Archived

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

Jase

Child Porn Cartoons are illegal, federal appeals court says

29 posts in this topic

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.

I still fail to see how drawing a picture should be a crime. You're essentially jailing the person for a fantasy. As far as making child porn more acceptable, I highly doubt that will happen. But if such a cause and effect exists, then we need to hurry up and outlaw fictional depictions of all major crimes. Why not start banning violent movies, video games, comic books, and novels? And of course arrest the people who make and consume these products. It seems like you want to punish someone for future, possible crimes that could result from a fantasy, rather than an actual crime in which there were victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still fail to see how drawing a picture should be a crime. You're essentially jailing the person for a fantasy. As far as making child porn more acceptable, I highly doubt that will happen. But if such a cause and effect exists, then we need to hurry up and outlaw fictional depictions of all major crimes. Why not start banning violent movies, video games, comic books, and novels? And of course arrest the people who make and consume these products. It seems like you want to punish someone for future, possible crimes that could result from a fantasy, rather than an actual crime in which there were victims.

If you compare what is allowed now to what was allowed 50 or even 25 years ago, the trend is towards accepting more and more things like violent movies or pornography. While there is relatively little danger from a child porn cartoon, there is even less danger of the government going to far in restricting things. And when it comes to protecting young children from sexual predators, I would be willing to err on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you compare what is allowed now to what was allowed 50 or even 25 years ago, the trend is towards accepting more and more things like violent movies or pornography. While there is relatively little danger from a child porn cartoon, there is even less danger of the government going to far in restricting things. And when it comes to protecting young children from sexual predators, I would be willing to err on the side of caution.

Good points. But I would argue that while we are more accepting of violent and sexual material, our society is a lot safer than we were 25 or 30 years ago. I don't see the correlation between a more libertarian society and a more dangerous one. However, some people do think that liberty leads to chaos.

I still don't see the connection between outlawing drawings and protecting children from sexual predators. We already have tough laws that do that -- for actual children. But really when you restrict personal freedoms and punish people for fantasies, then you are not erring on the side of caution. I actually think it is a very dangerous thing to do.

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both." -- Ben had it right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

You make a valid point here, but at the same time I can legitimately see applying a different standard where it involves children. The government should do everything it can to protect children. The argument can be made that only someone who is fantasizing about doing the act would create or possess this type of "art." Obviously as was stated in another post, you cannot prosecute someone for intent without the commision of a crime, but again, in the case of children there really should be a different standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both." -- Ben had it right!

FWIW, I seriously doubt Benjamin Franklin would have agreed that stopping people from drawing pictures of children having sex would be restricting liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

If you think there aren't positive portrayals of pedophilia coming out of Hollywood and independent films, think again.

Some things to consider...

Worth remembering that cartoon images portraying sexuality in a kid friendly manner have been known to be used as tools by pedophiles to nudge kids into sexual acts. That's something you truly do have to take into consideration when mulling this issue.

I don't think anyone can make a credible argument that art has no effect on society. Few people would argue that movies and TV have had good effects (i.e. arguing against injustice, bringing attention to causes, depicting the plight of the oppressed, etc). Now, with that in mind, do you really think you can credibly say that art can have only good effects? That point isn't just weak; it's ridiculous.

Ted Bundy said before his death that violent porn (depictions of rape, etc) had an effect on him. Studies have shown as well that young men exposed to violent images portrayed in a positive manner were likely to be less sensitive to actual violence against women. Honestly, at this point it's pretty silly to argue that such things are meaningless.

So with that in mind, would anyone try to say that the active consumption of sexual imagery featuring children isn't going to have an effect on someone who chooses to peruse it? See, that's the argument that a lawyer trying to push that child porn is a victimless crime if the kids are willing or that "look, don't touch" is okay will try to make.

Can we honestly outlaw drawings? You certainly can't outlaw deviant fantasies, but you can outlaw material and imagery that is used for the express purpose of fueling such fantasies. And again, go back to the uses that pedophiles make of such imagery. There are indeed solid arguments in favor of it.

With all that said, can it stand up in court? Don't know. It's one of those things that ultimately is probably the right thing to do, but whether or not you can support it with law and precedent is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the solution would be to only consider child porn drawings as illegal if found along with real child porn.

That would protect artistic integrity while getting the sickos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the solution would be to only consider child porn drawings as illegal if found along with real child porn.

That would protect artistic integrity while getting the sickos.

I'm not sure I could attribute "artistic integrity" to anyone who'd draw something of that sort, but that's a workable solution.

Similar issue: What do you do with fictionalized stories of molestation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to suggest Nabokov should have been arrested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

technically it's still protected by free speech so sorry but he should not go to jail for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't claim free speech on something defined as child porn. Definition is the question, though, and the "what defines obscenity" debate isn't going to be solved in this forum.

Are you trying to suggest Nabokov should have been arrested?

Valid question, but let me frame it another way.

Should a story about an adult male seducing a twelve year old girl be considered acceptable reading as long as it's well written?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already saw this movie. It was called Minority Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites