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

[4173]

Heh, another one of these threads.

1. The Victim-less crime argument fails for me on more than one level. First, that statement can't be proven, if there were just one occurrence that some perv that got bored of whackin it to lolicon moved up actual child porn, or worse molested a child that would absolutely invalidate that argument and I doubt that anyone making said argument could realistically assure that its never happened. Second, as others have pointed out, using the phrase victim-less crime as a defense of this crap seems to conveniently focus on the wrong word in that phrase.

3. My stomach turns every time I see some post talking about how lolicon isn't bad. It's always the same argument. Its not real children, and its art, and blah blah blah. Its all rationalization and window dressing. Just like the victim-less crime argument. All of which is designed to do one thing, change the argument away from how vile and wrong it is to fantasize about prepubescent children. I don't care if not one image in your lolicon collection is of a real child. I don't care if you've never (yet) looked at a real image of child porn, and have no plan to do so. I don't care if you say "i'd never want to see a real child treated like that" or "I could never do that to a child", or "i'm not a pedophile, but I understand them" or blah blah blah, I wouldn't want you near any child, let alone any child of mine.

I can't strongly disagree with any of that. The disconnect for me is I can't see what a year in jail is supposed to help in that situation. If they are so dangerous they need to be locked up to protect potential victims, it strains my credulity that just sitting in jail will somehow eliminate those thoughts.

It wont eliminate those thoughts. Something like 40% of offenders who become recidivists do so within a year or release. Personally I don't think that Pedophiles are capable of being rehabilitated. You might be able to get some to suppress their thoughts and urges for a while, but my thought on rehabilitation for them is that its as laughable a notion as those who think that being gay can be rehabilitated out of a person. I'm not saying that every person who uses lolicon is a pedophile, but I am saying that doing anything to cultivate such fantasies could lead to it. In the case you mention about this guy gettin locked up for a year? I concur it probably wouldn't eliminate such thoughts from his mind. It might cause him to suppress them for a while, which couldn't be all bad and it definitely WOULD remove the possibility of him molesting a child, that's a good thing.

Well, that bolded section hits the nail on the head. Consensus of people who have given the issue way more time and study than I have seems to be that pedophilia, and other paraphilias are psychological conditions that can be treated or even cured. The point you raise about homosexuality is a huge, glaring question mark in the issue and I don't have the ability to argue on either side of it.

It does seem to me that current legal thinking tries to balance both sides of the argument and comes up lacking. If pedophiles cannot be treated, then releasing them after short jail terms seems woefully irresponsible. Other the other hand, if they can be treated, jail terms are a woefully inadequate countermeasure.

The only way it makes much sense to me is if pedophilia is considered a conscious choice. "Oh, I woke up this morning and decided to be aroused by a cartoon of naked children."

 

[Jonluw]

uber-snip for stupidity and banality of argument.

That's cute and all but its window dressing, straw-man, spurious.

You seem to have missed the fact that I wasn't making an actual argument, but rather screwing around owing to the fact that I've long since given up having a reasonable discussion on this topic.
I sort of thought people would understand that I wasn't being serious from my overdone post.

all devised to distract from the actual crux of the issue, which is that its plain vile to fantasize about underage children, regardless of its method of depiction.

Here's a pointer: In a civilized society, you don't get to decide what I can and can't think and fantasize about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police].

 

[Spawkuring]

uber-snip for stupidity and banality of argument.

That's cute and all but its window dressing, straw-man, spurious.

Again, all devised to distract from the actual crux of the issue, which is that its plain vile to fantasize about underage children, regardless of its method of depiction.

Its a little bit creepy how many escapists here are seemingly pretty ok with it. Instead of recognizing as the defect of the mind that it is.

Sexual fetishes by their nature aren't something you want to discuss with your grandma at the dinner table. However, that doesn't make the person "vile" for having the fetish. It's only vile if the person shows a real desire to harm other people.

There are plenty of men and women who have domination fantasies, but would never dream of actually raping someone or causing genuine harm. People are smart enough to know that fantasy and reality are two different things. You can argue that a sexual fetish is tasteless or disgusting, but as long as the person isn't hurting anyone, it's their right to have it.

 

[UbarElite]

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

If I am the only one who agrees with this, then seconded.

If others agree as well, then thirded, fourthed, or whatever number we are on.

I will never understand this fatuous defense of this shit. Something doesn't have to be a crime for it to be wrong and unacceptable.

Sorry for not being clear, I meant crime in a philosophical sense, not in an illegal sense. My point being that I see nothing wrong with carrying such images, even if it is full on animated porn.

Real images are different, I stress. As sravankb said, there is no victim to this crime. This is as bad as having a beer in your home. It is an invasion of privacy, and I bet if I knew more about you I could find something that you do/have that someone would find offensive enough to have you arrested for, even when it was not hurting anybody.

 

[mythicdawn12]

Don't bring your electronics with you to Canada. That's pretty much what I got from this. It doesn't matter if you have hentai or lolicon or whatever, they'll still search your shit. Canada confirmed for Britain/Oceania.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I'd like to stress that any arguments about how these can lead to real abusing of children is just as ridoluous as claiming violent video games can make you kill some one.

