Where is the justice?

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

This whole thread is a breeding ground of ignorance and intolerance.

I don't think that it's really that bad to own lolicon images, unless they are actual photographs. It's a little bit weird to get off to that stuff, but it's not wrong. The same cannot be said for actual under-age girls. I don't think it's right to possess actual child pornography under any means. There is a difference between the 2. Anime/manga girls do not exist, can never exist and will never exist. They are not people, they are characters who are disproportioned and idealized. There is no real victim in this case besides the person being arrested. Possession of child pornography actually has a specific victim: the child in the images. They are being used to fulfil some person's sick fantasy. In this case, the offender harms the child. The person who possesses hentai images has not actually hurt anything besides the feelings of moral guardians who are too ignorant to see the difference between these two situations.

That being said, I can see where the connection can be drawn. They both depict under-age girls in sexual situations. However, there is one major, MAJOR difference which prevents them from being situations that can be treated the same way: lolicon images are FICTIONAL and depict FICTIONAL girls in FICTIONAL situations. We must avoid the slippery slope logical fallacy. This does not necessarily lead to possession of actual child pornography, and is not necessarily a sign of a budding child molester. This is similar to people's arguments as to how killing people in video games leads to killing people in real life. I understand that being attracted to little girls is a taboo, and one for a good reason, but this isn't the same situation.

That's just my opinion on the issue. Make of it what you will.

 

[Joepow]

At first I was going to post this:

How do you know that every character ever shot in a video game or movie is not based off of somebody actually getting shot? How do you know that the people who make violent video games aren't killing hookers on the side, and getting away with it? It's the same damn slope.

Uh, every character in a video game or a movie, probably at some stage is based of somebody getting shot, otherwise, we wouldn't know what it looks like, however, these images are an age-old thing, I mean, humanity has been at war for as long as it's existed, we have enough reference material for that kind of thing.

Yes, killing hookers. Because nobody notices the guy who kills hookers.

Here's the thing, some crimes are a lot harder to detect than other.

I really can't understand your train of thought. You seem to realize that sexualized depiction of fictional children is as harmless as the murder of a fictional person, yet you seem to condemn the first while not the second. Am I misunderstanding you?

Also, as I said earlier, you are wrong. Until mere decades ago, every girl in the "civilized world" was married (and forced to have sex) with adults as soon as the age of twelve. Sex with underage persons has become taboo only recently (relatively speaking).

But then I saw this post:

How do you know there's no child used as a model?

How do you know the people drawing this stuff aren't into real children?

Hell, for that matter, how do you know that, the money you're (Or not.) spending on this stuff isn't going towards somebody who's into that kind of thing, who is then buying the real stuff, which in turn is fuelling demand for that kind of thing.

and I lost all hope for you.
This ...statement... wouldn't pass for logic in fox news.
I can't believe someone actually used that as an arguement.

 

[Popido]

Law is never correct. Law is always imperfect and can never reflect true from of justice.

I hate people who point at the law when trying to justifice their opinions. Rather, explain yourself why you think the way you do, than pointing at these hollow pages crafted by opinions of old and few.

It wasnt long ago when being ****** ment that you're not people. Women had no voice, being gay was sin and jews should have their necks snapped.

If you just point at the law, like the ultimate truth, then you might as well call it religion as they both operate with blind faith.


...
captcha: its movitati.
Yes, my Lord!

 

[MetalGenocide]

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.

 

[zidine100]

In a country where people wear diapers and act like babies for pornography is legal
where porn where the actress looks like a child is legal.
where flat chested girls doing porn is legal.
where simulated Rape porn is legal.
doing porn dressed up as a Schoolgirl is legal.

Im quite confused how 'lolicon' is illegal? (when it clearly doesn't mention the age or is over age in cannon)

and then theres the fact that these are blatantly thought crimes.

Note: for the record i don't watch lolicon.

 

[Danik93]

This is how the law works! In the law against CP here in Sweden you can get judged because you have pictures of CP in you possession, and because this is the first time anyone have been dragged to court because of loli it had to be treated like it was CP. We might see a change in the law later on but we can't start to bend the law! the law can be changed but until that all loli will be CP!

 

[Stasisesque]

In a country where people wear diapers and act like babies for pornography is legal
where porn where the actress looks like a child is legal.
where flat chested girls doing porn is legal.
simulated Rape porn is legal.
doing porn dressed up as a Schoolgirl is legal.

Im quite confused how 'lolicon' is illegal? (when it clearly doesn't mention the age or is over age in cannon)

Note: i don't watch lolicon, the same way as i dont watch any of the above, but hell its a good way of making a point.

You've just explained why it's morally questionable. In everything else listed, it can be proven, without shadow of a doubt that everyone participating is over the age of consent. Things like rape porn are a little more dubious (reasoning why it is not legal in all countries sharing similar law) as supposedly it cannot be proven within reasonable doubt that it is safe and consensual.

With drawn images, you simply can't prove your subject is not a child.

I am not defending nor attacking lolicon.

 

[Daverson]

How can you class drawn images as child pornography?

It seems like there's a reasonable argument that they shouldn't, because they're just drawings. But it's not that simple.

Firstly, however much I hate the "gateway drug" argument, this is somewhere it can be justified. I assume everyone has a good idea of where I'm going with this, so I won't elaborate.

Secondly, the idea that a drawn image isn't "as bad". It's a victimless crime, I'll admit, but the principal of the law remains. If you allow drawn child pornography, because it's just pencil on paper, you could use the same argument to allow child pornography pictures taken in countries where it isn't illegal (for example, in the US, pornographic images of anyone under 18 are considered child pornography, whereas in some places it's 16. I can't give examples, but I'm there are places where it's much lower) and transferred over the internet, because, at the end of the day, it's just pixels on a screen.

Finally, to put it bluntly, it encourages these people. Seeing images of minors being sexually exploited makes people think that paedophilia is "ok". This isn't the case, and this should never be the case.

 

[Danik93]

Condemning someone over images of non-existent children in sexual scenarios is like condemning someone over the robbery of a non-existent store or the murder of a non-existent person...

Every single person that murdered an NPC in a video game should be sentenced according to this level of logic.

Do you think Piracy is a crime then? (Downloading stuff not robbing people on a boat)
It is after all a nonresistant thing you copy.

 

[Danik93]

Because it sure as hell isn't here.

On Friday, Sweden's Svea Court of Appeal upheld a conviction against Simon Lundström, a 37-year-old translator of manga, on possession of child pornography for 39 manga images. A lower district court in Uppsala had convicted Lundström for 51 images on his computer last June and fined him 25,000 kronor (about US$3,900).

Svea Court of Appeal ruled that it cannot determine that four of the images depicted children "with a sufficient degree of certainty." It also ruled that eight more images did not meet the legal definition of pornography. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling on the remaining 39 images as child pornography. None of the images depicted real children.

The court of appeal did lower Lundström's fine to 5,600 kronor (US$860).

Lundström has translated over 80 volumes in two series for the publisher Bonnier Carlsen over the last decade. However, after the Uppsala ruling in June, Bonnier Carlsen ended its working relationship with Lundström.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2011-01-28/swedish-translator-child-pornography-charges-upheld

Really? The US also did something like this. How can you classify DRAWN images as child porn? That's just messed up. As far as I can tell he doesn't serve jail time or anything besides a fine, but NONE OF THIS IS A CRIME. He shouldn't have to do shit.

Do you consider piracy stealing?
It is a virtual copy of something like Loli is a virtual copy of CP...

 

[Joepow]

Because it sure as hell isn't here.

On Friday, Sweden's Svea Court of Appeal upheld a conviction against Simon Lundström, a 37-year-old translator of manga, on possession of child pornography for 39 manga images. A lower district court in Uppsala had convicted Lundström for 51 images on his computer last June and fined him 25,000 kronor (about US$3,900).

Svea Court of Appeal ruled that it cannot determine that four of the images depicted children "with a sufficient degree of certainty." It also ruled that eight more images did not meet the legal definition of pornography. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling on the remaining 39 images as child pornography. None of the images depicted real children.

The court of appeal did lower Lundström's fine to 5,600 kronor (US$860).

Lundström has translated over 80 volumes in two series for the publisher Bonnier Carlsen over the last decade. However, after the Uppsala ruling in June, Bonnier Carlsen ended its working relationship with Lundström.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2011-01-28/swedish-translator-child-pornography-charges-upheld

Really? The US also did something like this. How can you classify DRAWN images as child porn? That's just messed up. As far as I can tell he doesn't serve jail time or anything besides a fine, but NONE OF THIS IS A CRIME. He shouldn't have to do shit.

Do you consider piracy stealing?
It is a virtual copy of something like Loli is a virtual copy of CP...

When you pirate a game, you steal the publisher?s intellectual property.
Loli hurts no one.

 

[Danny Ocean]

At first I was surprised by the distinct lack of empathy from the people on here. Not for those who like that kinda thing, but for those who don't. Then I thought about it for a bit, and I realised that no-one likes to think that what they're doing could be 'wrong', and in any case this site is populated by a large number of arrogant pseudo-sociopaths anyway.

Instead of really asking "Why do they think that? Could I be wrong?" It's immediately a case of "NO! They're stupid! I'm right! I should be able to do what I want!" That's hardly conducive to any kind of meaningful debate on the matter. It's far more interesting a discussion than anyone seems to want to let it be. Intent plays a big part in law, after all; It can even mean the difference between life and death in the USA. Should these people see a shrink? Should, instead, society change to accommodate their views? If so, how? Loli may not hurt anyone, but should the state really be sending the message that that kind of stuff is OK on principal?

Come on guys.

 

[Danik93]

Because it sure as hell isn't here.

On Friday, Sweden's Svea Court of Appeal upheld a conviction against Simon Lundström, a 37-year-old translator of manga, on possession of child pornography for 39 manga images. A lower district court in Uppsala had convicted Lundström for 51 images on his computer last June and fined him 25,000 kronor (about US$3,900).

