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

[AngryMongoose]

This isn't exactly on topic but I had never even heard of Monkey Dust before but now that I've discovered it, its pretty awesome. Thank you, poster!

When it was first on TV I couldn't watch it because it was too depressing. My soul has been seriously tarnished since that time and now I find it entertaining as hell.

 

[Lullabye]

I just realized, they have Volume 1 of Seikon no Qwaser on sale at my nearest Chapters.
Ironic much?

 

[AmandaHuginkiss127]

If someone is looking at an image that appears childlike and is being turned on by that image I don't think it matters whether the image is of a real child or not. The only solution is castration, as this is the only way to make sure these pervs do not jump from pictures to real children.

Rape/molestation in general is more about exerting dominance and power than actual sex. Penis or not, a person who has a desire to molest children is gonna do it.

Then of course, there's no evidence I know of that links looking at fictional children and wanting to rape real children.

EDIT: And let's not forget that women can molest children too.

Castration does not remove the penis big guy, may want to check your facts. Castration (also referred to as gelding, spaying, neutering, fixing, orchiectomy, oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testicles or a female loses the functions of the ovaries. It greatly reduces sex drive which is a major driver for pedophiles, not domination or power. Pedophiles are attracted to children. If everyone is so sure that looking at child porn doesn't mean that a person would actually hurt a child, ask yourself whether or not you would trust this person to watch your kid. God help you if your answer is yes because no one can help you.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

The problem with that approach to lawmaking is that in practice it evolves into something very unpleasant, whilst in theory it may be all laws should be judged to a single standard what it actually becomes is I will do what I want and if you have a problem with it, take it up with the military or it's older and more arrogant relative; your laws don't apply to me, I'm white.

I wasn't actually describing how the situation should be, I was describing how the situation is. When it comes to the United States, our policy as has been shown with Hussein [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega] is that if we want someone bad enough, we'll bring down the Fury of God's Thunder (As it was described in The West Wing) in order to get him. Generally we're more enthusiastic about those we want to stand trial than we are VIPs.

Is this fair? No. Does it make us look like the belligerent asshole of the Earth? Absolutely. Would we save a gay VIP from Uganda? Not if the conservatives are in power. Does this perpetuate the white supremacy delusion. Of course. The white supremacy agenda? Not so much.

The ideal, would, of course, be that all cultures arrive by their own means to legislate same civil ideals of egalitarianism, liberty and base standards of care. What is likely to happen is that cultures that don't find their own way will ultimately succumb to pressure to make these changes (pressure in this case equating to foreign aid towards industrialization, which appears to work oh so much better than poking them with sabers).

I do know that human ethics stem from a basic set of roots, the most primary being Reciprocity and Harm / Care (That is, the avoidance of doing harm usually with the caveat without due process, and the duty to provide care).[footnote]Implementation of this structure has been complicated further thanks to our current era of religious revivalism. Expression of these moral basics, as applied in the Geneva Conventions has created a written code, authored by humankind that has transcended the morality of God as expressed in Mosaic law (and in Shariah law, and in the various versions of the bibles). Our liberal denominations usually reinterpret the holy texts to allow for modern ethics, though our religious conservative conventions tend to take offense that we could transcend the sacred.[/footnote] Most cultures generally get this, but plenty are eager to rule out disfavored minorities. Mostly, that just results in us liberals grumbling from the stands of the UN.

The problem with insisting that a country's laws aren't sacred unless you approve them is that every legal system is developed organically to meet the needs of the community and by rubbishing their laws you're essentially saying they're doing culture wrong. It's a binary decision; do you insist that a country's laws should meet your standards or do you respect their cultural differences?

At risk of invoking Godwin's law, if there's one thing Hitler's crew did teach us, it is that some nations do, in fact, get culture wrong. While I wouldn't presume to know its limits, I can say with certitude that there is a threshold beyond which it is our moral imperative to intervene. I suspect it's before genocide is institutionalized.

I'm not sure what makes a libtard. (Is it a liberal-retard or a libertarian-retard?) The way out of the Libtard Checkmate (more just a Libtard snarl) is to recognize that it's not a binary dilemma after all. Culture is not a brittle immutable blob that shatters with the slightest change. Cultures can evolve and move towards modernized ethics without losing identity. Pre-Taliban Islam, for example was well on its way, and could have become a nexus of tolerance and egalitarianism before the conservative movement of the last half century.[footnote]Even then, the younger generations want their Facebook and XBox, and may splinter from their Islam roots to embrace western ideals unless the older conservative front is willing to make some pretty radical concessions. I think the recent Twitter revolutions are indicative of this wave.[/footnote][footnote]I would also hazard, as the 19th and 20th century have shown us that modern era culture, wherever it is to be found, is so mutable that it may be doomed to rapid revolution whether or not it is influenced by external forces. This is certainly visible in the information age; even the Harry Potter novels are dated by the absence of iPhone culture.[/footnote]

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.

