Canadian man arrested for owning pornagrphic comics

[The Xenos]

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=7644
----------------------------------------------------
posted on 2005-10-20 13:32:56
source: Edmonton Sun

No Jail Time, But Offender to be Placed on Sex-Offender List

In March we reported (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=6283) that an Edmonton area man had been arrested for importing manga containing pornographic depictions of minors. When police searched the man's house many more books containing explicit pictures were found.

Yesterday the 26-year-old individual pleaded guilty to the charges in an Alberta provincial court. As the material did not involve the exploitation of real children, he was spared jail-time and handed an 18-month conditional sentence, along with 100 hours of community service and fined $150.He must also under go counseling, is barred from using the Internet for 18-months, must provide a DNA sample and will be placed on the Canadian sex-offender registry for 5-years.

New laws, in effect November 1st will require mandatory Jail time for Canadians convicted of importing child porn.

The Edmonton Journal reports on the case here (http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/local_story.html?id=826a61e5-b53a-47c5-9f2f-39d0d3fbcdf0) . In the article the journalist not only confuses anime with manga, but implies that all anime/manga involves child pornography with the statement, "Anime is illegal in Canada but not illegal in Japan and the United States."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It was more correctly reported originally here: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/10/20/1270701-sun.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is bullcrap. This man was arrested and made a sex offender for reading a book!

I don't care how nasty the drawings were, they were fictional. This is way too close to 1984 and thought crime. Just because someone owns such things, that doesn't mean they will go out and rape or hurt a child. They very well may know the difference between fiction and reality. To charge them for just looking at fictional images is disgusting.

Ok, I admit having at least seen some lolicon hentai in my day. Though I prefer the artsy and vanilla stuff, I would even go defend people with the nastier and sicker stuff. As long as it's drawings and not real children, I think they have every right to own it.

Also, for the record, 'virtual child porn' like said lolicon hentai manga is legal in the US... for now. I heard Bush didn't like it. Though if they want to get rid of this, what about all these legal models posing as very young girls in all these porn mags. Where does this 'thought crime' end?

Plus, with this article, there's the funny side note that the Edmonton Journal wrongly reports that anime is illegal in Canada.

-Xenos

[Cam63]

As we can't see the material he was convicted for, it's hard for us to judge either way.

Maybe he was a perv' who needed reigning in or, as Xenos said, he was found guilty of reading stuff that shouldn't have been a criminal offence in the first place.

[Robin3]

In the United States, cartoon images went to the supreme court and they struck down a state law that considered cartoon images of underage people in sexual situations child pornography.

However, most magazines or videotapes that have sexual cartoon images put a statement on them saying that the people depicted are over 18, just to be safe.

It is sort of weird though, that dojinshi could be considered illegal pornography by the wrong court. Is Belldandy 18, 17, or 2000 years old?

The law doesn't exist to "rein in" people, it exists to protect people from each other. If no other human has been harmed, you fall into a very dangerous slippery slope when you state that you can imprison someone for "potential". Even the crime of conspiracy requires some evidence of collaboration and hard evidence that plans are being made to do something.

Not being a Canadian, I don't know if such principles exist in their law.

[DEWLine]

Being a Canadian with some past experience with courtrooms -- mainly due to doing courtroom art for local TV news outlets for a couple of years there -- perhaps I can help?

That blanket statement of "anime is illegal in Canada" was definitely Wrong, or else YTV, Teletoon and a couple of other TV channels on our cable dials are going to be getting visits from the RCMP very soon for airing Witch Hunter Robin, Ghost in the Shell: Stand-Alone Complex and assorted other programs of Nihongo/Japanese origin. And then there's all those HMV, MusicWorld and other music/video entertainment shops. And the Chapters/Indigo chain bookstores...you get the idea.

Whoever was quoted as saying that quote...well, they need to do a lot of research.

And for the concept of criminal law as a means of addressing the harm we sometimes do one another...there's a lot of Crown and defence attorneys whom I suspect will agree with you on that, although "prevention" is often less possible than some would prefer.

Hence the concern over importation of certain (rightly disturbing in its existence to the sane) materials.

Hope that helps...?

[TheLyle]

Being a Canadian with some past experience with courtrooms -- mainly due to doing courtroom art for local TV news outlets for a couple of years there -- perhaps I can help?

That blanket statement of "anime is illegal in Canada" was definitely Wrong, or else YTV, Teletoon and a couple of other TV channels on our cable dials are going to be getting visits from the RCMP very soon for airing Witch Hunter Robin, Ghost in the Shell: Stand-Alone Complex and assorted other programs of Nihongo/Japanese origin. And then there's all those HMV, MusicWorld and other music/video entertainment shops. And the Chapters/Indigo chain bookstores...you get the idea.

Whoever was quoted as saying that quote...well, they need to do a lot of research

From what I've read of that article, I think the reporter thought the material in question was titled "Anime".

Heidi Macdonald (http://209.198.111.165/thebeat/archives/2005/10/toon_child_porn.html) linked to an article in the Edmonton Journal that included:
Gordon Chin pleaded guilty in provincial court today to importing thousands of pages of a Japanese cartoon called Anime featuring characters that look like Pokemon and Astro Boy engaging in explicit sex acts.

Today, Heidi noted the paper issued a correction (http://209.198.111.165/thebeat/archives/2005/10/edmonton_journa.html)... though the original mistake made them look pretty stupid.

[Gail Simone]

Thanks for the extra info, Dewline.

I don't know...I'm not thrilled with the idea of sex comics with kids at all. I don't think we need that at all.

On the other hand, this seems maddeningly vague. They could pretty easily decide that the manga YOU like is bad and make a high profile case about it.

Bleah.

Gail

[GremlinClr]

This is waaay too slippery a slope IMO. What's next? Is any fictional movie where someone dies gonna be considered a snuff film?

Call me crazy but I think we should keep the moniker of "child pornography" attached to things that actually have real children in them.

[Cam63]

It's a pretty gray area.

As stated, I'd have to see the offending images to judge whether they're wrong or not.

[Ian Boothby]

To be arrested for owning drawings? No grey area there at all to me. It's ink on paper. That shouldn't be illegal.

[Lester C.]

I’m not sure how I feel about this issue. On the one hand I don’t want to give up my trade paperback edition of Watchman because Dr. Manhattan was depicted as having underage sex with Sally Jupiter’s kid whose name escapes me but sounds something like Laurie. On the other hand I don’t want to send the message to pedophiles that it okay to possess graphic explicit animated photos of adults having sex with children. I’m not familiar with Canadian law but in America this could be argued as freedom of speech issue.

[matterconsumer]

Ian, that's the other extreme...

Clearly someone's diagrams of killing people falls into a different category.

And returning to comics depicting children in sexual situations I think it's going to be difficult to convince someone who doesn't have the moral apparatus to understand that depicting children in sexual situations for the purpose of titillation is wrong.

[Dennis]

Isn't most manga about bisexual 13 year old girls? the whole genre is pervy. the toys are definitely PErVy!!!

[Lester C.]

Ian, that's the other extreme...

Clearly someone's diagrams of killing people falls into a different category.

And returning to comics depicting children in sexual situations I think it's going to be difficult to convince someone who doesn't have the moral apparatus to understand that depicting children in sexual situations for the purpose of titillation is wrong.

Like I said I go both ways on this issue but shouldn't artists be given the freedom to pursue avenues of creative thought that are taboo and forbidden like they did during the Renaissance era which arguably is what brought society out of the dark age?

[matterconsumer]

Some artists would like to tell folk that they are free from social restraints.

Let's take a moment and clarify "child". In a number of American states one does not have to be 18 to be of an age of sexual consent. The age goes down to 14-15 and depends on the state.

Now we know that maturity happens at different ages.

But let's move out of the gray area and draw some obvious lines. For the purpose of titillation and children under the age of 12. Now we have to ask ourselves if you're viewing artwork involving sexual acts with children and it's turning you on then hopefully we can all agree that this person is not ok. Regardless of whether the person goes out and tries to enact this with children.

[Lester C.]

Some artists would like to tell folk that they are free from social restraints.

Let's take a moment and clarify "child". In a number of American states one does not have to be 18 to be of an age of sexual consent. The age goes down to 14-15 and depends on the state.

Now we know that maturity happens at different ages.

But let's move out of the gray area and draw some obvious lines. For the purpose of titillation and children under the age of 12. Now we have to ask ourselves if you're viewing artwork involving sexual acts with children and it's turning you on then hopefully we can all agree that this person is not ok. Regardless of whether the person goes out and tries to enact this with children.

If you walk into a museum you will see nude sculptors and painting of underage minors. If someone owns such art displays while I consider them weird I wouldn't leap to label them a pedophile. The fact is that art itself is very subjective and is open to interruption. What one man considers a masterpiece another would considier the most vilest peace of trash to ever exist. I have a problem with limiting what artist can or can’t draw as quite frankly I think society needs an outlet for its darker urges as some of the worlds greatest pieces of art have come from some very disturbed and demented minds.

[matterconsumer]

Feel free to enumerate world famous artwork that was intended to sexually arouse the viewer that involves sexually acts between children or between children and adults...

[Lester C.]

Feel free to enumerate world famous artwork that was intended to sexually arouse the viewer that involves sexually acts between children or between children and adults...

Your missing my point. My argument isn’t that sexually explicit artwork depicting children in a titillating isn’t reprehensible. I would never buy such pieces of art and was freaked out today when I reread Watchman and discovered that Jon was a Pedophile. My point is that throughout history artists have worked in areas that were deemed taboo by society at large. I do feel that artist should have a creative license to explore areas of their psyche that you and I would never think to contemplate so long as they restrict their exploration to the canvas. Anyway to answer your question look at art that was painted during Art Nuevo movement. Some of those nude maidens and nymphs were drawn as children which while creepy is considered to be important art.

