are not pursuing some innocuous manga title and actually have found something of the loli variety.

I hope it gets thrown out, loli or not!

It's not fucking REAL.

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

You know, most incidents of speeding don't end up with any damage to property or person. Should only the few speeding incidents that result in death or injury be considered crimes?

It endangers the lives of others.

How does having manga depicting children in sexual acts put anyone in harm's way? What's so bad about it?

The real problem here is not wether or not it does any harm to people but that it can lead to more explcit material. Much like drugs you get tolerant to smaller doses I.E less explicit so you need more hardcore stuff to get the same kick. I'm not saying normal porn is wrong, it's great because no matter how far down the line you go there is no victim. On the other hand child porn may start animated then to get the same kick the viewer would watch real child porn then take it into the real world and it can just esculate from there.

Your concern is a perfectly valid one. The biggest fear of any kind of media showing a crime is the idea that it might lead people to doing the real thing.

However, it's also a fear that so far hasn't been backed up with real evidence.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v046j3g178147772/fulltext.html

Most countries with lax laws on pornography actually tend to have lower rates of rape and molestation. This either means that having porn actually prevents people from crime, or perhaps the porn simply has no effect on a person's desire to commit crime.

Your raise a good argument, my man but my counterpoint is that places where porn is banned having lower sexual crime rates may only be a correlation as most places that have harsher laws on pornography are more likely to be less well developed countries, which have higher crime rates in all sectors.

 

[mariofan1000]

Nothing at all: What?
Fan-Servicey: Well...hardly child porn...
Child Porn: Well, yeah.

The main thing is: what was the manga?

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

We do differ in those priorities. I don't think carpet bombing is a reasonable way to fight crime. If you put anyone who enjoys the Saw movies in jail, you are undoubtably putting away a few potential murderers, but the people you're imprisoning are still 20-99% innocent people.
Believe it or not, but the majority of the people who possess lolicon in some form most likely have never harmed, and are never going to harm a child.

So fail.

I could say "the majority of people who possess child porn in some form most likely have never harmed and are never going to harm a child, does that mean they should be not be arrested for breaking the law, or that they should be allowed near children?" Only I won't fall into that trap because that would just be repeating what you said, only acknowledging some imaginary differentiation between child porn and drawings of child porn.

You see, you continue to make this distinction between child porn and lolicon and really they are one in the same, no matter how fervently you wish it to be otherwise.

I'm afraid you're a lost soul. You can wrap yourself in as many fallacies as you like, and you can play semantics till the cows come home, and make as many terribly inaccurate comparisons with things that aren't explicit depictions of prepubescent children in sexual contexts, but the fact is that lolicon is child porn. I know thats going to get me some flak on this apparently extremely pedophile friendly forum but the truth hurts sometimes.

Until you, and every other pedo-friend on this board can accept that reality, all of the arguments you base on this really pathetic notion that images drawn or otherwise that explicitly depict children in sexual context is something other than child porn, are inevitably false and based on a lie you insist on telling yourself.

I understand that you believe strongly what you believe in. You're just wrong. And I commend that you would argue for what you believe in, but I have to say I'm really disappointed that so many escapists would make their stand and fight tooth and nail to protect child pornography.

I don't have anything more to say on the subject, I've said my peace, and I've heard every failed reaching stretch of an argument to try and make this about something other than an argument to legalize child porn in response to the points I've made. And I tire of being presented with the same creepy "yay child porn" evidence that its wrong to lock up someone caught with it.

There have been a few posters on this thread who have shown common sense and decency in this argument and I salute you for your efforts, but the rest you have finally managed to turn my stomach with your attitudes towards kiddie porn if not make one convincing argument why it should be legal.

Fare thee well pedos, may your testicles fall off before any of you creeps can procreate.

 

[Spawkuring]

And I tire of being presented with the same creepy "yay child porn" evidence that its wrong to lock up someone caught with it.

Yeah man I know. People actually supporting their argument with evidence!? How dare they. It's like they think they're living in a modern society or something.

 

[Jonluw]

We do differ in those priorities. I don't think carpet bombing is a reasonable way to fight crime. If you put anyone who enjoys the Saw movies in jail, you are undoubtably putting away a few potential murderers, but the people you're imprisoning are still 20-99% innocent people.
Believe it or not, but the majority of the people who possess lolicon in some form most likely have never harmed, and are never going to harm a child.

So fail.

I could say "the majority of people who possess child porn in some form most likely have never harmed and are never going to harm a child,

Nope, you can't say that. They've consumed media in the making of which children have been harmed, harming children by proxy, making them criminals.

does that mean they should be not be arrested for breaking the law, or that they should be allowed near children?" Only I won't fall into that trap because that would just be repeating what you said, only acknowledging some imaginary differentiation between child porn and drawings of child porn.

Except the difference is real, and it is that drawn child porn does not harm any children.

You see, you continue to make this distinction between child porn and lolicon and really they are one in the same, no matter how fervently you wish it to be otherwise.

Jesus fucking christ, how can you have such a hard time understanding what I'm saying?
I'm saying lolicon is child porn. It is a sub-section of child porn all of itself.
However, it is a harmelss version of it, and therefore should be legal.

I'm afraid you're a lost soul. You can wrap yourself in as many fallacies as you like, and you can play semantics till the cows come home, and make as many terribly inaccurate comparisons with things that aren't explicit depictions of prepubescent children in sexual contexts, but the fact is that lolicon is child porn. I know thats going to get me some flak on this apparently extremely pedophile friendly forum but the truth hurts sometimes.

Until you, and every other pedo-friend on this board can accept that reality, all of the arguments you base on this really pathetic notion that images drawn or otherwise that explicitly depict children in sexual context is something other than child porn, are inevitably false and based on a lie you insist on telling yourself.

I understand that you believe strongly what you believe in. You're just wrong. And I commend that you would argue for what you believe in, but I have to say I'm really disappointed that so many escapists would make their stand and fight tooth and nail to protect child pornography.

I don't have anything more to say on the subject, I've said my peace, and I've heard every failed reaching stretch of an argument to try and make this about something other than an argument to legalize child porn in response to the points I've made. And I tire of being presented with the same creepy "yay child porn" evidence that its wrong to lock up someone caught with it.

There have been a few posters on this thread who have shown common sense and decency in this argument and I salute you for your efforts, but the rest you have finally managed to turn my stomach with your attitudes towards kiddie porn if not make one convincing argument why it should be legal.

Fare thee well pedos, may your testicles fall off before any of you creeps can procreate.

Holy fucking shitballs, how is this even possible?! My entire last post consisted of acknowledging that lolicon is child porn, and you use the entire reply to claim that I'm saying it isn't.[footnote]

What I'm saying is that child porn isn't bad because it is child porn: it is bad because you can't make it without hurting children.
When there then is a version of child porn that can be made without hurting children, I see no reason why this shouldn't be legal.

[/footnote]

I'll have you know, nearly no single thing I've said in this discussion has been a fallacy. You, however, have been consistently ignoring the opposing part's arguments (I'm still waiting for a reply on why rape-porn is legal), and using circular logic. To paraphrase: "It should be illegal to own drawn child porn, because that's what the law says"

I will take the lack of an attempt to make a proper argument - literally saying "You're just wrong" - as a sign that you feel you are losing the grip on this debate.
This debate is now counted as a win for me.
[sub]Please don't bother to write a reply. I have lost the microscopic belief in your hidden ability to hold a proper debate that I held.[/sub]