As much as I hate pedofiles...

[Greyblades]

I really dont care, the perversions of the internet as wide and wierd and wonderful and horrible as they are as long as it stays fictional I dont give a damn about drawings and I dont think the courts should.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The article I can find says he was fined. I don't think any of us have gone through and looked at what he was charged for so it's kind of theoretical, but that seems appropriate if the content merits it. The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

[Greyblades]

The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

Why?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Convicting would mean a dangerous precedent: who is to judge when a female is underage or not, even when (and especially when) depicted fictionally or in the form of (pornographic) art. I remember this case in Australia where porn with small-breasted women is banned simply because they'd appear child-like. Which should be laughable, but is actually quite offensive.

Who is to judge whether something is pornographic or not? Same problem. Who is to judge? Answer: a judge.

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous".

Why?

Why not? It's only a peculiarly broad interpretation of the "doesn't harm anyone directly" principle that leads to the other conclusion. What about photo realistic computer drawings? You want those sold by street vendors next to playboy etc? That would be a funny world, minor swear words bleeped on tv and child porn on the street. I don't get people going into contortions to protect pedophiles "right" to pornography.

We constantly use the legal system in an attempt to keep bad things out, and then argue for libertarian ideals with wild inconsistency. It's bizarre.

It should. It's *ahem* art. The man should have the freedom to draw an imaginary scene of child rape, same as drawing mohammed cartoons. It's offensive, but it is art.

No it's not art

[rvg]

No it's not art

As much as I would want to agree with you, I can't. What he drew was a product of his imagination, a very sick imagination, but nonetheless imaginary. Fictional.
If he used live *ahem* models, then yes, he's guilty. Since it was all in his head, it's art.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous". Why not? It's only a peculiarly broad interpretation of the "doesn't harm anyone directly" principle that leads to the other conclusion. What about photo realistic computer drawings? You want those sold by street vendors next to playboy etc? That would be a funny world, minor swear words bleeped on tv and child porn on the street. I don't get people going into contortions to protect pedophiles "right" to pornography. We constantly use the legal system in an attempt to keep bad things out, and then argue for libertarian ideals with wild inconsistency. It's bizarre.

I think you underestimate the insidious nature of government Sasaki. It's not hard to create a "for the children" argument in favor of banning anything under the blue sky. What you call inconsistency is really just people taking everything on a case by case basis. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact the more I interact with the world the more I find myself relying less on such absolutes I have created in my head.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The criminal nature of child porn is in the fact that real life children are harmed in the process. Since his products do not involve harming any real children, there is nothing criminal about what he does.

There are punitive legal measures and preventative legal measures. It's not actually wrong to swear on tv for example, we've just decided that our standards are higher than that and so we have to fine people to keep them that way.

I think you underestimate the insidious nature of government Sasaki. It's not hard to create a "for the children" argument in favor of banning anything under the blue sky. What you call inconsistency is really just people taking everything on a case by case basis. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact the more I interact with the world the more I find myself relying less on such absolutes I have created in my head.

Nah, our government isn't insidious. Corruption is usually clumsy and amateurish. The media has an obsession with showing the government as insidious because of their watergate-mythology and the fact that their business model generally precludes just saying that the government is being honest and that in this case you could have ignored the media and just listened to the government.

I agree with people taking things on a case by case basis but then they can't invoke a broad principle and leave it at that.

Before or after I killed myself?

After.

[Greyblades]

I'm not sure about standards, but I'd walk up to whichever bastard I find who claims he created all life for his "divine" plan and bitch-slap him for making someone that could want to do something so despicable. To have a soul tainted with an uncontrolable urge to destroy a life and make them think it was what they wanted.
After that it's speculation on the afterlife.

[rvg]

There are punitive legal measures and preventative legal measures. It's not actually wrong to swear on tv for example, we've just decided that our standards are higher than that and so we have to fine people to keep them that way.

Yeah, but swearing on TV is not criminal behavior. If you swear on TV, FCC might fine the network, but you personally won't be liable for anything.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nah, our government isn't insidious. Corruption is usually clumsy and amateurish. The media has an obsession with showing the government as insidious because of their watergate-mythology and the fact that their business model generally precludes just saying that the government is being honest and that in this case you could have ignored the media and just listened to the government. I agree with people taking things on a case by case basis but then they can't invoke a broad principle and leave it at that.

It's not so much that government as a whole is insideous. It's that agents within it are, and they abuse the system to achieve insideous goals. To be fair to the media, while it does a terrible job, we still find ourselves invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses some 30+ years after the Gulf of Tonkin.I see nothing wrong with invoking a principle if the underlying argument is that for this specific case, there is no circumstance that calls for overriding said principle.

[rvg]

The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

It should. It's *ahem* art. The man should have the freedom to draw an imaginary scene of child rape, same as drawing mohammed cartoons. It's offensive, but it is art.