[Noah Johnson]

No actual children were harmed in the making of this product, but we did think about it.

Yes, we have in fact arrived at thoughtcrime. Nobody was hurt, nobody is planned to be hurt, no one's life is made any worse, but it's still a crime because of the thoughts involved.

[matterconsumer]

Your missing my point. My argument isn’t that sexually explicit artwork depicting children in a titillating isn’t reprehensible. I would never buy such pieces of art and was freaked out today when I reread Watchman and discovered that Jon was a Pedophile. My point is that throughout history artists have worked in areas that were deemed taboo by society at large. I do feel that artist should have a creative license to explore areas of their psyche that you and I would never think to contemplate so long as they restrict their exploration to the canvas. Anyway to answer your question look at art that was painted during Art Nuevo movement. Some of those nude maidens and nymphs were drawn as children which while creepy is considered to be important art.

But do the nymphs turn you on?

When I see nudity in the artwork that you mention I'm not aroused.

It's the Penthouse vs fine art argument. Can you understand that I'm not talking about fine art at all? But when one looks at Penthouse it's usually with an intent to be sexually aroused.

Now Penthouse doesn't traffic in children but the analogy has to do with the intended purpose of the work...

[matterconsumer]

No actual children were harmed in the making of this product, but we did think about it.

Yes, we have in fact arrived at thoughtcrime. Nobody was hurt, nobody is planned to be hurt, no one's life is made any worse, but it's still a crime because of the thoughts involved.

Noah do you have sexual fantasies that involve children? I would hope not.

Are we going to praise people who fantasize about sexual activities with children?

No we say that if you have sexual fantasies that involve children then you've got a problem.

If you collect imagery that involves sexual acts with children then you've got a greater problem.

And if you do both of those and act out those sexual acts with children then it's even worse.

Now are you going to go around and share your fantasies involving sex acts with children with others? With your mom or dad, other family members, your high school teacher, the police officer, etc. Not likely.

[Lester C.]

But do the nymphs turn you on?

When I see nudity in the artwork that you mention I'm not aroused.

It's the Penthouse vs fine art argument. Can you understand that I'm not talking about fine art at all? But when one looks at Penthouse it's usually with an intent to be sexually aroused.

Now Penthouse doesn't traffic in children but the analogy has to do with the intended purpose of the work...

For the record anything painted or animated does not turn me on in anyway thank you very much. Moving on one could argue that there is no distinction between fine art and penthouse because the enjoyment of art is a subjective process that differ wildly between individuals. Take penthouse for example. I view Larry Flint as a vile exploitive piece of human garbage that has gotten rich form exploiting young women and view the people who purchase Penthouse as cretins. That being said a very valid argument could be made that the various lewd poses and interaction women make in that magazine is artistic because anything involving the human anatomy is beautiful. Like it or not the artists that go on to be legendary and defined the period of time they lived in were ostracized and not appreciated until after their death.

[Lester C.]

Noah do you have sexual fantasies that involve children? I would hope not.

Are we going to praise people who fantasize about sexual activities with children?

No we say that if you have sexual fantasies that involve children then you've got a problem.

If you collect imagery that involves sexual acts with children then you've got a greater problem.

And if you do both of those and act out those sexual acts with children then it's even worse.

Now are you going to go around and share your fantasies involving sex acts with children with others? With your mom or dad, other family members, your high school teacher, the police officer, etc. Not likely.

Matt I understand you are getting worked up but we’re all friends here so let’s keep it that way.

[matterconsumer]

No it's not as subjective as you suggest.

Certainly I understand that you may not be able to differentiate between Penthouse and nudity in art.

And then we continue our distinctions to make a distinction between comics which primarily are intended to arouse and comics that are primarily intended to arouse but involve children.

This is about comics intended primarily to arouse that involve children. Suggesting that these shouldn't be created and distributed can be it's own endpoint.

Just as one can have sexual relations with adults, can view material intended to arouse that involves adults, etc. without having to have sex with children, etc.

So to somehow suggest that being opposed to sexual material involving children leads one to oppose sexual material involving adults is ridiculous.

To argue that people have or should have the freedom to create material intended to arouse that involves children is generally considered criminal around the world.

[matterconsumer]

Matt I understand you are getting worked up but we’re all friends here so let’s keep it that way.

No need to worry.

I'm not worked up at all.

I am clarifying the points that are being made and people should say well I don't agree with that at all.

Everyone should be able to understand that material intended to arouse that involves children is wrong. It's wrong to fantasize about it. It's wrong to put it on paper and distribute it to others to help them fantasize about it...

[Lester C.]

No it's not as subjective as you suggest.

Certainly I understand that you may not be able to differentiate between Penthouse and nudity in art.

And then we continue our distinctions to make a distinction between comics which primarily are intended to arouse and comics that are primarily intended to arouse but involve children.

This is about comics intended primarily to arouse that involve children. Suggesting that these shouldn't be created and distributed can be it's own endpoint.

Just as one can have sexual relations with adults, can view material intended to arouse that involves adults, etc. without having to have sex with children, etc.

So to somehow suggest that being opposed to sexual material involving children leads one to oppose sexual material involving adults is ridiculous.

To argue that people have or should have the freedom to create material intended to arouse that involves children is generally considered criminal around the world.

Photos depicting real children in various state of undress and sexual titillation is considered criminal the world over and deservedly so. Then only place I can think of where this isn’t the case are certain parts of Asia that cater to this kinda thing but that’s another discussion involving one pissed off Lester yelling and screaming. Anyway artwork, unlike photos, is extremely subjective so the waters become a lot murkier when you start considering what is art and what is child pornography. Art material regarding underage minors is open to interruption as to what the artist did not did intend. Look at the Ian Churchill's rendition of Supergirl for example.

[matterconsumer]

Supergirl is under 18 but she's of consensual age.

If Supergirl existed then one could legally have sexual relations with her.

Having sexual fantasies with Supergirl is ok in the sense that she is not a child.

What would be inappropriate would be Supergirl under the age of 13 in sexual situations. If this were sold to others then it would be considered child pornography.

Present day Supergirl in a short skirt is not child pornography.

Benes depictions of Supergirl in sketches/pinups show her as older, a college girl in poses clearly intended to stimulate.

[DEWLine]

Thanks for the extra info, Dewline.
Glad to be able to help out, Gail.
I don't know...I'm not thrilled with the idea of sex comics with kids at all. I don't think we need that at all.
Absolute and fervent agreement on that score.
On the other hand, this seems maddeningly vague. They could pretty easily decide that the manga YOU like is bad and make a high profile case about it.
Bleah.
No argument there either.

[Lester C.]

Supergirl is under 18 but she's of consensual age.

If Supergirl existed then one could legally have sexual relations with her.

Having sexual fantasies with Supergirl is ok in the sense that she is not a child.

What would be inappropriate would be Supergirl under the age of 13 in sexual situations. If this were sold to others then it would be considered child pornography.

Present day Supergirl in a short skirt is not child pornography.

Benes depictions of Supergirl in sketches/pinups show her as older, a college girl in poses clearly intended to stimulate.

Supergirl is fifteen to sixteen years old and is not of a consenting age to engage in sex expect with other fifteen and sixteen years old. I do find it funny that your are intriguing that you view Supergirl as older than her intended age which lends credence to my point that all art is extremely subjective.

Anyway writing about this topic has caused me to narrow the scope of this issue to one question which is at the end of the paragraph and is one I don’t have an answer to yet. Let’s say an artist draws a sexually explicit image of a child engaging in acts of a sexual nature with an adult or god forbid other children. Let go on to further say that the artist sells this picture to a friend of his. Given the fact that the child and the adult in the portrait are figments of the artist imagination has a crime been committed by either the artist or person who bought the artwork?

[matterconsumer]

Supergirl is fifteen to sixteen years old and is not of a consenting age to engage in sex expect with other fifteen and sixteen years old. I do find it funny that your are intriguing that you view Supergirl as older than her intended age which lends credence to my point that all art is extremely subjective.

In most states 16 is ok.

Anyway writing about this topic has caused me to narrow the scope of this issue to one question which is at the end of the paragraph and is one I don’t have an answer to yet. Let’s say an artist draws a sexually explicit image of a child engaging in acts of a sexual nature with an adult or god forbid other children. Let go on to further say that the artist sells this picture to a friend of his. Given the fact that the child and the adult in the portrait are figments of the artist imagination has a crime been committed by either the artist or person who bought the artwork?

Yes possessing artwork depicting sexual acts involving children with other children or with adults is against the law. Creating it and selling it is also against the law.

[matterconsumer]

And one further point if you've seen the Benes artwork I've seen of Supergirl she clearly is older.

This is not artwork that Benes did for DC by the way...

[Yoda]

Supergirl is fifteen to sixteen years old and is not of a consenting age to engage in sex expect with other fifteen and sixteen years old. I do find it funny that your are intriguing that you view Supergirl as older than her intended age which lends credence to my point that all art is extremely subjective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Americas

Age of Consent varies from 14 in some states to 17 and 18 in others. Usually for the younger ages it depends upon the age of the other person involved. However, there surprisingly is little caselaw involving 16 year old girls placed in suspended animation for 30 years. But I hear there's a test case coming up in the Ninth Circuit, those wacky bastards will hear anything. :)

Eitherway, in the US this isn't an issue. A Supreme Court decision a few years back cleared this up. Not illegal. Skeevy, yes. Illegal, No.

[Lester C.]

In most states 16 is ok.



Yes possessing artwork depicting sexual acts involving children with other children or with adults is against the law. Creating it and selling it is also against the law.

Each state in which a person could reside in has specific statutes specifying what is and isn’t child pornography. To the best of my knowledge most statues don’t include a provision governing painted or animated child pornography. In these cases Federal law could also apply and I’m not sure what federal law sources like the USC says about this kind of thing. I have to work tonight but I’ll look into it tomorrow just to satisfy my curiosity if nothing else.