And here you reveal the practical nature of the matter, in contrast to the academics on which I was focusing originally. Yes, it's not his personal place to say Canada is wrong. That would fall to negotiations between our respective state departments. Interestingly, this is exactly the result Canada wanted from the new checkpoint policy (which is to say, to illustrate how the US checkpoint policy makes for more embarrassing incidents). So, really, the situation is bigger than poor Brandon X or the CBLDF, and I'd hate to see him made an example just to get the US to chill out a bit. Of course, the US really does need to chill out a bit.

Everyone is still blinking over the fact that this is happening between the US and Canada. And I believe that is the whole point.

...It's very easy to fall into a habit of doing something the wrong way because nothing bad has ever happened, but the lack of consequences so far doesn't ensure a lack of consequences ever. I do it, I think everyone does but when it goes wrong it's important to understand that you lost a gamble.

I think the difficulty is putting a value to the risk. I risk my life when I cross the street.[footnote]And I have a visceral awareness of this risk, since my roommate lost much of her leg to a reckless motorcyclist in a nearby crosswalk.[/footnote] I have empathy for the guy just because I've traveled to attend conventions before, and know how complicated it is already managing the minutiae in preparation for one. Pedestrian bits slip my mind, usually requiring that I pay exorbitant prices for local toiletries or do without. I'm sure getting caught up in what was really an international tit-for-tat did much to ruin his week.

My hope is, of course, that the US DHS gets the message and realizes international travel is really not the place to be adding media piracy searches to our extended list of international travel woes. And that Brandon X gets to walk without losing too much of his collection, or his dignity.

238U.

 

[Spawkuring]

If someone is looking at an image that appears childlike and is being turned on by that image I don't think it matters whether the image is of a real child or not. The only solution is castration, as this is the only way to make sure these pervs do not jump from pictures to real children.

Rape/molestation in general is more about exerting dominance and power than actual sex. Penis or not, a person who has a desire to molest children is gonna do it.

Then of course, there's no evidence I know of that links looking at fictional children and wanting to rape real children.

EDIT: And let's not forget that women can molest children too.

Castration does not remove the penis big guy, may want to check your facts. Castration (also referred to as gelding, spaying, neutering, fixing, orchiectomy, oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testicles or a female loses the functions of the ovaries. It greatly reduces sex drive which is a major driver for pedophiles, not domination or power. Pedophiles are attracted to children. If everyone is so sure that looking at child porn doesn't mean that a person would actually hurt a child, ask yourself whether or not you would trust this person to watch your kid. God help you if your answer is yes because no one can help you.

Thank you for the info. I'll look into it more.

 

[4173]

If someone is looking at an image that appears childlike and is being turned on by that image I don't think it matters whether the image is of a real child or not. The only solution is castration, as this is the only way to make sure these pervs do not jump from pictures to real children.

Rape/molestation in general is more about exerting dominance and power than actual sex. Penis or not, a person who has a desire to molest children is gonna do it.

Then of course, there's no evidence I know of that links looking at fictional children and wanting to rape real children.

EDIT: And let's not forget that women can molest children too.

Castration does not remove the penis big guy, may want to check your facts. Castration (also referred to as gelding, spaying, neutering, fixing, orchiectomy, oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testicles or a female loses the functions of the ovaries. It greatly reduces sex drive which is a major driver for pedophiles, not domination or power. Pedophiles are attracted to children. If everyone is so sure that looking at child porn doesn't mean that a person would actually hurt a child, ask yourself whether or not you would trust this person to watch your kid. God help you if your answer is yes because no one can help you.

Semantics ahoy!

That person might hurt a child or pose a (higher) risk of hurting a child. I wouldn't let that person watch my (hypothetical) child, but I'm not sure that every pedophile is an equally risky ticking time bomb simply waiting for opportunity. More specifically, I'm not sure (and rather doubt) being a pedophile makes one an immoral creature or inherently evil.

 

[ph0b0s123]

For me this say's it all. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/30/smut_freakonomics/

A summation of a freakonomics style analysis, of does access to porn cause rape with some analysis about Child porn at the end.