[Vuk]

Child porn is child porn. The danger with something like this is that if he spreads it around and gets people interested in it, then we have more budding pedos out there who are eventually going to go after the real thing.
I kind of have two sides of me fighting here (my American freedom side and my Christian morality side), but in the end you have to ask yourself, were laws designed to give people the freedom to fantasize about and depict children being molested? I bet that if law makers had thought about that when writing the laws, they would have made exceptions. I cannot see letting people get away with this as being in the spirit of the law, even if it is technically legal.

[Greyblades]

...Paedophillia isnt a freaking fad, it's a mental condition, you cant make someone a paedophile from exposure, they're born that way its in thier DNA and those that are born a paedophile will fantasize on thier own with or without easy to reach wanking material. To be quite frank I would rather them be able to jerk off to a drawn image than photographs and videos of real children. Because if you take the drawings away that's what the paedos who were previously able to keep thier urges under control with said drawings will start looking for.

[Vuk]

...Paedophillia isnt a freaking fad, it's a mental condition, you cant make someone a paedophile from exposure, they're born that way its in thier DNA and those that are born a paedophile will fantasize on thier own with or without easy to reach wanking material, and to be quite frank I would rather them be able to jerk off to a drawn image than photographs and videos of real children.

That is absolute BS. If that is true, why then were such a high percentage of child molesters molested as children themselves? It is definitely a mental condition, but it is an acquired one. The last thing you want is for people who may have been abused, or underwent some other kind of trauma who would be more likely to be pedophiles seeing child porn and getting used to the idea of children as sex objects. It is dangerous, seriously dangerous to society.

[Montmorency]

Note the false equivalence between pedophilia and child molestation.

Is the stereotypical convict homosexual?

[Greyblades]

That is absolute BS. If that is true, why then were such a high percentage of child molesters molested as children themselves?

Because abusing children becomes accepted as the norm by those who were abused themselves, they dont do it because they prefer kids they do it because they think its what they're supposed to do. The true paedophiles are those who are born mentaly deformed with thier sexual wires crossed.

It is definitely a mental condition, but it is an acquired one. The last thing you want is for people who may have been abused, or underwent some other kind of trauma who would be more likely to be pedophiles seeing child porn and getting used to the idea of children as sex objects. It is dangerous, seriously dangerous to society.

Maybe, but that should mean that they shouldnt be allowed to distribute it publically or for profit, keep it out of the mainstream. Arresting people for making it in the first place, and arresting people for mere posession is just a waste of time as they already affected by it. Stick em on a list of people to investiagte first and that be the end of it.

But think about it. Have you ever gambled? Do you have a strong urge to gamble right now? Probably not, that urge is fired up by gambling and winning and playing slots machines and the like. Otherwise it's out of sight out of mind. I think that's a much more likely general model for pornography, despite the obvious differences. Exposure seems more likely to build urges than quiet them. Hence "porn addiction", however questionable the use of the word addiction is.

Except in this case I think it would make them have more urges for drawings of children, have you looked at the style of art they are using? They look wildly different to real human beings.

Plenty of religious groups have worked at techniques for squashing sexual desire.

Yeah, and they use it against homosexuals, most of the time it results in broken people and/or suicide.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

...Paedophillia isnt a freaking fad, it's a mental condition, you cant make someone a paedophile from exposure, they're born that way its in thier DNA and those that are born a paedophile will fantasize on thier own with or without easy to reach wanking material. To be quite frank I would rather them be able to jerk off to a drawn image than photographs and videos of real children. Because if you take the drawings away that's what the paedos who were previously able to keep thier urges under control with said drawings will start looking for.

hmm what's your basic psychological theory here? Something about repression?

But think about it. Have you ever gambled? Do you have a strong urge to gamble right now? Probably not, that urge is fired up by gambling and winning and playing slots machines and the like. Otherwise it's out of sight out of mind. I think that's a much more likely general model for pornography, despite the obvious differences. Exposure seems more likely to build urges than quiet them. Hence "porn addiction", however questionable the use of the word addiction is.

Plenty of religious groups have worked at techniques for squashing sexual desire.

As much as I would want to agree with you, I can't. What he drew was a product of his imagination, a very sick imagination, but nonetheless imaginary. Fictional.
If he used live *ahem* models, then yes, he's guilty. Since it was all in his head, it's art.

I don't understand your definition of art though. Plenty of famous paintings have been based on live models.

[rvg]

I don't understand your definition of art though. Plenty of famous paintings have been based on live models.

The criminal nature of child porn is in the fact that real life children are harmed in the process. Since his products do not involve harming any real children, there is nothing criminal about what he does.

[Hax]

Convicting would mean a dangerous precedent: who is to judge when a female is underage or not, even when (and especially when) depicted fictionally or in the form of (pornographic) art. I remember this case in Australia where porn with small-breasted women is banned simply because they'd appear child-like. Which should be laughable, but is actually quite offensive.