[matterconsumer]

Each state in which a person could reside in has specific statutes specifying what is and isn’t child pornography. To the best of my knowledge most statues don’t include a provision governing painted or animated child pornography. In these cases Federal law could also apply and I’m not sure what federal law sources like the USC says about this kind of thing. I have to work tonight but I’ll look into it tomorrow just to satisfy my curiosity if nothing else.

Federal statute defines child pornography as: "any visual depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" involving children" by 18 USC 2252 (a) (2) (A).

Here are the sentences that one can receive for being a violator:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/obscenity_stats.html

This would include depictions in any media...

[Ian Boothby]

Ian, that's the other extreme...

Clearly someone's diagrams of killing people falls into a different category.

And returning to comics depicting children in sexual situations I think it's going to be difficult to convince someone who doesn't have the moral apparatus to understand that depicting children in sexual situations for the purpose of titillation is wrong.

It may be wrong in that the mental process of someone who enjoys it is off. But someone reading fiction or looking at drawings should never be against the law. Real child pornography where read children are involved, go after those selling and buying with full force. Made up child pornography where no children are harmed? No. It's fiction. It's make believe.

[matterconsumer]

It may be wrong in that the mental process of someone who enjoys it is off. But someone reading fiction or looking at drawings should never be against the law. Real child pornography where read children are involved, go after those selling and buying with full force. Made up child pornography where no children are harmed? No. It's fiction. It's make believe.

Ian, I have to confess that it's a little odd for me to describe the power of fiction to you of all people. Fiction can elicit laughter and tears and a variety of emotions even though it's "make believe". "Make believe" is not inconsequential to the living. It has an impact on us.

Child pornography is about using children in sexual situations for the purpose of arousal. When we think of harm we tend to think of the misuse of children. Let's consider a fictional story which is child pornography. The person who reads this and is aroused is thinking about children in sexual situations. The person is being sexually gratified by reading the fictional account. This person is affirming and reinforcing their sexual gratification by reading child pornography.

We could debate whether actual children are eventually harmed. We certainly understand that adults typically do not settle with fiction or drawings to settle their sexual desires. Adults go on and have sex with other adults. I think that we'd have to agree that it's highly likely that fictional child pornography is going to be insufficient.

[Ian Boothby]

Ian, I have to confess that it's a little odd for me to describe the power of fiction to you of all people. Fiction can elicit laughter and tears and a variety of emotions even though it's "make believe". "Make believe" is not inconsequential to the living. It has an impact on us.

Child pornography is about using children in sexual situations for the purpose of arousal. When we think of harm we tend to think of the misuse of children. Let's consider a fictional story which is child pornography. The person who reads this and is aroused is thinking about children in sexual situations. The person is being sexually gratified by reading the fictional account. This person is affirming and reinforcing their sexual gratification by reading child pornography.

We could debate whether actual children are eventually harmed. We certainly understand that adults typically do not settle with fiction or drawings to settle their sexual desires. Adults go on and have sex with other adults. I think that we'd have to agree that it's highly likely that fictional child pornography is going to be insufficient.

As someone said before until a action occurs where a person harms another you're arresting someone for a thought crime. You arrest them for "A" because "B" might occur at some point in the future. You're being arrested for a potential crime. Again if this person hurts a real child the laws are already there to deal with them.

It's creepy, it's disgusting but if you want freedom of speech and expression you need to defend material that might make you ill personally.

[matterconsumer]

As someone said before until a action occurs where a person harms another you're arresting someone for a thought crime. You arrest them for "A" because "B" might occur at some point in the future. You're being arrested for a potential crime. Again if this person hurts a real child the laws are already there to deal with them.

Well we don't have to worry about the world of Minority Report as we don't live in it.

The issue of course is that some are caught up in the false trap that until someone actually victimizes another person that a harm cannot be done. Child pornography is engagement in the victimization of children even if sexual acts are not enacted on children. It's a wrong in and of itself.

A true thought crime would be completely in one's mind. No child pornography has a physical presence whether it's on paper or video, etc. That completely distinguishes it from a wholly mental process. If it remained a wholly mental process that one kept to oneself then no one else would ever know.

Child pornography invariably involves the collecting of its material and that exists outside the mind.

It's creepy, it's disgusting but if you want freedom of speech and expression you need to defend material that might make you ill personally.

Child pornography is not protected speech. You're not going to find many nations in the world that do not criminalize child pornography.

Freedom of speech involves protection of speech which is legal. A distinction is always drawn between legal and illegal speech.

If I write a note about how I want to kill my neighbor I had better hope that no one ever reads it. If I tell someone how I want to kill my neighbor and if I convince the listener then there will not be legal protection.

And let's turn to fictional accounts. What happens in fictional accounts? Bad guys are punished. Bad guy goes out and kills someone and good guy comes along and stops bad guy.

[Noah Johnson]

Gotcha. "I think it's creepy, therefore it should be illegal."

Ooooookay.

I know that it's hard to defend things we don't personally like. I know that it's easy to fall into the trap of "That seems messed up to me... there oughtta be a law."

But no. If no one's getting hurt, then butt out. That's how freedom works.

[matterconsumer]

Noah, it's already against the law.

I haven't mentioned "creepy" and I resent the association with Creepy magazine.

So please try not to continue to argue that child pornography which is illegal is somehow not and that it's usage is protected by "freedom".

Basically some are suggesting that it's ok to view child pornography and that no is being hurt. Well there's always at least one child involved. And children are real. Fictional child pornography is based on reality, the reality that children exist. Without real children there would be no child pornography.

Yet some want to suggest that it's ok to do whatever with fictional children because they don't count. The children are other. They are not you. They originate elsewhere. Unless you create your own child pornography then someone else has provided it for you. It is not solely your own creation.

And it was based on children. Now go tell a child that according to some that you have the freedom to be sexually aroused by children engaged in sexual acts because the children are fictional. Better yet tell it to the parents...

[The Xenos]

Isn't most manga about bisexual 13 year old girls? the whole genre is pervy. the toys are definitely PErVy!!!

Someone needs to read more manga. Ok, ok. Yeah, many Japanese comics do have pervy overtones even when there is no sex. Though there are ones that don't have any, so don't overlook those in the sea of trash. Then again how many bad girl comics and crappy comics are in the US too?


Anyway, as I said, as sick as this shit sounds, I just can't say you can't draw or buy it. I just can't seen censoring books of fiction. As sick as the guy may be, I have to say what happened to him was wrong. Then again who is to say that he would ever harm a child in real life? Does reading something, no matter how weird, mean that you will act it out? oly Jack Thompson, Batman. Geez, video games are just as bad in this mindset if not worse. And yes they are x-rated games in Japan too.

This is too close to thought crime. This is too close to Fahrenheit 451. I just cannot condone the banning of fictional work and art. Stopping its view in public and to minors, sure, but if adults want to see it in their home or private residence or museum, then I think they have a right to.

Again, shit like this guy was buying sounds way too sick for my tastes. Sometimes, friends with too many links on their hands send me random links to disturbing pics. There is some weird stuff out there, not just young, but gorey or just plain weird too. (Dammi! Whe the hell draws Sailor Moon with a penis as big as her arm having sex with Goku?!)

Though I must admit liking some lolicon artists in Japan, some of whom do have adult works. There's this artist who does Episode of the Clovers. I bought a two pencil board pack of his art. One has the young girls in unbuttoned shirts. Yet when I saw the baords I thought the art was so nice, I bought it anyway. On the site for the adult game, they have more exlpicit scenes.

Here are some clean examples of the art from the game:
http://www.littlewitch.jp/product/game/sirotume/images/character/sample_touka01.jpg
http://www.littlewitch.jp/product/game/sirotume/images/character/sample_sayu01.jpg
http://www.littlewitch.jp/product/game/sirotume/images/character/sample_chika_chito01.jpg
http://www.lik-sang.com/image.php?category=33&products_id=3362&img=dc-episode-of-the-clovers-jap-ltd

There is also artist Tamaoki Benkyo. He has done the Blood: The Last Vampire 2002 manga which I bought, published by Viz. He also has done The Sex-Philes, whcih was also released in the US. Again, I like his style.

Of course, I'm looking at my pile of manga and movies. I got the newest issue of Berserk which is sold in US comic stroes, book stores and in Suncoast. (Though in Suncoast it is in the back room as someone took off the shrinkwrap in a store somewhere and a parent complained.) In this newest issue not only does one of the characters somewhat force himself into the bed of a minor, but there is also a disturbing scene with her and her father. Of course, I think the blood and gore and violence is just as bad, but not too many people seem to mind that as much as a pair of breasts.

Then again, what about all these Hustler Barely Legal video and young girl fetish professional porn movies. Yes, the actresses are made sure to be 18 and older, they even may say it in what they call a script, but clealy the fantasies in many of these videos deals with what would likley be underage girls. The acresses may be over 18, but the fantasies are clearly virtual underage porn. If you can go after drawings, why not those?

I jsut don't see how we can judge and criminally punish thoughts and fantasies. Yes, I encourage you to fight against them. Say they're wrong, but you just can't arrest people for what they think!

-Xenos

[matterconsumer]

Well first of all if you can buy it at a chain bookstore it's not child pornography.

This is illegal material. Download it and if you're caught you go to jail. Buy it via the mail and you go to jail. Distribute it and get caught and go to jail.

It's not illegal to have sex with people who are 16 or 17. It is illegal to create sexual material with those who are under 18. A child is under the age of 13.

Most people are able to differentiate between a 12 year old and an 18 year old.

Unfortunately there seem to be those who can't fathom that 12 year olds in sexual situations are not ok whether in fiction or in photos. They cannot consent when they're real yet somehow fictionally they can consent. Well they can't consent fictionally either...

[Cam63]

To be arrested for owning drawings? No grey area there at all to me. It's ink on paper. That shouldn't be illegal.