As I said in my previous 'long' post, I only care about preventing real abuse to real children. That is the result everybody wants and if, as the analysis looks to show, having available child porn material decreases real abuse, then what is the problem. It gets the result everyone wants.

Now obviously you don't want child porn of real children being produced as this is done via abuse. So you would need the drawn variety. So if the analysis above is true, by many countries restricting this material now, we will see an increase in real children being abused. And that makes me really mad.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

More specifically, I'm not sure (and rather doubt) being a pedophile makes one an immoral creature or inherently evil.

Well in western society it most certainly does and the result is imprisonment [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/article1839304.ece]. The UK at least won't tolerate it. I can't quite understand why you're "not sure"...do you believe it's possible to be a moral, upstanding citizen who abuses children? Abusing children and/or possessing images of such, drawn or photographic is immoral, illegal and not tolerated.

But if I successfully invaded your country and made a bunch of laws you disagree with, I'm sure you would be acting differently

WTF? If I was an alien overlord who invaded and usurped rule of Earth, I'm sure you wouldn't like being enslaved by my hordes of minions. Who invaded who and changed which laws? What are you on about? And what does that have to do with someone who broke a law in a foreign country?

 

[4173]

More specifically, I'm not sure (and rather doubt) being a pedophile makes one an immoral creature or inherently evil.

Well in western society it most certainly does and the result is imprisonment [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/article1839304.ece]. The UK at least won't tolerate it. I can't quite understand why you're "not sure"...do you believe it's possible to be a moral, upstanding citizen who abuses children? Abusing children and/or possessing images of such, drawn or photographic is immoral, illegal and not tolerated.

You misunderstand me. I think it is possible to be a moral, upstanding citizen who is attracted to children. To paraphrase all sorts of people: Virtue is not giving in to temptation, not having no temptation.

Absolutely, 100%, abusing children is an immoral act. Abusing children is so heinous an act that precautions and safeguards after even the more minor offenses are justified.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

I think this just brings the question of "what is porn"?

I can't remember the name of the Judge who said it, but he pretty much put that all straight.

"I know it when I see it."

Bullcrap. What is porn to one person is totally diffrent to someone else. Cultural diffrence and what not.

You know, I could understand that with some things...


But not porn. I don't see how porn can be that much...different...in other cultures.

But thats' how it works in America, pal.

 

[Volviga]

So...I see a lot of people saying that reading loli-manga makes you a potential child abuser?

Isn't that the same argument as "Playing violent games makes you go crazy and shoot 20 people at the local highschool"?
Watching Saw doesn't mean that you are a person who will start to torture people. You might have the urge to, but does that mean you will do it? Most people have enough common sence to stop their urges to be 'evil'. And those who can't, probably would be doing it already before getting 'influenced' by movies or manga.

And, before people say that "the thought is already enough to lock one up." No, it isn't. That's like...locking someone away for having thoughts. e.g: "Wahh...that's a gorgious girl, I would love to do her". Regardless of the girls thoughts (is she 'willing'), there are a lot of (if not all) males who would either think or say it once in their life. But they don't get locked up, do they?


I must say, I've no idea if having CP Manga is prohibited here. I'm fairly sure things like Tentacle Rape Manga/Anime aren't, though. =P

Oh, and btw, someone stated that Hentai isn't the same as a Manga, that Hentai (= a genre) falls in the same category as manga or anime (= a medium). That's wrong. Hentai is drawn porn (= a genre), Manga is the Japanese equivalent for Comics. Hentai can be a manga or anime, but having either one of those doesn't mean you have porn =P

- Hentai = Drawn Porn (wich will be either manga or anime)
- Manga = Comic
- Anime = Cartoon

 

[McMullen]

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.

Second,Do they know what manga the customs agent found on the guys laptop? For all we know if could have been one of those disturbing lolicon hentai comics.

My dad had a conversation with a former customs officer who said "The most common mistake people make when going through customs is that they think they have rights".

I'm not sure why or how, but apparently customs officers have very few restrictions and are not held accountable for much at all. They can search whatever they want, with or without probable cause, with or without your consent, and don't even have to have the word "warrant" in their vocabulary. If this means they damage or destroy whatever they're searching, too bad, you shouldn't have come through the border with long hair and anti-war bumper-stickers.

I spent two or three hours in a customs office once when I was a kid because my mom didn't have a receipt for some antique porcelain dolls in the trunk of the car, and they were interrogating and threatening her and telling her that they could pretty much sexually assault her right in the interrogation room and get away with it. Eventually after all that they were like "Alright, you can go." This was on the US-Canada border.