In fact, studies have shown the opposite, even with REAL photos:

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

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

Here's a pointer: In a civilized society, you don't get to decide what I can and can't think and fantasize about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police].

I'm sorry, "youre not the boss of me" isnt a very good reason for justification of fantasizing about prepubescent children, going to have to come up with something better than that. Mostly because someone who is part of a civilized society instead of acting on the basest of flawed instincts wouldn't have to be told that its wrong to fantasize about prepubescent children.

I guess I'll leave this thread.

I'll let you all sit around and congratulate yourselves on how "enlightened" you all are which allows you to justify and rationalize such foul, vile, disgusting things. I don't think that I'll be able to impress upon any of you who are so vocally defending this crap that its not about nuance, or censorship, or thought control. Some things really do just boil down to right and wrong. And Lolicon, or any other kind of drawn/animated whatever depiction child abuse is still just wrong.

 

[Brandon237]

How did they find this content? Just wondering, because it sounds like customs had some fun. What I take from this is not be careful with manga, but lock and seal your luggage, bloody hell, victimless crime #343984387040505 that is getting punished -.-

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

I think it is quite obvious that this man is affected by some kind of brain disorder, that appears to have a disturbing and profound impact on his judgement.

I mean really, what kind of programmer forgets to delete or at least encrypt his porn when crossing controlled borders ? That is just bad judgment right there.

Kidding aside, I´m actually strongly in favor of making lolicon stuff illegal,
because logically, this would force the people who draw this stuff to switch to producing those kinds of porn that might actually have a chance of giving ME an *******.

 

[Spawkuring]

Here's a pointer: In a civilized society, you don't get to decide what I can and can't think and fantasize about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police].

I'm sorry, "youre not the boss of me" isnt a very good reason for justification of fantasizing about prepubescent children, going to have to come up with something better than that. Mostly because someone who is part of a civilized society instead of acting on the basest of flawed instincts wouldn't have to be told that its wrong to fantasize about prepubescent children.

I guess I'll leave this thread.

I'll let you all sit around and congratulate yourselves on how "enlightened" you all are which allows you to justify and rationalize such foul, vile, disgusting things. I don't think that I'll be able to impress upon any of you who are so vocally defending this crap that its not about nuance, or censorship, or thought control. Some things really do just boil down to right and wrong. And Lolicon, or any other kind of drawn/animated whatever depiction child abuse is still just wrong.

"It's just wrong" is the ultimate cop-out argument. Even things like murder have justifiable reasons as to why it's bad without having to rely on "just wrong". It's best that you leave the thread if you can't give a genuine argument.

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

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

wow.... did you ever project upon that guy. Did it ever occur to you that you were being searched not so much because your gay....cause honestly who cares about that anymore, and more that it was his job?? I don't want him to search less carefully and possibly miss something that shouldnt be coming into the country just to avoid setting off your gay hypersensitivity.

And if you escalated how on earth would you go about proving his motivations?? lol.

Sit down pheonix wright. I object rofl.

Additionally nothing about your post is funny, and this advice that you give at end of post is second dumbest thing I've read on escapist today.

I have crossed the border many times, right now I am in the US as I type this, and this was the only case that I had where someone tried every trick they could to keep me out of the country. Prior to that he was quite charming and had no issue with me, it was really just a routine check at that point and I saw no harm in handing over what I had. After he returned after viewing my porn his whole persona had changed, he was rude to me and wouldn't give me two words outside of barking questions at me. He called every place I had listed on my forms to try and find someone saying they didn't know me just so he could say I falsified records about where I was staying. He tried to find any loop hole he could to deny me entranced, even brought up the 'risk I was looking to find work in the US illegally' but couldn't make that stick either. My belongings where confiscated for a full and deep search in hopes there was something illegal he could use against me.

Put that into comparison with two of the other travelers that where in line next to mine: One had no paperwork at all, he just kept saying they couldn't stop him from crossing because he was American. The other had mechanic tools as she was on the way to work in the US... without the permits to do so. The second person got looked at for a moment then waved through without problem, the first was waved through because he kept banging the table. Yet somehow I, at the time looking nothing more then a collage student, set off warning bells loud enough that I was the only person this officer had time to check.

I'm not kidding, about 30 other people where processed by the three other officers while this guy dicked around with me. Yes, every other person on that bus was checked through customs while this guy handled just one person... and even then the bus ended up having to wait for us to be done on top of that. Just ask anyone who has crossed the boarder multiple times: They want you through as fast as possible because they have so many people to process and any interruptions can lead to traffic choking on the boarder with all the issues that come with slowing down international commerce. My experience that day was far from the normal and if I didn't have that porn I feel I would not have this tale to talk about. Cause, yes, the problems only started after he found out I was gay.

What else am I meant to believe when I have:
1) Had no problems with anyone other custom officer prior to and after this one guy
2) Everyone else made it through without more then a second glance, even with shaky 'cover stories'
3) his attitude changed only after he looked at my porn

Sorry, I have to point out the obvious to you: Custom officers are human too, and humans can be bigots and abuse the position of authority they have.

I even had people who where traveling on the same bus as me apologize for this guys actions because they where so clearly in the wrong. Other travelers tried, needlessly, to reassure me that he was just an arsehole so I wouldn't go away with the mentality that all Americans where like him. I even laughing about it with a few other travelers after the fact, cause I know very well it was one bigot and not the mentality of everyone, but I still feel to this day the only reason he went after me so heavily was because of that gay porn.

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

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

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

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

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

lol free speech... you just set back the pro-pedo argument, wouldnt be surprised if the ones smart enough not to use such a fatuous argument have already sent you messages to shhhhh youre making us sound less nuanced!! rofl.

you call it a cop out, I call it fact. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Lolicon? Wrong.

 

[Spawkuring]

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

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

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

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

lol free speech... you just set back the pro-pedo argument, wouldnt be surprised if the ones smart enough not to use such a fatuous argument have already sent you messages to shhhhh youre making us sound less nuanced!! rofl.

you call it a cop out, I call it fact. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Lolicon? Wrong.

And most of the examples you listed had some kind of justifiable reason as to why the law was passed. Laws are passed on advertisement because false advertisement can lead to human harm. Same goes to slander and so on. Child pornography is illegal because the production of it requires the abuse of a child, which in itself has obvious consequences that I don't need to list. And most laws regulating speech tend to only apply to public areas, which again is understandable in its own way.

Lolicon falls under none of that save for people getting grossed out by it. There's literally no reason for people to dislike lolicon other than finding it icky, or mistakenly thinking that it might lead to real crime (which there is no evidence of).

Lolicon? Not wrong.

 

[Rhojin]

There was a case here in America a few years ago where a mother was arrested and charged with posting nude photos of her five year old son on the internet. She claimed she was an artistic photographer and those pictures were used on her art site. The court ruled against her citing that nude images of children are not protected speech.

I'd be interested in knowing more about this case, if you can provide links. In fact, it is fairly common in a variety of cultures within the US (and without) where it is acceptable for parents to have nude photographs of their own children. So, if it is criminal to simply have pictures of child nudes, a lot of parents are committing this crime.

A nationwide crackdown on nude baby pics akin to that of the contemporary sexting crackdown might yield interesting results.
238U.

It wasn't as much as she had nudes of her kid, it was that she posted them on her website. I will look for the story when I have some down time.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

You know, I´m really waiting for the moment both parties in this thread realize that they are not ACTUALLY having a "discussion" but are just shouting their respective opinions at each other and the chance of them ACTUALLY causing any kind of reconsideration, reflexion or reevalution in their "opponent" is precisely zero.
Which makes the entire thing extremely masturbatory, which is fitting, because both parties seem to have spent HUGE amounts of their respective lives thinking about child porn.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You're right that sravankb has badly worded the phrase, I'll rephrase it to what I think he meant:

"If there are no possible victims for an activity, then it shouldn't be a crime."

Not disagreeing with the general sentiment; I'm simply pointing out poor logic. I prefer to err on the side of caution when discussing Law and the ethics thereof.

Since fictional characters aren't sentient as far as I know, then cartoon porn causes no victims. As a writer I've killed off characters including children in my work before, should I arrested for murder or producing snuff?

I've done similar things in my own writing. I agree that the Canadian law is currently flawed; requiring a bit too much interpretation (law must remain as objective as possible to remain fair) to be accurate/fair.

Nope. Because there is a fairly high potential for there to be a victim in that case. The drawn porn, on the other hand, has no victim or even the potential to have any victims.

As worded, your argument is incorrect, though I understand the intention as it relates to this topic perfectly well.
I humbly suggest rephrasing what you initially said on page 1, because it simply isn't true.

 

[Jonluw]

Here's a pointer: In a civilized society, you don't get to decide what I can and can't think and fantasize about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police].

I'm sorry, "youre not the boss of me" isnt a very good reason for justification of fantasizing about prepubescent children,

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

going to have to come up with something better than that. Mostly because someone who is part of a civilized society instead of acting on the basest of flawed instincts wouldn't have to be told that its wrong to fantasize about prepubescent children.

I guess I'll leave this thread.

I'll let you all sit around and congratulate yourselves on how "enlightened" you all are which allows you to justify and rationalize such foul, vile, disgusting things. I don't think that I'll be able to impress upon any of you who are so vocally defending this crap that its not about nuance, or censorship, or thought control. Some things really do just boil down to right and wrong. And Lolicon, or any other kind of drawn/animated whatever depiction child abuse is still just wrong.

See, you're not building up that claim with any fact or evidence. That's just your warped view of the world that you're trying to impose on the rest of us.
If you're interested: The reason I wasn't trying to make proper discussion in the first place (Remember? The post wherein you thought I was being serious.) is people like you with no sense of perspective who think that their subjective opinion of morality is objective truth.

I guesss what I'm saying is that the point when someone reveals that they honestly think thought-police is a good idea and belongs anywere other than an oppresive dictatorship is the point when I apply my palm to my face and regret having tried to have a reasonable discussion with this person in the first place.
[sub]And quite frankly, I find that thought far more offensive than the one that children are attractive.[/sub]