I'm saying it's " gray " because I'd personally find it difficult to decide what's art and what's offensive/illegal porn.

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Noah Johnson]

Noah, it's already against the law.

Are you blurring the line between photos of actual children and drawings of imaginary children on purpose, as a dishonest rhetorical tactic, or are you just ignoring it as inconvenient?

And it was based on children. Now go tell a child that according to some that you have the freedom to be sexually aroused by children engaged in sexual acts because the children are fictional. Better yet tell it to the parents...
So, your argument is that unpopular freedoms aren't freedoms.

I don't think America's the country for you.

[Ian Boothby]

Child pornography is not protected speech. You're not going to find many nations in the world that do not criminalize child pornography.

One person's porn is another's Lolita. What's innocent to one, such as Norman Rockwell pitcures of bare bummed kids getting needles might be porn to another. In the case of Manga what might look like porn might not be taken that way by someone who knows the genre.

But even if it is taken as porn, it's still ink on paper. If actions arise from someone reading that material and being motivated to commit a crime. The crime is already illegal and there's no need for extra laws.

Freedom of speech involves protection of speech which is legal

But defence of freedom of speech often involves material not currently legal.

If I write a note about how I want to kill my neighbor I had better hope that no one ever reads it.

Or you could change the names and it becomes an episode of Murder She Wrote.

If I tell someone how I want to kill my neighbor and if I convince the listener then there will not be legal protection.

In the first place that's not fictional. Write it down, make it into a book and give it to your neighbor and you'd be protected.

And let's turn to fictional accounts. What happens in fictional accounts? Bad guys are punished. Bad guy goes out and kills someone and good guy comes along and stops bad guy.

Well that's just wrong. In a fictional story, the good guys can win, the bad guys can win or there might not even be good or bad guys. Even in recent superhero books which would seem to be the model for what you're talking about.

[Lester C.]

Federal statute defines child pornography as: "any visual depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" involving children" by 18 USC 2252 (a) (2) (A).

Here are the sentences that one can receive for being a violator:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/obscenity_stats.html

This would include depictions in any media...

Here is a relevant link to an interesting yet lengthy article based on what we are talking about. Of interest for our purpose is this portion of the document that I‘ve copied and paste from the link below. It goes on to distiguish child pornography from child erotica which is what I’ve was arguing when I said there is a difference between real photos of child abuse and artistic renditions covering the same subject matter.


For the purposes of this paper, recognizing that each country's legal definition of "child" may be different, the term "child pornography" will refer to a "sexually explicit reproduction of a child's image." Kenneth V. Lanning, Child Molesters: A Behavioural Analysis 24 (1992). Child pornography is to be distinguished from "child erotica" which is "any material relating to children that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual." Id. at 26. Child erotica includes such items such as toys, games, children's clothing, sexual aids, manuals, drawings, catalogues, and non-pornographic photographs of children. Child erotica is not illegal but is frequently used by prosecutors as corroborating evidence in cases against child molesters Some experts distinguish "sexual molester" or "abusers" from "sexual exploiters" employing the term "sexual exploitation" to describe only commercial interactions or to distinguish extra-familial abuse from that which occurs within the family. The terms "child molester" and "child abuser" will be used interchangeably in this paper to denote a significantly older person who engages in sexual activity with someone who is legally a child. The term "child exploiter" will include those who sexually molest children as well as those who sexually exploit children through the production, distribution, and/or collection of child pornography. or child pornographers.
The definition of child pornography, in some countries, is harm-based. For example, U.S. law, which is characterised by an elaborate commitment to the protection of free speech, has addressed the issue of child pornography from the perspective of preventing harm to child victims rather than censoring expression. Child pornography is criminalised in the United States because it represents "the permanent record of the sexual abuse or exploitation of an actual child." Lanning, supra note 3, at 24. As stated previously, it may be legally permissible to engage in sexual activity with a 16 or 17 year old in some jurisdictions. The filming of that encounter would be illegal under federal law but the depiction could not be considered a record of the abuse of a child. The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act (1993) promulgated in New Zealand makes similar reference to child pornography as a "permanent recording of the exploitation of children or young persons for sexual purposes." The approaching technological capacity to produce lifelike computer generated pornography will challenge such harm-based definitions of child pornography




http://www.usemb.se/children/csec/child_pornography.html

[palaeomerus]

The original Astroboy comic by Osam Tezuka had some creepy controversial elements.

The manga had him gaining sustenance in the form of deuterium energy to recharge his batteries through a "port" that would have been his anus if he was a real boy. He looked real happy when he was being refueld (bent over I might add) and the energy came from a tube that looked like an exagerated enema tube.

Worse he has machine guns in his butt cheeks.

That was in a comic for kids from the early fifties.

So without further information it's hard to say if they even had something that was actually intended as kid porn or just something that was highly questionable.

[stealthwise]

How many kids are being directly, physically harmed by this?

None? That's what I thought.

It's very tough to defend something like this, or Lolita, which I find to be a disturbing book/movie (not to mention boring as hell), but I can't in good conscious every recommend that it be illegal.

If there are pedophiles out there who were to only deal in child porn comics and never touch a real person in their entire lives, I could live with that.

This specific situation is nearly impossible to judge because I haven't seen the comic, but I don't think that the punishment was appropriate, regardless of how extreme the fictional content is.

[matterconsumer]

There's a huge difference between Lolita and child pornography.

The most obvious being that Lolita wasn't written with the goal of turning you on.

And Lolita doesn't treat it as praiseworthy behavior.

However, child pornography treats children in sexual situations as praiseworthy.

We need to separate this issue to some extent from what's been done in the past. People can ban the color purple if they so wish to do so.

Again if you can buy it in a bookstore it's not child pornography. It's not even close.

People are murdered, raped, abused, etc. in fictional accounts. The difference is that people don't read this in order to enjoy murder, rape, abuse, etc. The behavior is not praiseworthy.

Let's take murder for example. How many think murder is acceptable? If one thinks murder is acceptable then we would say that person needs help and/or is a danger. How many books/stories does one read that say going out and murdering others is acceptable behavior? If such fiction were to exist and a person were to have it and enjoy it would we not say that this person needs help and/or is a danger?

And we would go on with rape, abuse, child pornography, arson, theft, etc. If the point of the fictional work is to praise these actions and the person who collects these works is enjoying them then the person needs help and/or is a danger.

[Ian Boothby]

There's a huge difference between Lolita and child pornography.

The most obvious being that Lolita wasn't written with the goal of turning you on.

And Lolita doesn't treat it as praiseworthy behavior.

However, child pornography treats children in sexual situations as praiseworthy.

We need to separate this issue to some extent from what's been done in the past. People can ban the color purple if they so wish to do so.

Again if you can buy it in a bookstore it's not child pornography. It's not even close.

People are murdered, raped, abused, etc. in fictional accounts. The difference is that people don't read this in order to enjoy murder, rape, abuse, etc. The behavior is not praiseworthy.

Let's take murder for example. How many think murder is acceptable? If one thinks murder is acceptable then we would say that person needs help and/or is a danger. How many books/stories does one read that say going out and murdering others is acceptable behavior? If such fiction were to exist and a person were to have it and enjoy it would we not say that this person needs help and/or is a danger?

And we would go on with rape, abuse, child pornography, arson, theft, etc. If the point of the fictional work is to praise these actions and the person who collects these works is enjoying them then the person needs help and/or is a danger.

To many Lolita is soft core pornography and most certainly presents at first a titilating view of statutory rape.

To say that if something is in a bookstore it's not porn is just silly. One persons literature is another person's porn when it comes to fiction (and that holds true most forms of art). You're making broad sweeping statements that don't hold water.

How many books/stories say murdering someone is acceptable? Well since we're on a comic book web site let's go with that, Punisher comics, Spectre comics, Electra comics and Wolverine comics. All those folks murder in cold blood and are considered if not heroes then the story's protagonists and go on from issue to issue with little consequence.

If you want films or books, take something like Hannibal. Is someone who enjoyed that messed up in your mind? The bad guy murders and eats the victims and wins.

Fiction contains many accounts of protagonists getting away with murder/rape/abuse. This is where you lose me. You seem to be saying these books don't exist and I'm pretty sure you don't really think that. Or do you?

[stealthwise]

There's a huge difference between Lolita and child pornography.

The most obvious being that Lolita wasn't written with the goal of turning you on.

And Lolita doesn't treat it as praiseworthy behavior.

However, child pornography treats children in sexual situations as praiseworthy.

We need to separate this issue to some extent from what's been done in the past. People can ban the color purple if they so wish to do so.

Again if you can buy it in a bookstore it's not child pornography. It's not even close.

People are murdered, raped, abused, etc. in fictional accounts. The difference is that people don't read this in order to enjoy murder, rape, abuse, etc. The behavior is not praiseworthy.

Let's take murder for example. How many think murder is acceptable? If one thinks murder is acceptable then we would say that person needs help and/or is a danger. How many books/stories does one read that say going out and murdering others is acceptable behavior? If such fiction were to exist and a person were to have it and enjoy it would we not say that this person needs help and/or is a danger?

And we would go on with rape, abuse, child pornography, arson, theft, etc. If the point of the fictional work is to praise these actions and the person who collects these works is enjoying them then the person needs help and/or is a danger.

Have you ever read American Psycho?

[matterconsumer]

Have you ever read American Psycho?

and who is going to praise the behavior a psychotic?

[Cam63]

Other psychotics ?

[Noah Johnson]

matter, I understand that you want to condemn drawings of kids screwing creepy old Japanese men. Understandably, they're squicktastic.

But these generalizations about the nature of art and literature are just going to paint you into a corner.

[Cam63]

matter, I understand that you want to condemn drawings of kids screwing creepy old Japanese men. Understandably, they're squicktastic.

Squicktastic is my new favourite word.

