Where is the justice?

[mikev7.0]

Well, i find it fair they judged drawings of minors in sexual context as child pornografy.

Im a dad and a manga reader.

While you have your rights as a parent to that, the fact remains that no one was hurt in this process, and the law was far overstepped.

As someone with a fairly large lolicon collection, I find this to be stupidity beyond reason. Am I a pedophile because I have these images? No. I find the idea of doing something like that to an actual human under the age of 16 disgusting, consent or not.

Makes no sense. Why would you have the pictures in the first place?

What do you do with those pictures?, be hornest. No..ok.

I wank to those pictures. Why? Because I find all animated characters attractive. My lolicon archive is about 100 Megs. My entire hentai (animated porn) archive is about 10 gigs. Rei Ayanami is hot (technically lolicon since she's 14). But does this make me a pedophile? No.

Oh...my.... ....well then, go right ahead . But when stuff like this end some of you up in jail and at the bottom of the prison food chain, don´t say society didn´t warn you.

In my mind it´s wrong on so many levels to depict children in sexual context, and fortunally im not the only one.

And your perfectly fine with what amounts to a witch hunt to put us away for owning loli art?

Sure, in my mind it´s child pornografy, try and keep that in mind please.

But it is that kind of view that creates a hostile and negative area for people like me, who do not wish to harm children, but find animated drawings arousing. It is the same argument I hear all the time that "I don't hate gays, but I don't feel they should have equal rights". It is using your morals to persecute others.

Nooo, you can go ahead and find animated pictures arousing, thats ok. It´s the child part that´s not. I just don´t understand WHY they must be of children? WHY?

Ah, finally! A question I at least think I may have an answer for. The reason why a lot of people do it (according to psychology) is subconscious. In many cases (more sadly even in cases where actual children are involved) the person is compelled and doesn't really know why. In many cases it turns out that the perpetrator was themselves abused as a child and is simply reliving a pattern they cannot bring themselves consciously to remember.

That's why I see this as an important issue. Where I live, thanks to the first amendment, I doubt any translators would go to jail and if the issue were ever pressed constitutionally, the Supreme Court would have little choice other than to rule in the favor of the artist if they wanted to protect the first amendment.

Yet just because you can do something, of course, does not mean that you should.

Someone said that the day we can treat children as adults that it will move humanity foward. There is a similar quote but made by someone who actually DID move humanity foward. "When mankind can learn to live by the Spirit, as opposed to the letter of the law we as a race will take it's greatest steps foward." -Andrew Carnegie-

The spirit intoned in this law is clear. It is society saying "Please, for the love of god don't do this. We live in a big scary world and this threatens what we hold most dear." I would be a lot more likely to buy that that is their sincere belief if the parents themselves treated their OWN kids with respect. Why is it whenever I encounter parents/kids it looks as if the kids are pretty much on auto pilot while the parents are trying not to be bothered by them? Why is it you let their schools close? How is it that I can walk into what are certainly not private spaces and see you smoking weed or teaching your kids how much fun it is to drink. Or WORSE. How many of you that have kids actually have them leave the room as you go on virtual killing sprees or when they come on t.v.? So the Spirit of this law is clear but disingenuous. It is parents reacting with fear and expecting to deputize all of society to do thier job rather than parenting up and controlling what their kids encounter on thier own. (Which admittedly is a tough job and NOT in the parenting brochure...but still necessary and as you would certainly scream in protest: They're worth it.)

Also how is it that society forgets that there have been and are cultures where people marry when they are like 12? Or that we used to send our kids off to kill people that didn't believe in the same god we did at 14?

 

[mikev7.0]

Well, i find it fair they judged drawings of minors in sexual context as child pornografy.

Im a dad and a manga reader.

While you have your rights as a parent to that, the fact remains that no one was hurt in this process, and the law was far overstepped.

As someone with a fairly large lolicon collection, I find this to be stupidity beyond reason. Am I a pedophile because I have these images? No. I find the idea of doing something like that to an actual human under the age of 16 disgusting, consent or not.

Makes no sense. Why would you have the pictures in the first place?

What do you do with those pictures?, be hornest. No..ok.

I wank to those pictures. Why? Because I find all animated characters attractive. My lolicon archive is about 100 Megs. My entire hentai (animated porn) archive is about 10 gigs. Rei Ayanami is hot (technically lolicon since she's 14). But does this make me a pedophile? No.

