Poll: Is this fair? a question of creepy porn

[GothmogII]

Yup. It's fair.

Owning pictures of little kiddies doing that sick shit is only a step away from doing it yourself.

Ahh, you mean like how we gamers are only a step away from killing someone? :/

Edit: Beaten to it!

The problem here though, is that children were not involved, I mean, were he found with photographic child porn, or if he'd assaulted someone, fine, lock him up. As it stands neither of those things happened. And despite my own dislike of the material in question, it's still not right that someone should get arrested for possession.

 

[jzmn]

My first thought was it really shouldn't be a problem if this is as far as he goes. At least he is being honest with himself and his urges and is not bottling them up - but most importantly he is doing it in a way where no actual children are being abused because of a perverse fetish.

 

[ThreeWords]

It depends: were the drawings of something that actually happened, or were they made up?

If they are 'real', then this is just another form of child pornography.

If the pictures are just that, pictures of something creepy that never happened, then this is merely art. Creepy, no doubt, but not actually wrong

 

[Nmil-ek]

Does this mean that I shall be trialed as a neo-nazi woman torturing pedophile for owning Lolita, Mein Kampf and The Malleus Maleficarum?

It is creepy but I dont see why it should be a crime, its art censorship in a way.

 

[GothmogII]

It depends: were the drawings of something that actually happened, or were they made up?

If they are 'real', then this is just another form of child pornography.

If the pictures are just that, pictures of something creepy that never happened, then this is merely art. Creepy, no doubt, but not actually wrong

Actually, if this the same case I'm thinking of, the Manga in question was a 'Shōnen-ai', 'Yaoi' or Boy's Love manga, basically a gay comic. That said, the characters in question in it were drawn in a rather youthful style.

It's still all a bunch of crap...I was actually surprised and dismayed to see that the guy got arrested in the end. I'll make it clear, I'm not into that stuff...but it terrifies me to realise that all it takes is to have borderline explicit content in your possession to put you away, regardless of the reasons you have it nor it being misconstrued by those outside.

And, I'm not talking about films and photographs, those are without exception wrong to have. I mean, as in this case, drawn images, and even images that may not be at all explicit but could still come off that way to the un-awares.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I suppose it works in the same way as this:
You can be arrested for drunk driving, yeah? Even if you haven't done any damage whatsoever the law still needs to be upheld as a precaution (keyword there). And it's the same sort of thing for this. Even though it isn't technically real child porn, it's only a step away from it, and then that's a step away from actually going out and doing something unforgivably sick. One thing leads to another.

 

[megamanenm]

I suppose it works in the same way as this:
You can be arrested for drunk driving, yeah? Even if you haven't done any damage whatsoever the law still needs to be upheld as a precaution (keyword there). And it's the same sort of thing for this. Even though it isn't technically real child porn, it's only a step away from it, and then that's a step away from actually going out and doing something unforgivably sick. One thing leads to another.

So using your logic we need to arrest all people who play violent video games because they MIGHT murder someone.

 

[GothmogII]

Actually...people seem be forgetting one teeny thing: None of the news reports ever stated that his intention was to use them as erotica. He was arrested for possession yes, and while it's not exactly a difficult assumption to make as to what he got from them, it's still an assumption nonetheless. And, as an example, which has been posted in other similar threads and which I have bookmarked, here's Comic/Book Author Neil Gaimen's thoughts on the matter:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

 

[Eri]

Yup. It's fair.

Owning pictures of little kiddies doing that sick shit is only a step away from doing it yourself.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize playing Team Fortress 2 meant I was one step away from killing other people myself.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

I suppose it works in the same way as this:
You can be arrested for drunk driving, yeah? Even if you haven't done any damage whatsoever the law still needs to be upheld as a precaution (keyword there). And it's the same sort of thing for this. Even though it isn't technically real child porn, it's only a step away from it, and then that's a step away from actually going out and doing something unforgivably sick. One thing leads to another.

So using your logic we need to arrest all people who play violent video games because they MIGHT murder someone.

Mmm I see what you mean. Perhaps this is a stickier situation than I first thought.

 

[Biek]

Yup. It's fair.