[matterconsumer]

To many Lolita is soft core pornography and most certainly presents at first a titilating view of statutory rape.

Lolita has withstood legal challenges over the years.

To say that if something is in a bookstore it's not porn is just silly. One persons literature is another person's porn when it comes to fiction (and that holds true most forms of art). You're making broad sweeping statements that don't hold water.

Perhaps the stumbling block here is the word "pornography". When I put the words "child" and "pornography" I intend material that is illegal. Certainly the legal standards have changed over the years but I'm discussing the legal standard as it is today.

Thus when I say that if it's in a bookstore then it's legal.

How many books/stories say murdering someone is acceptable? Well since we're on a comic book web site let's go with that, Punisher comics, Spectre comics, Electra comics and Wolverine comics. All those folks murder in cold blood and are considered if not heroes then the story's protagonists and go on from issue to issue with little consequence.


If you want films or books, take something like Hannibal. Is someone who enjoyed that messed up in your mind? The bad guy murders and eats the victims and wins.

Yes if someone watching Hannibal eat a person is excited by it then yes that person needs professional help.

As I recall Hannibal has been captured by law enforcement in the past, has escaped, and law enforcement continues to pursue him.

That's utterly different than a film celebrating the life of a cannibal.

Can't say that I read Punisher or Wolverine but I find it difficult to believe that either character just walks out on the street and kills. Wouldn't you say that it's much more likely that they kill in self-defense? I distinguish self-defense from murder...

Fiction contains many accounts of protagonists getting away with murder/rape/abuse. This is where you lose me. You seem to be saying these books don't exist and I'm pretty sure you don't really think that. Or do you?

No I'm saying that these are not praiseworthy actions and while they occur in fiction they aren't praised.

Your "normal" person doesn't read a book to savor the murder, rape, abuse of others. And bookstore books aren't written from that viewpoint either.

But the consumption of child pornography is all about the savoring. Now granted the person creating the work may just be doing it for money...

[matterconsumer]

Other psychotics ?

Likely......

[matterconsumer]

matter, I understand that you want to condemn drawings of kids screwing creepy old Japanese men. Understandably, they're squicktastic.

But these generalizations about the nature of art and literature are just going to paint you into a corner.

Depending on where you live being caught with a collection of children having sex with adults would put one in legal jeopardy.

That's neither art nor literature. Unless one defines art and literature as including the legal and illegal...

[Lester C.]

Matt according to your logic if one enjoys a grisly form of entertainment then that means that one endorses the activity that is being portrayed and that quite frankly is illogical. Just because one enjoys reading The Punisher comic doesn’t mean that would support a vigilante murdering the criminal underclass. Just because one enjoys watching martial art action movies doesn’t mean that one advocates using martial violence as a solution to solving one’s problem with one’s fellow man. Just because one plays a video game whose protagonist is a violent sociopath doesn’t mean that one is going to go on a rampage wrecking havoc and causing death and destruction. I just read William Shakespeare Hamlet and while I enjoyed Mr. Shakespeare work immensely I have no desire to engage in any of the dysfunctional borderline mad actives Hamlet engaged in.

[Lester C.]

Depending on where you live being caught with a collection of children having sex with adults would put one in legal jeopardy.

That's neither art nor literature. Unless one defines art and literature as including the legal and illegal...

On the previous page I had a post relevant to this topic and provided a link. Basically there is a difference between child pornography (illegal) and child erotica.(legal). What determines the legality of child erotica is whether or not the material his harm based to children and art doesn't count as harmful to a child.

[matterconsumer]

Lester that's not what I'm saying at all.

The type of illegal fiction that I'm talking about isn't available at bookstores. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

But what I have said is that if for example looking at people being murdered in a comic book turns you on and/or your mental reaction is "it's a good thing to murder" then that person has a very serious problem.

So if one sits around thinking about murdering others and thinks it's acceptable then one may seek out material where others are murdered in order to enjoy that experience. Now it may not be possible to actually locate material that praises murder so the person may have to settle with what would be the Sears catalog equivalent of murder. But that's a misuse of the material as the creators of it weren't trying to appeal to those who accept murder as praiseworthy.

And ditto for child pornography. If someone savors thinking of sex between children and/or sex between children and an adult then we have to understand that this is a person who needs professional help and/or maybe a danger to society. Certainly inasmuch as this person may purchase material and thus perpetuate a market based on a harm.

[matterconsumer]

On the previous page I had a post relevant to this topic and provided a link. Basically there is a difference between child pornography (illegal) and child erotica.(legal). What determines the legality of child erotica is whether or not the material his harm based to children and art doesn't count as harmful to a child.

If you read through the article which is from 1996 and is practically pre-Internet one understands that realistic depictions cover more than simply photographs.

[Lester C.]

If you read through the article which is from 1996 and is practically pre-Internet one understands that realistic depictions cover more than simply photographs.

Our legal system is on a concept called Stare Decisis which basically means in Latin to stand by what’s decided. This term is more commonly known as precedent. Unless the legislature changed the statute in question or the Supreme Court issued a common law ruling making child erotica illegal what was true in 1996 or 1796 is true for 2006.

[matterconsumer]

The law has changed since 1996:

“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

This is from US Code Title Code 2256.

[Lester C.]

Okay time to dust off my paralegal research skills. In 2002 the case of Ashcroft versus the Free Speech Coalition the United States Supreme Court decreed that the previous American ban on simulated child pornography was illegal. The only way to override the Supreme Court is to change the constitution which to the best of my knowledge hasn't happened. You can read about that case here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Legislation

[Adam Crocker]

Oh I guess I'll throw my hat into the ring with this touchy subject...


To argue that people have or should have the freedom to create material intended to arouse that involves children is generally considered criminal around the world.

Considered criminal, but your definition here misses the crucial distinction made between Lolicon illiustrations and child pornography involving actual children: that one is produced by illustration without using minors whereas the other involves forcing actual children into sexual acts for its reproduction. The latter renders very real harm onto minors, but it is not so clear with the former. I have no fondness for lolicon myself, but whether it actually encourages preying on children by pedophiles isn't so clear. As far as I know it is relatively easily available in Japan yet the overall rate of sex crimes against children, as with other crimes there, is far less than in the rest of the developed world. And if anyone knows if I am mistaken, go ahead and chime in please.


Basically some are suggesting that it's ok to view child pornography and that no is being hurt. Well there's always at least one child involved. And children are real. Fictional child pornography is based on reality, the reality that children exist. Without real children there would be no child pornography.

Problem is that the logic you are using could lead a host of accepted fictional portrayals banned simply because they are theoretically based on reality. Murder is real and fictional murder is based on reality, without real murder there would be no fictional depictions of such.


People are murdered, raped, abused, etc. in fictional accounts. The difference is that people don't read this in order to enjoy murder, rape, abuse, etc. The behavior is not praiseworthy.

Actually there is porn out there meant to simulate rape. However, the main problem I have with this statement is that you're getting into the dangerous logic of outlawing something because exults something not found to be praiseworthy. That's problematic because it involves limiting speech not on the basis of actual harm, but due to mere moral objections. Following this logic we could ban fictional depictions of adultery or punk rock--hell they were trying their darndest to ban punk in Britain in the seventies because they didn't show sufficient respect for the monarchy while police in LA frequently harassed kids at punk rock shows.

Let's take murder for example. How many think murder is acceptable?

In general? Not many. On the other hand considering the number of people I have seen state that Hugo Chavez should be assassinated (it's far more than just Pat Robertson) I'd say that sometimes really depends on target of the act.

As for praiseworthy depictions in art, does this include those indulging black humour like the Misfits did?

[matterconsumer]

The problem with Ashcroft's case was that it went too far. "Impression" of child pornography was considered overly broad. Other issues were mentioned as well. But the decision didn't say that virtual child pornography would never be illegal. Instead it decided that the Miller standard was ok.

Which returns us to the Miller standard for obscenity:

A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

and this includes the entire gamut of material: written, drawn, photographed, filmed, etc.

[Ian Boothby]

Lolita has withstood legal challenges over the years.

I said some consider it porn. The fact that's repeatedly been challenged as such proves my point. Some consider it porn.

Perhaps the stumbling block here is the word "pornography". When I put the words "child" and "pornography" I intend material that is illegal. Certainly the legal standards have changed over the years but I'm discussing the legal standard as it is today.

Thus when I say that if it's in a bookstore then it's legal.

Unless the owners of the bookstore decide to stock illegal books. Like Little Sisters Bookstore has done in Canada. Like many other gay bookstores have done in the past.


Yes if someone watching Hannibal eat a person is excited by it then yes that person needs professional help.

Enough people were excited for three hit films and one Acadamy Award for the portrayal of the character.

As I recall Hannibal has been captured by law enforcement in the past, has escaped, and law enforcement continues to pursue him.

The law tries to hold him and fails in two of the three films.

That's utterly different than a film celebrating the life of a cannibal.

He's become a pop culture icon. You can't think of fava beans without thinking of his wacky cannibal exploits.


Can't say that I read Punisher or Wolverine but I find it difficult to believe that either character just walks out on the street and kills. Wouldn't you say that it's much more likely that they kill in self-defense? I distinguish self-defense from murder...

I wouldn't say that because it's the opposite of a Punisher comic. He goes looking for people to kill. Then kills them. Same with the Spectre and Electra (who kills for money). Wolverine is a bit all over the map but in a recent arc he killed a hell of a lot of people.


No I'm saying that these are not praiseworthy actions and while they occur in fiction they aren't praised.

Yes they are. The Punisher's actions are praised. He's the hero of the story.

Your "normal" person doesn't read a book to savor the murder, rape, abuse of others. And bookstore books aren't written from that viewpoint either.

These sweeping statements let all the air out of your argument. Books aren't always morality tales with good winning over evil. Fiction covers so much you can't lump it all together in that way.

[Lester C.]