Oh...my.... ....well then, go right ahead . But when stuff like this end some of you up in jail and at the bottom of the prison food chain, don´t say society didn´t warn you.

In my mind it´s wrong on so many levels to depict children in sexual context, and fortunally im not the only one.

And your perfectly fine with what amounts to a witch hunt to put us away for owning loli art?

Sure, in my mind it´s child pornografy, try and keep that in mind please.

But it is that kind of view that creates a hostile and negative area for people like me, who do not wish to harm children, but find animated drawings arousing. It is the same argument I hear all the time that "I don't hate gays, but I don't feel they should have equal rights". It is using your morals to persecute others.

Nooo, you can go ahead and find animated pictures arousing, thats ok. It´s the child part that´s not. I just don´t understand WHY they must be of children? WHY?

In your view, how old would this girl be?

Her age? 125. It's the Japanese art style that makes her appear to be younger than she is. Also, naked images are not allowed to show pubic hair, so the age of the characters appears even lower.

THAT my good Sir is a child. No matter what if the trivia says she 1 bazillion years old, THAT is STILL a little child.

No THAT my good Sir is most definitely NOT a child. (and if you buy that 125 krap you're looney. She's 8,456 if she's a DAY....) This is the main problem with this issue legally because what you are looking at now legally only qualifies as an IDEA. The reason? Well, because that's all it IS. Anyone who sees reality reflected in that painting has no grip on it to begin with.

I know parents think that we have some Stepford nuclear family model but the modern age has gotten rid of all that. Women (so thankfully) no longer must be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, the very make up of most families has changed and sadly kids now know more about sex than I do and I've studied it.

The grey areas really are the problems. What about someone who's 16 that has that kind of art? what about 18? Where do you draw the line? Who will the witch hunt target next if it is successful?

 

[yundex]

My ex gf is 22. She is just 5ft tall. She looks like she is about 14 years old. She has no mental defects and her IQ is slightly above average. Should I have been arrested for having sex with her on the basis she looks very underage? She's older than me for christ sake. You can't just say "it looks underage therefore I declare it TO BE underage and also therefore illegal".

I wouldn't consider 14 to be pedo territory, since pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. I think we can all tell what a drawing of a 5-8 year old looks like. It's hard to convince anyone that jacking off to a depiction of a 5 year old doesn't make them a pedo.

Personally, the only reason I could support eugenics is to rid the world of this entirely. But that has it's own issues. :/

 

[mrdude2010]

because a sexual attraction to people who you have a lot of power, both physically, mentally, and emotionally is weird. that's one step away from rape (usually a power crime rather than a sex crime, or so i've been told). a child isn't fully developed in so many ways and can't reproduce, so it's not even like there should be a natural reason for it. sure it's stupid to crack down on every instance ever of someone owning a picture of a naked 15 year old, but having multiple gigabytes or drawing yourself images of young children is just... not right

 

[mrdude2010]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

 

[evilartist]

Fortunately, whether or not you believe is irrelevant. All that matters is that I have never harmed a child, will never harm a child, and believe anyone who would should be castrated. But a drawing is not nearly the same thing.

This doesn't make it any less illegal, as you'll see by what I posted.

Oh, please. I bet you wouldn't be spouting this "it's wrong because it's the law" bullshit if the law said the opposite. Making laws that only reflect the popular opinion with little regard for objectivity is absurd. Like violent video games or marijuana, it's a victimless crime that shouldn't be regulated because of peoples' fear-based opinions.

And if anyone claims that loli influences the actions of real-life pedophilia, it's only fair they should provide adequate (and unbiased) psychological studies and statistics. Look at drunk driving: it isn't illegal because people assumed it was harmful, or because it's taboo, or because of only a few casualties. Research was required: traffic statistics, studying the effects of alcohol on people, how high is the mortality rate...they all pointed to unacceptable and dangerous results; that law is justified. What do the judgmental naysayers of loli have to back up their stance? "Because it's disgusting"? "Because we think it will cause harm"? That's not enough!

 

[Gigano]

...
but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Just how do they in and of themselves cause discernible harm to actual humans?