Svea Court of Appeal ruled that it cannot determine that four of the images depicted children "with a sufficient degree of certainty." It also ruled that eight more images did not meet the legal definition of pornography. However, the court upheld the lower court's ruling on the remaining 39 images as child pornography. None of the images depicted real children.

The court of appeal did lower Lundström's fine to 5,600 kronor (US$860).

Lundström has translated over 80 volumes in two series for the publisher Bonnier Carlsen over the last decade. However, after the Uppsala ruling in June, Bonnier Carlsen ended its working relationship with Lundström.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2011-01-28/swedish-translator-child-pornography-charges-upheld

Really? The US also did something like this. How can you classify DRAWN images as child porn? That's just messed up. As far as I can tell he doesn't serve jail time or anything besides a fine, but NONE OF THIS IS A CRIME. He shouldn't have to do shit.

Do you consider piracy stealing?
It is a virtual copy of something like Loli is a virtual copy of CP...

When you pirate a game, you steal the publisher?s intellectual property.
Loli hurts no one.

Yes, I agree but as I have stated in a earlier post Sweden's CP law cover everything containing nude children may it be painted or not. For a law to change it must go through loads of paperwork and that kind of stuff because we live in a democracy.
The law is the law and that is what we must follow. we can't begin to bend and change the law on this low level. He got proved guilty because of principal!

 

[Joepow]

At first I was surprised by the distinct lack of empathy from the people on here. Not for those who like that kinda thing, but for those who don't. Then I thought about it for a bit, and I realised that no-one likes to think that what they're doing could be 'wrong', and in any case this site is populated by a large number of arrogant pseudo-sociopaths anyway.

Instead of really asking "Why do they think that? Could I be wrong?" It's immediately a case of "NO! They're stupid! I'm right! I should be able to do what I want!" That's hardly conducive to any kind of meaningful debate on the matter. It's far more interesting a debate than anyone seems to want to let it be. Intent plays a big part in law, after all; It can even mean the difference between life and death in the USA. Should these people see a shrink? Should, instead, society change to accommodate their views? If so, how? Loli may not hurt anyone, but should the state really be sending the message that that kind of stuff is OK on principal?

Come on guys.

The problem is, no one has yet to provide a LOGICAL reason for why killing someone in a videogame is perfectly fine, while loli is bad.
And to answer your question, yes. If you're hurting nobody, then you should be able to do whatever you want.

Meh, there's no point. This is one of those situations where both sides are so polarised as to make any form of debate completely meaningless.

True, but we have to try anyway. Those who already have an opinion are unlikely to change it, but perhaps someone reading this thread hasn't put any thought to it or is on the fence.
It's the only way to change things.

 

[_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>

 

[Joepow]

Yes, I agree but as I have stated in a earlier post Sweden's CP law cover everything containing nude children may it be painted or not. For a law to change it must go through loads of paperwork and that kind of stuff because we live in a democracy.
The law is the law and that is what we must follow. we can't begin to bend and change the law on this low level. He got proved guilty because of principal!

I can't really understand what you are saying. We are merely arguing that the law is wrong, we're not planning to topple the Swedish government.

 

[Jonluw]

There seems to be a lot of people on here who believe people should be jailed for being attracted to children. This really disturbs me.

 

[Stasisesque]

At first I was surprised by the distinct lack of empathy from the people on here. Not for those who like that kinda thing, but for those who don't. Then I thought about it for a bit, and I realised that no-one likes to think that what they're doing could be 'wrong', and in any case this site is populated by a large number of arrogant pseudo-sociopaths anyway.

Instead of really asking "Why do they think that? Could I be wrong?" It's immediately a case of "NO! They're stupid! I'm right! I should be able to do what I want!" That's hardly conducive to any kind of meaningful debate on the matter. It's far more interesting a debate than anyone seems to want to let it be. Intent plays a big part in law, after all; It can even mean the difference between life and death in the USA. Should these people see a shrink? Should, instead, society change to accommodate their views? If so, how? Loli may not hurt anyone, but should the state really be sending the message that that kind of stuff is OK on principal?

Come on guys.

The problem is, no one has yet to provide a LOGICAL reason for why killing someone in a videogame is perfectly fine, while loli is bad.
And to answer your question, yes. If you're hurting nobody, then you should be able to do whatever you want.

I'll give it a go:

In the majority of video games in which you kill someone, you're not killing innocents. The fictional depictions you're happily murdering are much worse than "you" are, thus it is justified. In those games in which you can kill innocents, there is almost always retribution for your character (GTA - police warning, resulting in loss of cash/weapons etc. as an example), thus reaffirming "murder is wrong".

Children, however, are innocent - this is why sex with a minor is illegal, they are not legally able to provide consent, as they do not know what they are consenting to/have not the capacity to make an informed decision etc. Therefore, children depicted in sexual situations, even as drawn images, are depictions of innocents. As a book can't reach out and slap you if you're getting off on these images, there's nothing to reinforce the message that you cannot take this into the real world, because it's wrong.

Again, as said, I am neither defending nor attacking lolicon/related, merely attempting to provide a logical argument.