This is the most emotionally draining debate I’ve ever engaged in. You have no idea how tiring it is to defend a pedophile right to the first amendment. Anyway the section of statute law governing simulated child porn were held unconstitutional and thrown out. Simply put in America the magna that put a Canadian citizen in jail is perfectly legal here as is all artwork of this nature. Please don't make me copy and paste the official court opinion because it's duller than dishwater.

[Michael P]

The type of illegal fiction that I'm talking about
Which is what, exactly? We know it's not stuff like Lolita, because you've said as much. And we know it's not drawings of little kids having sex, because it's been demonstrated that that stuff's not illegal (at least, not in the US). So, what the hell are you talking about, this stuff that everyone knows is wrong and has been made illegal, that you're holding up as the gold standard of bad porn? Provide examples.

[Noah Johnson]

matter, are you seriously using the law as your moral guideline of what's acceptable? Don't you think that's a little risky? Laws change frequently; the U.S. government has recently decided that softcore bondage porn now counts as hardcore. Hell, suppose tomorrow they ban depictions of, I don't know, girls kissing? Would that then become immoral and disgusting?

[Adam Crocker]

Which returns us to the Miller standard for obscenity:

A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


Oh and for the record: while I can't say I have much legal knowledge, I hate the legal concept that is 'obscenity.' What business is it of the state to regulate our prurient interests? Granted it's one thing when we act out those prurient interests in a harmful manner (rape, fornicating in public in full view of children, molesting children, etc.) but does it matter if some guy wants to take pictures of nekkid women and sell them to guys who want a cheap thrill? Let them. Patently offensive? By whose standard? The prudes in the Parents Music Resource Center? The same prudes in Britain's legal system in the late seventies that tried to prosecute the Sex Pistols for the use of the word 'Bollocks' in the title of their album in what was a blatant attack on a band whose only crime besides threatening someone with violence was to get up the noses of conservative Britain? Lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? By whose standard? I think that most popular entertainment is lacking in all these qualities including the majority of sitcoms, teen pop idols, summer action films, gangsta hip-hop, etc. etc. Should those be banned as well?

(And that's of course leaving aside the political articles featured in many pornographic magazines like Playboy or old practice of using pornography to finance serious art as Fantagraphics or Last Gasp has.)


Unless the owners of the bookstore decide to stock illegal books. Like Little Sisters Bookstore has done in Canada. Like many other gay bookstores have done in the past.

I can back Ian up on this. Canada Customs has frequently taken it upon itself to sieze books destined for gay bookstores based on the nebulous standard that is 'obscenity'.

[Charles RB]

While I can see how this stuff wouldn't be illegal, I'm not going to lose sleep about the fact a man who gets enjoyment from simulated child porn is on a sex-offender list.

[matterconsumer]

Considered criminal, but your definition here misses the crucial distinction made between Lolicon illiustrations and child pornography involving actual children: that one is produced by illustration without using minors whereas the other involves forcing actual children into sexual acts for its reproduction. The latter renders very real harm onto minors, but it is not so clear with the former. I have no fondness for lolicon myself, but whether it actually encourages preying on children by pedophiles isn't so clear. As far as I know it is relatively easily available in Japan yet the overall rate of sex crimes against children, as with other crimes there, is far less than in the rest of the developed world. And if anyone knows if I am mistaken, go ahead and chime in please.

Well I haven't argued that child pornography by itself leads to sex crimes against children. I did make the obvious point that people in general want to have sex and generally seek to do so. If they have "porn" it likely reflects their sexual inclinations. So inasmuch as someone is sexually attracted to a child then if one is able to procur material then one may choose to do so.

Sexual attraction between an adult and a child. Surely we can agree that this person needs professional help and/or maybe a danger.

As to the Japanese well surely we're not going to emulate their treatment of women or adopt other customs. It's certainly obvious that their standards differ than those accepted in the US. Well there is Nevada... At any rate the Japanese are opposed to child pornography though I don't consider myself to be a Japanese legal scholar.

There are different "levels" of harm.

Coercing children to pose is more harmful than children "consenting" for example. Both are illegal but using force is worse than not using force.

Problem is that the logic you are using could lead a host of accepted fictional portrayals banned simply because they are theoretically based on reality. Murder is real and fictional murder is based on reality, without real murder there would be no fictional depictions of such.

But that's not the point I made at all. I wanted to establish the obvious which is that fiction is not altogether separate from reality. Then, I discussed the intent of the work and that's a major factor in what is and isn't legal.

So the Guide to Raping Children should already be sounding alarms while the Guide to Assisting Children Who Have Been Raped provides an entirely different context.

Actually there is porn out there meant to simulate rape. However, the main problem I have with this statement is that you're getting into the dangerous logic of outlawing something because exults something not found to be praiseworthy. That's problematic because it involves limiting speech not on the basis of actual harm, but due to mere moral objections. Following this logic we could ban fictional depictions of adultery or punk rock--hell they were trying their darndest to ban punk in Britain in the seventies because they didn't show sufficient respect for the monarchy while police in LA frequently harassed kids at punk rock shows.

Porn depicting/simulating rape better have a disclaimer somewhere indicating that it was consensual. If not then one could expect to be in legal jeopardy.

I could have just as well substituted "praiseworthy" with "legal". Praiseworthy just means it's ok. Not intended to convey morality though some would say that not murdering or raping are morally good.

I'm just looking at it in terms of what is legal.



In general? Not many. On the other hand considering the number of people I have seen state that Hugo Chavez should be assassinated (it's far more than just Pat Robertson) I'd say that sometimes really depends on target of the act.

Some will argue that political assassinations are illegal. Some will suggest that they are immoral. Some will suggest that since Chavez is a killer that he has to be killed in order to prevent further killing. If one accepts that position then one does not consider it to be murder.

Robertson has recounted.

But even if one disagrees with Robertson one can understand his "logic" which is that this is being done for a greater good. It's completely different than Robertson saying, "Go out and kill a neighbor".

As for praiseworthy depictions in art, does this include those indulging black humour like the Misfits did?

The level of offense would vary by community and have changed over time.

[Noah Johnson]

While I can see how this stuff wouldn't be illegal, I'm not going to lose sleep about the fact a man who gets enjoyment from simulated child porn is on a sex-offender list.
Ah yes, the old "Screw the legal rights, that's creepy" defense. The reason I get so upset about this every damn time it comes up is because if our legal rights to not apply to everybody, by which I mean EVERYBODY, no matter who they are or what they've done, they are not legal rights. They're privileges the government extends to people it approves of. And that is not acceptable.

[matterconsumer]

Ian,

Just as soon as some kid goes to a high school and kills a bunch of his peers and he has Punisher or Wolverine comics prominently collected at home I bet that Marvel changes its tune.

I distinguish the illegal material from what Marvel is currently producing.

When I was talking about bookstores the distinction was being made that manga that's being carried isn't illegal. I was thinking in terms of chains of bookstores. But the point remains the same bookstores that carry illegal material are likely to eventually be caught and have to stop.

Re: Hannibal. Do you know anyone who is serious about cannibalism that's actually eaten human flesh? I didn't walk away from the films thinking cannibalism was acceptable.

[matterconsumer]

matter, are you seriously using the law as your moral guideline of what's acceptable? Don't you think that's a little risky? Laws change frequently; the U.S. government has recently decided that softcore bondage porn now counts as hardcore. Hell, suppose tomorrow they ban depictions of, I don't know, girls kissing? Would that then become immoral and disgusting?

News flash!!!

We're held accountable to the law whether we agree with it or not.

It baffles me when you continue to mention immoral/disgusting, etc. as I have not described child pornography using those terms. I've been discussing it in terms of it being illegal.

[matterconsumer]

Which is what, exactly? We know it's not stuff like Lolita, because you've said as much. And we know it's not drawings of little kids having sex, because it's been demonstrated that that stuff's not illegal (at least, not in the US). So, what the hell are you talking about, this stuff that everyone knows is wrong and has been made illegal, that you're holding up as the gold standard of bad porn? Provide examples.

I can't because of course I and everyone viewing it could go to jail. Well I also don't have any.

I doubt that anyone here has experienced this material firsthand. If they have especially if they've downloaded then they're likely to either be or eventually be caught if they continue to do so.

We have to separate this from those situations where people are upset and say it's illegal. They may actually even get an arrest but it's ultimately an overreaction.

[matterconsumer]

Ah yes, the old "Screw the legal rights, that's creepy" defense. The reason I get so upset about this every damn time it comes up is because if our legal rights to not apply to everybody, by which I mean EVERYBODY, no matter who they are or what they've done, they are not legal rights. They're privileges the government extends to people it approves of. And that is not acceptable.

Everyone is entitled to innocence before guilt in the US anyway. And to a fair trial.

Now we know historically that this does not always happen...

[TheLyle]

Oh and for the record: while I can't say I have much legal knowledge, I hate the legal concept that is 'obscenity.' What business is it of the state to regulate our prurient interests? Granted it's one thing when we act out those prurient interests in a harmful manner (rape, fornicating in public in full view of children, molesting children, etc.) but does it matter if some guy wants to take pictures of nekkid women and sell them to guys who want a cheap thrill?

Slight nitpick, I do have a problem if there isn't consent on all ends of the transactions. I do think 'hidden camera' material should be illegal for violating privacy. But that's another case of huring another person.

[matterconsumer]

Oh and for the record: while I can't say I have much legal knowledge, I hate the legal concept that is 'obscenity.' What business is it of the state to regulate our prurient interests? Granted it's one thing when we act out those prurient interests in a harmful manner (rape, fornicating in public in full view of children, molesting children, etc.) but does it matter if some guy wants to take pictures of nekkid women and sell them to guys who want a cheap thrill? Let them. Patently offensive? By whose standard? The prudes in the Parents Music Resource Center? The same prudes in Britain's legal system in the late seventies that tried to prosecute the Sex Pistols for the use of the word 'Bollocks' in the title of their album in what was a blatant attack on a band whose only crime besides threatening someone with violence was to get up the noses of conservative Britain? Lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? By whose standard? I think that most popular entertainment is lacking in all these qualities including the majority of sitcoms, teen pop idols, summer action films, gangsta hip-hop, etc. etc. Should those be banned as well?