On the contrary, one could just as well speculate that jerking off to these cartoons offered the paedophiles a harmless outlet for their dark wants. Reports on the correlation between the release of ordinary pornography and a general decline in sex crimes could potentially support such conclusion. With no knowledge on whether it increases, decreases, or have no effect at all on sexual abuse, I'm hesitant to condemn it.

Thoughts are toll free. These cartoons may indeed be signs that some sick shit is going on in their heads, but as long as goes on there, and not in the real world with actual children, I see no reason to care.

Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, so unless an individual evaluation of a specific paedophile proves that he/she is a clear and present danger to real children, or an actual child have been accosted by this individual paedophile, they are innocent.

When did all of this imginary kiddyrape get legal?

1969.

 

[_Cake_]

So a drawing ... made by adults ... if it's a video it's voiced by adults ... made for adults only, and that's kiddie porn? Cause from what I can tell NO CHILDREN WHERE INVOLVED! It's as close to child porn as a picture of an adult woman in a school girl outfit.

The amazing thing about art is you can draw anything, cause it's not real and it doesn't/shouldn't effect reality.

<img src=http://mindnumbedrobot.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/EDMD1.jpg>

If I draw a picture of hot naked sex, it's porn. If that picture involves two men, it's gay porn. If that picture involves children it is child porn. It doesn't matter who went into its creation.

Whether or not the law needs redefining on the matter is up for debate. Whether or not its child porn isn't.

Also, don't post images that are specifically designed to insult entire religions. I know most muslims probably don't care but it's still pretty intolerant.

You can see them as porn, or art. Real child porn and lolicon/shota are as different as a snuff film and John Carpenter's Halloween. No one is really being hurt.

This image is not to insult people, it's an example of insanely crazy art censorship. Human beings died because they drew a man... that's it. The part that bothered the Muslim people I know wasn't the drawing, it was that they occasionally got blamed for the work of complete psycho(whos cause they did NOT believe in). If there are any hardcore fundamentalist of any religion I'm that there are tons of images on this site that offend them.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Shouldn't the thread be about the guy how got jailed instead of...most of the things "depicted" so far.
He was translating, not creating the content. The court case itself isn't explained well either.

This is more of an attack on freedom of speech, and a display of imperfect law.

I feel bad for the guy. They didn't just wrongfully attack and charge him, they also ruined his life and lively-hood.

As the news story said, the company the guy worked for cut ties with him because they wanted to get the heck out of it so that they didn't get dragged under by these crazies doing the prosecuting, judging, and lawmaking.

I don't know what all the guy did to make money, if this was his only job link/client. But because these crazies did this, he is out of a job, and good luck to him finding another with this crap pinned onto him.

 

[mrwoo6]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

 

[Eri]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

I like this post. Thumbs up!

 

[yundex]

(snip)


But yes; Thinking of sex with children is sick; thinking of outlawing harmless depictions for no other reason than offence over such thoughts equally so.

but see the depictions aren't harmless, as they highlight thoughts of sex with children. if you draw/enjoy images of children naked, you probably think they're arousing in some way or another, making them not harmless

Quite, Just as in the same sence that when i enjoy stabbing someones face off in manhunt i enjoy stabbing people in real life, or perhaps enjoying fire spells in magicka makes me a pyromaniac, or even thinking that the undead mage looks oddly hot makes me a necrophiliac, or only using melee kills in fallout and chopping everyones limbs off makes me a psychopath murder who enjoys cutting peoples limbs off. Perhaps if i think of gay sex i will catch "the gay" and enjoy being a homosexual! dear god! That is one rather silly statement. Rethink what you have said, good sir.

People can be turned on by real girls, but not be turned on by hentai why does this not work the other way around? why can't people enjoy the hentai version but the real version? If a half wolf half man beast appeared in real life do you think furries would try had have sex with it? no.

I think we can all agree that we don't touch ourselves when we kill things in video games. I think we can also agree that straight males aren't looking for drawings of two guys sucking each other off.

 

[MassiveGeek]

But, I should also have a right to be disgusted by this, because I think that its really gross. I should have a right to react to this information in a negative fashion and express my opinions about why I feel it's not really okay. Though, I'd never try to stop you, because it's unnecessary, no fucking harm is being done here.