Apparently someone thinks that this system is a good idea. My experience has taught me that the people who are in Customs are the kind of people who shouldn't be trusted with that power. Expect to be abused when traveling through customs (I've crossed borders several dozen times and only had that one bad experience, but one is enough). I've never felt safe crossing borders, and am sure that no amount of innocence will ever keep you from being arrested if some prick in a blue uniform feels like ruining your day, so don't fuck with them.

 

[McMullen]

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.

Second,Do they know what manga the customs agent found on the guys laptop? For all we know if could have been one of those disturbing lolicon hentai comics.

My dad had a conversation with a former customs officer who said "The most common mistake people make when going through customs is that they think they have rights".

I'm not sure why or how, but apparently customs officers have very few restrictions and are not held accountable for much at all. They can search whatever they want, with or without probable cause, with or without your consent, and don't even have to have the word "warrant" in their vocabulary. If this means they damage or destroy whatever they're searching, too bad, you shouldn't have come through the border with long hair and anti-war bumper-stickers.

That's essentually corect. They are accountable, but just not to the level of a police officer and they don't need cause to search - they are SUPPOSED to randomly search, as well as searching with cause.

They have this right because you are deemed to have consented to search by choosing to cross the boarder.

When I worked at a car rental company we frequently had cars impounded for detailed search at the border (and the person who had the car kept getting billed until it was returned). On one occassion though they actually called us a week later and when we went to pick up the car it was in itty bitty pieces that they had no intention of putting back together for us (the 3 month old car was scrap metal at that point). The car was rented by a 25 year old who when they pulled him for random inspection thought it was funny to say "and you will NEVER find the hidden compartment with the drugs". I believe that joke cost him $30,000.

Yep. That's in line with what I've heard. Heard this one anecdote about an artist shipping a sculpture for a museum exhibit, which was little more than gravel upon arrival because customs decided there MUST be drugs hidden inside it. No apology or reimbursement.

Personally, consent to search or not, I do think that when you fuck up someone's day (or, possibly, life) that much on a bad call, you should have some accountability for it. At the very least, the victim should have the right to sue. The 25 year old renter should have known better, but that sculptor could have been ruined by it. I wonder if insurance protects against overzealous customs agents.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'm saying that it's easy for you to say that it's the law and he should be punished

At no point did I say anything about this particular guy deserving punishment. What I have said is that he broke a law.

but if this happened to you, we both know that you wouldn't be so black and white about this.

If I knowingly broke a law, I wouldn't have a defence. If I did so unknowingly, depending on the crime I imagine I'd either feel unfairly treated or foolish. But this wouldn't happen to me because there's nothing particularly objectionable on my laptop.

What he did didn't harm anybody, nor does it show that he wanted to cause anybody harm...

Both totally irrelevant. A crime does not need a victim to be a crime. If a person drinks and drives they're breaking the law. It is completely irrelevant if they hit anyone as they swerved their way home (that would be a seperate crime). Even if they got home without incident, they broke the law and had they been caught would have been punished by the police for doing so. Had the above chap been importing a gun, he would also have been breaking the law, even though he had neither shot anyone nor the intention to.

My problem with this is that it effects Canadians as well as people traveling to Canada

You have a problem with Canada having a law that affects Canadians? Or you have a problem with Canada having a law that affects people travelling to Canada? If it's the first, WTF? If it's the second, just to make you aware there are approx. 200 countries in the world apart from yours. Their laws are different from yours too. If you go to another country you abide by their laws, not your own. If you don't you either get deported or arrested.

and why should somebody be punished for a victimless crime?

Because they commited a crime. And as mentioned above, crimes don't need victims to be against the law.

So if I invaded Britain and made a bunch of laws that effected you, which were victimless, you wouldn't shrug and say this is the law, you'd complain about the fairness of the situation, like any sane person would.

What is it with you invading? What is your point? I'm don't mean to be rude here, honestly, I just don't understand why you are invading foreign countries and changing their laws. Did someone change a law somewhere? Did someone invade Canada?

Here's what I'm guessing. Either you don't disapprove of, approve of or yourself partake in a similar sort of hobby to the accused in the OP, or you don't like the law that he broke, or you don't approve of customs being allowed to search people's laptops. Laws are made by governments in a (supposed) fair, democratic process and reflect the values of the majority. Customs can search anything you want to take into their country and turn you away if they choose (and have good reason). If you want to change the law, become a politician and have your voice heard or vote for someone who shares your view. However I would suggest that if you want to change the law to allow erotic images of minors, you'll probably have a hard time getting it passed. Oh, and don't go to Canada.