Objectionable has to be separated from illegal. Certainly there are any number of instances where objectionable has been confused with illegal. Of course anyone can try to influence the law.

We're talking about children though. Children in sexual situations being used to stimulate adults. There's no freedom that allows adults to have sex with children or to distrubute those experiences to others for the purpose of stimulating them.

I can back Ian up on this. Canada Customs has frequently taken it upon itself to sieze books destined for gay bookstores based on the nebulous standard that is 'obscenity'.

I'm not going to defend the actions of others. I will say that one has to be aware of the law and how it's likely to be enforced especially if one is dealing in a controversial area.

[matterconsumer]

Slight nitpick, I do have a problem if there isn't consent on all ends of the transactions. I do think 'hidden camera' material should be illegal for violating privacy. But that's another case of huring another person.

I'm getting the impression that there are at least a few people here who if they actually do what they say is "ok" would wind up getting arrested.

[TheLyle]

Lolita has withstood legal challenges over the years.

I said some consider it porn. The fact that's repeatedly been challenged as such proves my point. Some consider it porn.

I've been racking my memory but in the late '90s there was a minor furor over the sherrif of a rural county causing trouble (a generic term since I can't remember it clearly or find google the information) for video store owners that carried a traditional movie (I recall the name being _____ Cup... Steel Cup? It was close to Tin Cup which had just come out.) Anyone remember this?

Anyway, trying to claim "It's obvious" only shows that one doesn't understand how people can react to thinks differently and walk away with different judgements. Just because it's carried in a bookstore, even a major chain, does not make it immune from being critisized and called contraband. Lolita's a very obvious example of how that can be.

[matterconsumer]

Just because it's carried in a bookstore, even a major chain, does not make it immune from being critisized and called contraband. Lolita's a very obvious example of how that can be.

But in the end cooler heads prevailed...

[Robin3]

matter, are you seriously using the law as your moral guideline of what's acceptable? Don't you think that's a little risky? Laws change frequently; the U.S. government has recently decided that softcore bondage porn now counts as hardcore. Hell, suppose tomorrow they ban depictions of, I don't know, girls kissing? Would that then become immoral and disgusting?

There's a legal definition of hardcore?

why would they bother to make a distinction?

[Noah Johnson]

But in the end cooler heads prevailed...
Yeah, this time.

Okay, I do not understand what the hell argument you're making. Your rationales seem to slide around from post to post, and your language is frequently unclear.

Are you saying that child pornography ought to be illegal? Are you saying that drawings of child pornography, the depiction of fantasy, ought to be illegal? Are you saying that if child porn were made legal, you'd be okay with it? What in god's name are you saying?

[Robin3]

I think the major problem in this whole discussion is that Matter is arguing about the morality of drawings of simulated sex involving underage people and most everyone else is trying to explain the legality of the issue.

legal != moral.

Morals are the rules an individual lives by that are associated with certain feelings.

Ethics are rules that a person or institution follows, that doesn't have anything to do with feelings

Laws are rules that the government enforces to protect its citizens.

You could say that laws are the ethics that the government creates.

The Canadian guy didn't break any laws if it were the United States, because of the Supreme Court ruling that states that cartoon depictions of sex cannot fall into the realm of child pornography. The reason is that there is no real child involved.

Whether it's moral is a separate issue, but many "immoral" things, like lying, are not illegal, unless done in certain contexts.

[Lester C.]

Everyone needs to calm down a bit as I think we’re all getting a little too passionate about our beliefs regarding crime and punishment.

[Charles RB]

Ah yes, the old "Screw the legal rights, that's creepy" defense.

He gets off on the idea of having sex with children. Having sex with children is a bad thing. It's a good thing that this man is being watched and is legally required to undergo counselling.

And is any of what happened to him actually against his legal rights under Canadian law? He doesn't seem to be appealing against it or anything.

[Lester C.]

Here is excerpt of the link wikipedia I provided earlier. It’s much shorter than the link I provided to the actual supreme court ruling. This should settle the issue on whether or not simulated child pornography is legal.

Simulated
Images can be created which convincingly appear to involve actual under-age persons, but in fact do not. Originally this was done with adult actors who were disguised or could "pass" as minors. As digital animation technology has progressed, it has become possible to generate convincing simulations of child actors.
Proponents prohibiting such materials argue that they might encourage child molesters and, when shown to a child, may give the child the impression that the depicted acts are normal (the term "/wiki/Grooming_a_child" is used in this connection); prohibition of possession could help prevent it being shown to a child. Also, the legality of simulated child pornography would make the prosecution of true child pornography much harder. Opponents of the prohibition claim that simulated child pornography does not harm children and should therefore fall under the "/wiki/United_States_Constitution/Amendment_One" guarantee of "/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press".
The "/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" decided in "/wiki/2002" that the previous American prohibition of simulated child pornography was unconstitutional ("http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html"). UK law has dealt with simulated images quite differently since "/wiki/1994", when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act introduced the legal definition of an ""/wiki/Indecent_pseudo-photograph_of_a_child"", which is prohibited as if it were a true photograph. In "/wiki/October" "/wiki/2002", the "/wiki/Netherlands" declared that seemingly real child pornography will be treated as if it were real. In Germany real depictions and realistic simulations were never treated differently by law.
In "/wiki/October" "/wiki/2005", Canadian courts sentenced an "/wiki/Edmonton%2C_Alberta" man to one year of community service for importing "/wiki/Manga" depicting child sex, possibly the first such case in Canada. (Source: "http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/10/20/1270701-sun.html")

[matterconsumer]

Yeah, this time.

Okay, I do not understand what the hell argument you're making. Your rationales seem to slide around from post to post, and your language is frequently unclear.

Are you saying that child pornography ought to be illegal? Are you saying that drawings of child pornography, the depiction of fantasy, ought to be illegal? Are you saying that if child porn were made legal, you'd be okay with it? What in god's name are you saying?

The problem is that we don't have a concise agreement on language.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone. This isn't intended as an insult but I really don't think that the people who are arguing with me understand what I'm saying. They seem to be caught up with situations where people were brought forward on either false or shaky accusations. Or with people coming at the issue from a loud moral perspective.

In the US, the Miller Standard is the standard. It involves community standards which depending on where you live and the material you have could lead to different results. Prosecuted in one community and not in another.

Now part of the confusion can arise because I use child pornography = illegal and some say some child pornography is legal and other child pornography is illegal. It seems to me that if we use child pornography to encompass only that which is illegal then we'd have to call the legal stuff something else. It's a breakdown in language though.

I've described child pornography as being material which involves a child with a child and/or an adult in a sexual situation intended to arouse the viewer. This is basically a restating of the Miller standard. So yes this could include fictional accounts.

Well I don't think that child pornography will ever be legal in the US but at any rate if it were it would be the law. Doesn't mean I have to own any though...

[Michael P]

I can't because of course I and everyone viewing it could go to jail. Well I also don't have any.

I doubt that anyone here has experienced this material firsthand. If they have especially if they've downloaded then they're likely to either be or eventually be caught if they continue to do so.

We have to separate this from those situations where people are upset and say it's illegal. They may actually even get an arrest but it's ultimately an overreaction.
So basically, you don't know what it is you're against, but you're against it.

I'm going back to Rumbles. The arguments there make sense.

[matterconsumer]

The Canadian guy didn't break any laws if it were the United States, because of the Supreme Court ruling that states that cartoon depictions of sex cannot fall into the realm of child pornography. The reason is that there is no real child involved.


No the Supreme Court didn't say that.

They said that the Miller standard was better and this allows the community to decide. So the community could decide that the cartoon depiction of children having sex for the purpose of titillation could be determined obscene.

[matterconsumer]

So basically, you don't know what it is you're against, but you're against it.

I'm going back to Rumbles. The arguments there make sense.


Time and time again I've said that it's material involving children in sexual acts for the purpose of viewer arousal (titillation).

But no I don't have any images to post.

[Lester C.]

He gets off on the idea of having sex with children. Having sex with children is a bad thing. It's a good thing that this man is being watched and is legally required to undergo counselling.

And is any of what happened to him actually against his legal rights under Canadian law? He doesn't seem to be appealing against it or anything.

The debate now has gone beyond the providences of Canada. I don’t want to live in a society that punishes and monitors me for something that I might do. That just creepy. Anyway as for the Canadian not appealing his case well he was probably advised by his attorney to take the plea bargain so it may not be congruent with his beliefs and convictions.

[matterconsumer]

He gets off on the idea of having sex with children. Having sex with children is a bad thing. It's a good thing that this man is being watched and is legally required to undergo counselling.

And is any of what happened to him actually against his legal rights under Canadian law? He doesn't seem to be appealing against it or anything.

Thanks, Charles.

I'm somewhat baffled that more people can't come out and agree with this.

[matterconsumer]

The debate now has gone beyond the providences of Canada. I don’t want to live in a society that punishes and monitors me for something that I might do. That just creepy. Anyway as for the Canadian not appealing his case well he was probably advised by his attorney to take the plea bargain so it may not be congruent with his beliefs and convictions.

Hopefully if he were innocent he would have pleaded as much.

If he had illegal child pornography then he likely didn't have an argument.
He had already done something he had acquired illegal child pornography.

[Lester C.]

Thanks, Charles.

I'm somewhat baffled that more people can't come out and agree with this.

It is not a matter of whether or not we agree with you. It is a matter of preserving our constitutional rights and privileges that we as Americans are fortunate to have. The way our systems of law works what you do for one you must do for everyone and I’m bothered that you guys are advocating we void the first amendment. Our justice system is predicated on being innocent until proven guilty and being guilty of viewing child erotica is not being guilty of child molestation.

[Lester C.]

Hopefully if he were innocent he would have pleaded as much.

If he had illegal child pornography then he likely didn't have an argument.
He had already done something he had acquired illegal child pornography.

He did not have child pornography he had child erotica.

[matterconsumer]

It is not a matter of whether or not we agree with you. It is a matter of preserving our constitutional rights and privileges that we as Americans are fortunate to have. The way our systems of law works what you do for one you must do for everyone and I’m bothered that you guys are advocating we void the first amendment. Our justice system is predicated on being innocent until proven guilty and being guilty of viewing child erotica is not being guilty of child molestation.

Well I guess the First Amendment is history :) I certainly don't see this as constitutionally protected speech.

Illegal child pornography is not identical to physically molesting a child. As far as I know the legal punishments are different.

Most everyone who is physically able to will have sex in their lifetime. If one has possession of sexually explicit material then the question is who does it involve?

Some of it is legal and some of it is not. If it involves illegal child pornography then you're going to be prosecuted regardless of what you have or haven't done. Ownership is sufficient. Of course there are any number of things that we're not allowed to own: bombs, toxins, illegal drugs, endangered animals, etc. This is regardless of whether they're actually used.

Of course it tends to come about in reverse which is to say that one gets caught for actually having sex with a child and then they find the illegal child pornography at the residence. Or someone is trafficking in large enough amounts that they're caught or they're trafficking with someone who's caught the eye of the law.

[matterconsumer]

He did not have child pornography he had child erotica.

Well if it's not illegal then he doesn't have a problem.

[Ian Boothby]

This is the most emotionally draining debate I’ve ever engaged in. You have no idea how tiring it is to defend a pedophile right to the first amendment. Anyway the section of statute law governing simulated child porn were held unconstitutional and thrown out. Simply put in America the magna that put a Canadian citizen in jail is perfectly legal here as is all artwork of this nature. Please don't make me copy and paste the official court opinion because it's duller than dishwater.

When you're fighting against censorship it's very seldom you get to agree with or like the material you're defending. But you just have to remember the censorship itself is the greater of the two evils.

[Lester C.]

When you're fighting against censorship it's very seldom you get to agree with or like the material you're defending. But you just have to remember the censorship itself is the greater of the two evils.

Brilliant. Why I can’t I be that articulate and concise when arguing my point of view? :o

[Ian Boothby]

He gets off on the idea of having sex with children. Having sex with children is a bad thing. It's a good thing that this man is being watched and is legally required to undergo counselling.

And is any of what happened to him actually against his legal rights under Canadian law? He doesn't seem to be appealing against it or anything.


You have no idea if he "gets off" on anything. He owns the printed material. And even if he does get off on the "idea" of something, as long as it's an idea and not real, he shouldn't be registered as a sex offender.

[Ian Boothby]

Time and time again I've said that it's material involving children in sexual acts for the purpose of viewer arousal (titillation).

But no I don't have any images to post.

No really, your arguments have been all over the map. You've claimed books aren't illegal if bookstores carry them and fictional books always have consequences for evildoers. You've made a series of broad sweeping generalizations in the course of your debate that have derailed what you're trying to say. Honestly, no insult, that's what's coming across here.

[Charles RB]

You have no idea if he "gets off" on anything.

I'm kind of drawing a blank on what else he's going to do with simulated kiddie porn.

And even if he does get off on the "idea" of something, as long as it's an idea and not real, he shouldn't be registered as a sex offender.

Is it actually against his legal rights to be registered as a sex offender for this in Canada?

[matterconsumer]

No really, your arguments have been all over the map. You've claimed books aren't illegal if bookstores carry them and fictional books always have consequences for evildoers. You've made a series of broad sweeping generalizations in the course of your debate that have derailed what you're trying to say. Honestly, no insult, that's what's coming across here.

I was thinking of chain bookstores such as Borders and I believe that you were thinking of a Canadian bookstore which had run afoul of the law.

At the beginning of the thread a post or two were made which gave me the impression that people were uncertain if they walked into Borders and bought a manga trade that they weren't buying illegal child pornography. So I was saying that's really not likely.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Now that doesn't cover the case where a cranky citizen may try to have someone arrested for something which is not illegal child pornography.

Moving onto fictional accounts. Perhaps an example will help. 25 page comic with realistic depictions of children and adults having sex. 23 pages of it depict sexual situations between children and adults. The comic promotes child/adult sex so that the reader would understand the message to be that it's ok behavior. The purpose is to arouse the reader.

Now I wouldn't want to be a creator, retailer, or a reader in possession of such a comic as it's very likely that it would lead to an arrest.

[matterconsumer]

You have no idea if he "gets off" on anything. He owns the printed material. And even if he does get off on the "idea" of something, as long as it's an idea and not real, he shouldn't be registered as a sex offender.

I don't know the specifics of this case.

But if he bought the material then it's hardly an idea that he kept to himself.

I agree that if it's an idea and one can ensure that no one ever finds out then one shouldn't be prosecuted.

But as soon as one acquires/creates/distributes illegal material then it's left the realm of thought.

[Lester C.]

I don't know the specifics of this case.

But if he bought the material then it's hardly an idea that he kept to himself.

I agree that if it's an idea and one can ensure that no one ever finds out then one shouldn't be prosecuted.

But as soon as one acquires/creates/distributes illegal material then it's left the realm of thought.

This is my first ever flame war. I feel like I’m having a milestone moment in my internet life. Matt think of the hobbies that you engage in. If you think hard enough I’m sure you can find material that is questionable. I wouldn’t dare to ask you to divulge your personal life so let me provide examples from mine. Today I bought comics and in an issue of Witchblade a New York police offer let a mass murder go free and covered for him to the authorities. While I loved the issue to death I’m by no means an advocate of police corruption. Conversely just because he bought child erotica does not mean he is a pedophile. The police thoroughly searched his house and I’m sure computer and they found no pictures of real children.

[matterconsumer]

This is my first ever flame war. I feel like I’m having a milestone moment in my internet life. Matt think of the hobbies that you engage in. If you think hard enough I’m sure you can find material that is questionable. I wouldn’t dare to ask you to divulge your personal life so let me provide examples from mine. Today I bought comics and in an issue of Witchblade a New York police offer let a mass murder go free and covered for him to the authorities. While I loved the issue to death I’m by no means an advocate of police corruption. Conversely just because he bought child erotica does not mean he is a pedophile. The police thoroughly searched his house and I’m sure computer and they found no pictures of real children.

I don't think of this as a flame war between the two of us. I believe our conversation has been civil. I'm not angry at you or anyone here.

I haven't read this issue. Why do you think that the mass murderer was allowed to go free? Was it done with the intent that the mass murderer would continue to murder?

Where did he buy the "child erotica"?

[Lester C.]

I don't think of this as a flame war between the two of us. I believe our conversation has been civil. I'm not angry at you or anyone here.

I haven't read this issue. Why do you think that the mass murderer was allowed to go free? Was it done with the intent that the mass murderer would continue to murder?

Where did he buy the "child erotica"?

Sorry I thought a flame war was a constant back and forth. I did not know that hostility was a requirement. The murder was let go because the protagonist felt empathy towards him due to his origin story of being a Captain America gone wrong.

[matterconsumer]

Sorry I thought a flame war was a constant back and forth. I did not know that hostility was a requirement. The murder was let go because the protagonist felt empathy towards him due to his origin story of being a Captain America gone wrong.

Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet). Such messages are called flames, and are sometimes posted in response to flamebait. ---wiki

Would you agree that the protagonist did not believe that the murders would continue?

[Lester C.]

Would you agree that the protagonist did not believe that the murders would continue?

No, but that leads me to my next point. Fiction does not shape the reality of most people. Yes, you have people that are deeply disturbed who will go nuts given the proper stimulus but that is hardly the norm. As for intent, in real life intent is a means of gauging punishment. If someone for example is caught with a large quantity of narcotics they can face increased prison time because the prosecution will argue that they intended to distribute it. Of course in capital offenses like murder intent factors greatly in whether you will get the light sentence that manslaughter carries or if you will be executed. Unless your drunk in which case your f***** regardless of your intentions. My point in this is that possession of animated pornography or active participation in violent video gaming does not mean you are intent on carrying out those activities otherwise all of us would be under surveillance.

[matterconsumer]

No, but that leads me to my next point. Fiction does not shape the reality of most people. Yes, you have people that are deeply disturbed who will go nuts given the proper stimulus but that is hardly the norm. As for intent, in real life intent is a means of gauging punishment. If someone for example is caught with a large quantity of narcotics they can face increased prison time because the prosecution will argue that they intended to distribute it. Of course in capital offenses like murder intent factors greatly in whether you will get the light sentence that manslaughter carries or if you will be executed. Unless your drunk in which case your f***** regardless of your intentions. My point in this is that possession of animated pornography or active participation in violent video gaming does not mean you are intent on carrying out those activities otherwise all of us would be under surveillance.

All those fans would differ to varying extents regarding how fiction shapes their reality.

The biggest difference between a violent videogame and pornography is that one is more likely to have an opportunity to have sex than to go out and kill someone. In fact I would "guess" that given a choice between having sex and killing someone most would choose sex...

[matterconsumer]

I guess Pixies Chick has nothing to say...

Come on pilgrim...

[Adam Crocker]

Sexual attraction between an adult and a child. Surely we can agree that this person needs professional help and/or maybe a danger.

Well yes that's a given. Even if they manage to resist acting out these impulses on children, professional help would be necessary in all likelihood for helping to resist them. Whether this help should be imposed by law though is not so clear, especially if they do not act on these impulses.

Coercing children to pose is more harmful than children "consenting" for example. Both are illegal but using force is worse than not using for