Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Child Porn Cartoons are illegal, federal appeals court says

29 posts in this topic

Posted

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199/

RICHMOND, Va. - Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons.

Dwight Whorley of Richmond is serving 20 years in prison, convicted in 2005 of using a public computer for job-seekers at the Virginia Employment Commission to receive 20 Japanese cartoons, called anime, illustrating young girls being forced to have sex with men. Whorley also received digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexual conduct and sent and received e-mails graphically describing parents sexually molesting their children.

Victimless crime, no?

The civil rights implications of this ruling is sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I got no problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's a slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, going to prison for drawing pictures of an illegal act -- that's pretty f*cked up, in my opinion. What if you illustrate a murder? Or the rape of an adult? Or draw out any other number of crimes? Should you spend a few decades behind bars in those cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yea, i do understand the concernes, but it's NOT a victimless crime. the type of people who would look at this stuff are predators, and predators do hurt children, thats why there are laws saying that they cant live near schools. I would much rather someone get arrested and taken off the street for this instead of waiting for them to actually hurt a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yea, i do understand the concernes, but it's NOT a victimless crime. the type of people who would look at this stuff are predators, and predators do hurt children, thats why there are laws saying that they cant live near schools. I would much rather someone get arrested and taken off the street for this instead of waiting for them to actually hurt a child.

It's a longstanding conundrum. You can't punish someone for being a "predator" until they actually do something "predatory".

That's a pretty tough one to call. Yeah, it's technically just drawings. You might as well arrest someone for having fantasies. Still, any guy who gets off on such stuff is obviously an utter douchebag.

I recall similar stories a while back about child model sites. The sites in question featured teen girls, preteen girls, even girls all the way down to age six posing provocatively in swimwear, underwear, costumes, etc.

Outside of the provocative poses, that's technically something you could see in a JC Penney catalog or a circular in your Sunday paper. Still, the intent of these was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. Probably the worst bit is that these sites tended to be done with parental approval.

Related Note: Someone explain to me why clothing makers produce skimpy swimsuits, booty shorts, even thongs for girls younger than their teens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, going to prison for drawing pictures of an illegal act -- that's pretty f*cked up, in my opinion. What if you illustrate a murder? Or the rape of an adult? Or draw out any other number of crimes? Should you spend a few decades behind bars in those cases?

Not quite the same. In the case of child porn, the imagery itself is the offense.

Flipside of the argument: Suppose some overzealous civil libertarian were to argue that the possession of child porn should not be punished, only the creation of it. This would be based in the notion that pedophilia doesn't really hurt anyone as long as the guys who practice it "look, but don't touch".

Groups like NAMBLA could use that sort of thing to push for "acceptance". I know some will say such acceptance is impossible. I'd like to believe that, but in modern society I'm not so certain.

There are slippery slopes on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not quite the same. In the case of child porn, the imagery itself is the offense.

Flipside of the argument: Suppose some overzealous civil libertarian were to argue that the possession of child porn should not be punished, only the creation of it. This would be based in the notion that pedophilia doesn't really hurt anyone as long as the guys who practice it "look, but don't touch".

Groups like NAMBLA could use that sort of thing to push for "acceptance". I know some will say such acceptance is impossible. I'd like to believe that, but in modern society I'm not so certain.

There are slippery slopes on both sides.

I'm referring to drawings of the events -- not situations in which actual children are involved. In those cases, there's no debate, to my mind. It's criminal. But simply drawing out a fantasy -- which does not involve any actual children -- does not seem like a crime to me. Sure, a pervert could get off on it. But he could also get off on drawing out murders and rape -- should we put him in prison in those cases, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's a slippery slope.

Which slippery slope are you talking about? The one where allowing the drawing of porn pictures of children eventually leads to greater acceptance of child porn, or the other one?

Of course, Mr Scott said it better than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Drawings are a form of expression, just like words. Notice that the ruling said the act was illegal, not unconstitutional. If the individual's drawings could be seen by others even in the privicy of his own home, how is that different than inviting someone over to visit and in causal conversation telling them that as soon as they turn around you are considering whacking them upside the head with a baseball bat...even if it is completely unprovoked and stated with a smile? Could the "guests" of the house press charges for a threat believing they might have been in danger even thought they were on his property and were never actually hurt? Of course they could. The homeowner had a constitutional right to make that comment but he has to held accountable for the way he expressed it. I see similarities here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not quite the same. In the case of child porn, the imagery itself is the offense.

Is this really the case? I know that this is the way that the panel has interpreted the law, but I'm not sure it's right.

The one who makes the film is guilty of exploiting the minor.

The one who uses the product is providing a market and enabling those who are doing the exploiting.

In no way should the imagery be the offense itself.

It is interesting that there's been a transference that's taken place. You have a case where a piece of art which enables fantasy of a crime is treated as a crime itself.

I guess video game makers are in trouble because they're enabling people to fantasize about killing each other en masse.

Hollywood, too, for that matter. I've watched a clockwork orange, which contains a depiction of a rape scene. I guess since we have an image of something that would allow me to fantasize about committing a terrible crime, that the image itself is a crime and I should go to jail for watching it.

Good thing kubrick's dead or he'd be in teh slammer right now. We don't want anybody thinking that recording the rape of a woman just to sell more DVDs is by any means acceptable.

It's a slippery slope! :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yay. More government regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites