Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Child Porn Cartoons are illegal, federal appeals court says


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#16 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,804 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 21 December 2008 - 04:55 PM

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.

#17 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,440 posts

Posted 21 December 2008 - 05:42 PM

"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.

#18 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,485 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:27 AM

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.

#19 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,513 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:50 AM

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.

#20 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,485 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 22 December 2008 - 01:14 AM

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?

#21 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,513 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 01:17 AM

Are you trying to suggest Nabokov should have been arrested?

#22 Falcons1stPanthers2nd

Falcons1stPanthers2nd

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,848 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 02:18 AM

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

#23 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,485 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 22 December 2008 - 02:54 AM

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?

#24 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 22 December 2008 - 10:01 AM

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

#25 UNCG Panther Fan

UNCG Panther Fan

    Brutal 2 d12

  • NEWB
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 09:31 PM

So, does my mom go to jail for taking a couple of pictures of me when I was in the tub with my brother and sister, or running around the yard butt nekkid. Technically, some perv could wack off to it?

To me this is absurd. Jase said it best, there is no victim. Drunkard is also right, where do we draw the line? If I write a short story about the murder of a fictional president or draw a picture of what I think the next terrorist attack could be, isn't that offensive as well? It is disturbing that people will draw these, but I also fantasize about other women and will often talk sh*t with my friends, but I won't cheat on my wife.

There is a big difference between expressing a fantasy and acting on it. Is there a study that proves that 100% of the people that do this are pedos? If so, is there also a study showing that those that enjoy GTA are cop killers and bad drivers? I honestly do not think that 100% of the people looking at the drawings would act on it nor does it imply that they have real child pornography, 100%. I also would not bet money on it either.

Literotica.com is one of the better story sites that I have found in my searches, the large majority of which are fantasy. There are some disturbing stories of incest, rape, torture, and homosexuality; all of them illegal if acts were committed. Yet I would argue that the huge majority of them, 99%, are fantasy and the readers have never participated in similar acts (well, the argument takes a punch in the face on the homosexuality part).

We have let more and more become acceptable, but does that correlate with a more violent society? We are also more concentrated now than what we were 90 years ago, weapons have advanced, there are different drugs, and mindsets are diffent? Can you really say that we are more violent because of A? Can you even say we are more violent period? Wasn't Aristotle that said that the youth of his time were more disrespectful and violent than when he was a youth?

And I actually do think that Franklin would argue that it is not a crime, no matter how disturbing.

#26 MyDrunkardNC

MyDrunkardNC

    Nervous Farter

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 11:03 PM

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


Well, of course you would! And I still think the statement applies. We're all for restricting adults' freedom as long as we have the convenient excuse that it's for protecting the children. Even though, again, I'll point out, we're just talking about pen and paper and thoughts.

#27 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,485 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 24 December 2008 - 03:11 AM

There is a big difference between expressing a fantasy and acting on it. Is there a study that proves that 100% of the people that do this are pedos?

I can understand a lot of what you're saying, but you've got a major flaw in your argument here.

Can you honestly come up with a good reason why a non-pedophile would draw or seek to look at drawings of children having sex?

For my part, this is one of those areas where there's little doubt that the people who are taking part in this stuff are scumbags. But you can't be arrested for being a scumbag. Truthfully, you can't even be arrested for being a pedophile, only for acting on it.

(and they do have their "loud and proud" fringe too, believe it or not)

#28 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,084 posts

Posted 24 December 2008 - 07:52 AM

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


Acceptable?

No

Legal?

Yes


I am 100% against any laws that dictate what you can and cannot think and write about. No matter how disgusting they may be. Government cannot keep you from expressing anything you wish to express.

That said, the citizenry of this country does have the right and obligation to let the author know how they feel about it, and to boycott any commercial interest that tries to profit in it.

#29 UNCG Panther Fan

UNCG Panther Fan

    Brutal 2 d12

  • NEWB
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 24 December 2008 - 01:36 PM

I can understand a lot of what you're saying, but you've got a major flaw in your argument here.

Can you honestly come up with a good reason why a non-pedophile would draw or seek to look at drawings of children having sex?

Maybe a kid who is 15 drawing out his experience from last night. Was it not Keith Moon who had some on his computer because of "research"? I'm not saying that it is right and healthy for someone to do it, but the same can be said for those seeking images of rape and murder. Romeo and Juliet was about two kids, very horny. The story was full of sexual overtones... does that quailify as disturbing? Yet it is a story that is read in high schools and colleges. When we start to say that you can't draw this or write this, where then do we determine what has gone to far? You already said stuff about kids in skimpy swim suits and underwear, is that acceptable if it is in a K-mart catalogue or if it is drawn by some weird guy? What about pictures parents take of their kids? Is it just as disturbing as some guy/gal drawing out the same picture? What happens in the grey? Even in the original argument of the depiction of sex with a minor, does it mean that the act will be followed through. Playing table top games, I like to have a back story with my characters and I will write a couple of pages, often times writing out important scenerios that might have happened. Currently, I have a character that murdered a father and newborn daughter. I wrote the scene out and it is a very disturbing scene. Yet I never murdered anyone nor have the desire to. The character is a cleric btw.

For my part, this is one of those areas where there's little doubt that the people who are taking part in this stuff are scumbags. But you can't be arrested for being a scumbag. Truthfully, you can't even be arrested for being a pedophile, only for acting on it.

(and they do have their "loud and proud" fringe too, believe it or not)

I honestly don't believe anyone in this thread would say that these people aren't scumbags. You're right, you can't be arrested for being a scumbag, not in this country. You also can't be arrested for your political beliefs or your religious ones, though I'm pretty sure we are going in that direction.

Wasn't there a political party wanting to legalize it in the EU and just last week a judge denied a 9 year old's divorce to a 50 something year old man. You are right, there is a big loud and proud fringe. But they are wanting the actual acts legalized, not fictional drawings or writings.

mens rea is becoming a myth. There was a similar case a couple of years ago where a judge ruled that drawings were not the same as photographs or video. I think it involved computer generated life like images. Regardless, when there is no intent to harm a minor or exploit them, why is it a crime.

Sorry, I rambled big time on this.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.