Owning pictures of little kiddies doing that sick shit is only a step away from doing it yourself.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize playing Team Fortress 2 meant I was one step away from killing other people myself.

Violence in videogames is completely irrelevant to this topic.

 

[munx13]

As bad as these drawings are...they are JUST drawings, so I don't see why there should be any punishment

 

[JenXXXJen]

You shouldn't be punished for what you get off on unless it actually harms someone else. I doubt anyone was hurt in the making out that drawing, and if there was, they're punishing the wrong guy. Nine times out ten people aren't going to act out any fantasies they might have, and are quite likely disgusted when they hear about it in real non-porn life.

And um, what's with the mail people looking at what he ordered?

 

[ffxfriek]

Images of human body in sexual positions or intercourses counts as a pornography. Hentai movies count too, you know, books too.

So yeah, he should be found guilty and a nice sentence.

seconded

 

[Bluebacon]

No one was actually harmed, but it is disturbing. An offer of treatment and he should be placed on the local equivalent of the sex offenders list, which prohibits him from entering certain professions (teaching, etc). An over the top punishment for a victimless crime would be counter productive.

 

[ace_of_something]

Actually...people seem be forgetting one teeny thing: None of the news reports ever stated that his intention was to use them as erotica. He was arrested for possession yes, and while it's not exactly a difficult assumption to make as to what he got from them, it's still an assumption nonetheless. And, as an example, which has been posted in other similar threads and which I have bookmarked, here's Comic/Book Author Neil Gaimen's thoughts on the matter:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

Intent and assumption of intent are integral part of law. For example if you are caught with drugs you are charged with possession if you are caught with over a certain quantity of drugs (varies depending on the drug) it is assumed that you have 'intent to distribute'. I would hate it if we weren?t allowed to assume that as it is VERY hard to prove by anything other than quantity and undercover work that people are selling drugs.
So, we can assume he is charged with ?depiction of an illegal sexual act? (yes it?s a charge) with the rider of ?wiTF? with intent to fap.

 

[GothmogII]

Yup. It's fair.

Owning pictures of little kiddies doing that sick shit is only a step away from doing it yourself.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize playing Team Fortress 2 meant I was one step away from killing other people myself.

Violence in videogames is completely irrelevant to this topic.

It's completely relevant. But fine, replace 'violent videogames' with 'violent manga', now what? Are we suggesting that reading violent manga will cause you to go out and kill people?

 

[Simalacrum]

meeeh, pleanty of people do have child pornographic drawings... in the end, if children themselves aren't harmed, its ok, although it is really really perverted... so long as nobody gets harmed, ya know?

edit: and yes, yes everyone does love polls ^-^

 

[electric_warrior]

15 years is a bit much, but the guys got to be a sick puppy and belongs in prison

 

[GothmogII]

Actually...people seem be forgetting one teeny thing: None of the news reports ever stated that his intention was to use them as erotica. He was arrested for possession yes, and while it's not exactly a difficult assumption to make as to what he got from them, it's still an assumption nonetheless. And, as an example, which has been posted in other similar threads and which I have bookmarked, here's Comic/Book Author Neil Gaimen's thoughts on the matter:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

Intent and assumption of intent are integral part of law. For example if you are caught with drugs you are charged with possession if you are caught with over a certain quantity of drugs (varies depending on the drug) it is assumed that you have 'intent to distribute'. I would hate it if we weren?t allowed to assume that as it is VERY hard to prove by anything other than quantity and undercover work that people are selling drugs.
So, we can assume he is charged with ?depiction of an illegal sexual act? (yes it?s a charge) with the rider of ?wiTF? with intent to fap.

There is that...but, this may be a case of difference in opinion...I'd agree, that being in possession of actual child porn does justify the jump to the conclusion as to it's use. For this however I do not, not least of because it covers possession of materials that may have instances of depicted sexual acts, but where it's not the focus of the media itself, or provides in such a way that it is something beyond providing for sexual release.

That is, some comics, books, manga, films etc. depict such thing but are -not- simply pornography, i.e. in the case of Lolita whereby the premise is to provide drama and not titillation.