But this would be a reaction based on common sense. And can´t have that, can we ?
To be able to react in such a way, you would have to have realized that there is a difference between "I don´t like this." or even "I find this disgusting." and "This is wrong, it should be forbidden.".
Many people are incapable of seperating those things.

But where does this actually fall between the line "I personally find this digusting" and "this is wrong and should be forbidden"? That's the question.

Have you seen that Magritte piece, Ceci n'est pase une pipe?
Or in English This is not a pipe.

Yet, what is that image depicting? It's a pipe - but it's not actually a pipe. So in the same sense you can view lolicon - it's a depiction of a young-looking or actual minor in a sexual manner - but it's not an actual minor in a sexual situation.
So, it falls on us to determine how we should handle this, and I'm not sure taking it away from everyone is the right thing to do. Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone - people hurt people, images don't. It's reversing the cause and the effect, I think.

 

[s0denone]

I think we can all agree that we don't touch ourselves when we kill things in video games. I think we can also agree that straight males aren't looking for drawings of two guys sucking each other off.

Hitting the nail on the head here, mate.
Draw a picture of a naked woman? Porn.
Draw a picture of a two naked men sucking eachother off? Gay porn.
Draw a picture of a naked child? Child porn.

It is as simple as, really. I have no idea where this argument is coming from.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

So, it falls on us to determine how we should handle this, and I'm not sure taking it away from everyone is the right thing to do. Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone - people hurt people, images don't. It's reversing the cause and the effect, I think.

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

 

[MassiveGeek]

So, it falls on us to determine how we should handle this, and I'm not sure taking it away from everyone is the right thing to do. Because again, the images themselves aren't actually harming anyone - people hurt people, images don't. It's reversing the cause and the effect, I think.

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

... Yes, that is what I've been saying for the whole time.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Well yes, I think in this case the situation is rather clear.
While the existence of such pictures feels somewhat "wrong" to me, I would not advocate to make them illegal, as my reaction is based purely on emotions, not on anything else, seeing how those picture take no part in harming anyone.

And legislation based purely on moral outrage tends to be a rather shitty idea,
generally speaking.

... Yes, that is what I've been saying for the whole time.

Of course you do,
as you at least seem to be a somewhat mature, non-insane person.
Did not mean to contradict you in any way.

Just meant to point out that many people are simply unwilling to take a step back and reflect on their feelings. Which brings us such enjoyable debates as "Rock & Roll: Satans Theme song ?" and "Video Games: How fast will they turn your kid into a mass-murder ?".
I apologize if that seemed redundant.

 

[badgersprite]

This is ridiculous. By this logic, anyone who legally marries a dwarf or a short, flat-chested woman should be arrested for having sex with someone who "looks childlike". And yes, it is the same thing, because, when it comes to drawn characters, they have no age. Age is a concept being applied to drawn characters based on how they look. So, clearly, marrying anybody who looks like they could be under 18 when they're not makes you a child abuser!

What's next? Are we going to arrest people who write books that have rape in them as rapists? HOW DARE YOU ABUSE NON-EXISTENT FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!

 

[Danish rage]

It´s so clear many of you are not parents.

I´d like this discussion with people that actually cared for other than themselfes.

Where are you´re harts? How can you under any circumstances condone any misuse of children, even if it´s only a drawing. When did all of this imginary kiddyrape get legal? I sure as hell didn´t get the email, memo whatever. Oh shit people.

Come back when you can spell hearts, you retard.

Feeling trolish much?

 

[Kortney]

My ex gf is 22. She is just 5ft tall. She looks like she is about 14 years old. She has no mental defects and her IQ is slightly above average. Should I have been arrested for having sex with her on the basis she looks very underage? She's older than me for christ sake. You can't just say "it looks underage therefore I declare it TO BE underage and also therefore illegal".

This is ridiculous. By this logic, anyone who marries a dwarf or a short, flat-chested woman should be arrested for having sex with someone who "looks childlike".

The difference is, in this sort of art, the images are deliberately drawn to look like children. In many countries (particularly in the Commonwealth) it is also illegal to make a pornographic film with adult performers portraying children. The legal system obviously feels that doing so is harmful. Maybe they feel it encourages child pornography. Maybe they feel it's just sick. Maybe they feel it is child pornography (I subscribe to this view). I really don't know - but I can understand both sides of the debate.