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

[bob1052]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

 

[Antari]

So Canada Customs does realize that Manga, is ANIMATED ... and therefore NOT REAL? .... Stupidity is gaining the upper hand. We need another world war to kill some of these people off.

 

[Dogstile]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

Edit: Yeah i'm stopping replying, this is getting nowhere and I have better things to do, like taking a shower, eech, its hot here

 

[Atlas13]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

But here's the thing, it's not child porn. Child pornography refers to actual recordings or images of actual children. The laws against child pornography are in place to protect the children involved from abuse. When it comes to animated pornography, there's no victims of abuse. Because of this, there is no reason for the child pornography laws to pass over to animated pornography.

Now, believe it or not, it IS protected under right of free speech and expression, seeing as it harms no one in the process. The same is also true of video games, novels, drawings, and cinema. There's an extreme amount of violence and murder depicted in those mediums. As you know, murder is illegal, but since the depicted violence is fiction, the depiction of it is still legal.

You cannot say that animated child pornography is a telling point for future paedophiles without saying that viewing depicted violence is a telling point for future murderers. Besides, even if that WAS the case, being a paedophile is not in itself, illegal. The act of harming a child is the crime. A paedophile cannot be arrested for being a paedophile, as they have not committed any crime.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

Honestly, it's about the intent of the media in question. If it was made as porn, then it's porn. Since this wasn't, it isn't.

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?

But what this guy has done here has no potential to cause harm to anyone whatsoever. Of course, I still think that he's despicable, but it makes zero sense to arrest him for it.

You think he's despicable for reading Manga?

 

[bob1052]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

 

[Tentickles]

I am rather tired of authorities taking art as child porn when it isnt.
Manga is art. It is the Japanese version of a comic book.

If an American went to Japan and got arrested for possession of child porn because he had a 1950s Batman comic we would be in an uproar.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

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.

Depends on what you'd call porn. Nudity or the act of sex?

'Cause I have a manga that shows the female character fully naked.

Ai Yori Aoshi I believe is the title. It's a good story, but the nudity did throw me off for a bit. lol

 

[Dense_Electric]

THEY ARE DRAWINGS. NO CHILDREN WERE EXPLOITED. Hentai of people who appear to be underage =/= kiddie porn. This is where that discussion ends.

Now, if he had committed some actual offense and is charged with something else, than great. But there is no logical justification for convicting someone for a drawing.

 

[Atlas13]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

So you're basically admitting that you used a straw man fallacy?

 

[Norendithas]

snip

I wouldn't say that it is anything like the examples you gave. That's preserving a species, which holds much higher of a priority.

Anyways, I haven't seen anything about what it was he had that was considered child porn. Even the slightest overreaction to things we view as harmless or nothing like child porn in manga could be what happened. Or the guy could have had some messed up shit on his laptop. Now of course most people wouldn't defend the latter; not even I would. But, I should point out, that it is a drawing, not pictures of actual children at the very least.

 

[bob1052]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

So you're basically admitting that you used a straw man fallacy?

Straw man suggests it was over the top to twist someone's words into something undefendable. I did not change their words at all.

 

[Filiecs]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

I just have to say something.

Look, you could call your example art, sure. However, it is still a crime because it infringes on peoples right to live. Art does not give you the right to commit a crime.

Real child porn is a crime because it requires a child to be violated and children do not have a complete right to do what they want with their body until they turn 18.

This mans loli porn was perfectly legal because no ones rights were infringed in the making.

Also, you CAN NOT (and in my opinion SHOULD NEVER), arrest a guy for finding young girls attractive if he does not commit a crime. You cannot prove that a pedophile thought will lead to a child being molested. Not every pedophile harms children. That is a FACT. Also, innocent until proven guilty, a man can NEVER be judged for a crime he has not yet committed.

Never place the good of the community over the rights of a person without a mass vote. (Even with a mass vote I would most likely disagree though)

 

[bob1052]

loli porn was perfectly legal

In Canada it isn't.

Art does not give you the right to commit a crime.

Is exactly the issue.

 

[Filiecs]

loli porn was perfectly legal

In Canada it isn't.

Then he should have been denied access to Canada, not arrested.

 

[Flutterguy]

Well, I know they have had cases of child murderers who where into loli, but I really doubt the loli is what drove them to kill. I am assuming this guy probably doesn't even know why he likes the stuff, he just does, and he just ended up unlucky.

 

[bob1052]

loli porn was perfectly legal

In Canada it isn't.

Then he should have been denied access to Canada, not arrested.

Smuggling illegal contraband into a country is usually met with legal action. This is not a new development.

 

[Atlas13]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

So you're basically admitting that you used a straw man fallacy?

Straw man suggests it was over the top to twist someone's words into something undefendable. I did not change their words at all.

Freedom of expression only holds as long as that freedom does not encroach upon the freedoms of another individual.

In your argument however, you're stating that he said anyone can do anything they want, so long as they claim it is for artistic purposes. He did not say that, he stated:

"It's freedom of expression, i.e. the right of him to own that artwork/the right of whoever drew it to draw it

You know, censorship of "art" and all that"

Nowhere did he state that anyone has the freedom to deny the freedoms of others. So, you did twist his words, creating a straw man fallacy.

 

[Tanis]

So, no mention of the name of the manga?

Weird.

 

[bob1052]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

So you're basically admitting that you used a straw man fallacy?

Straw man suggests it was over the top to twist someone's words into something undefendable. I did not change their words at all.

Freedom of expression only holds as long as that freedom does not encroach upon the freedoms of another individual.

In your argument however, you're stating that he said anyone can do anything they want, so long as they claim it is for artistic purposes. He did not say that, he stated:

"It's freedom of expression, i.e. the right of him to own that artwork/the right of whoever drew it to draw it

You know, censorship of "art" and all that"

Nowhere did he state that anyone has the freedom to deny the freedoms of others. So, you did twist his words, creating a straw man fallacy.

The act of owning said "art" is illegal. That illegal act is obviously okay because its for "art".

I suggested another illegal activity for "art".