Org Mobile Site
Thread: As much as I hate pedofiles...
We have an interesting case in Sweden now.
A translator got arrested for having child porn on his computer. This turned out to be manga, and he worked translating it and trying to spread it in Sweden.
Of course, only some 50 of the hundreds and hundreds of cartoons found were seen as child porn, but, enough to have him arrested and sentenced. This case has now gone to the next level in the juridical system.
As an example of pictures used in the trial against him:
http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/image/.../mangaporr.jpg
I added that picture because that is one that the prosecution now has removed as evidence, but originally used against him.
This all started out with a pissed of ex btw.
Thoughts?
Where do we draw the line?
A translator got arrested for having child porn on his computer. This turned out to be manga, and he worked translating it and trying to spread it in Sweden.
Of course, only some 50 of the hundreds and hundreds of cartoons found were seen as child porn, but, enough to have him arrested and sentenced. This case has now gone to the next level in the juridical system.
As an example of pictures used in the trial against him:
http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/image/.../mangaporr.jpg
I added that picture because that is one that the prosecution now has removed as evidence, but originally used against him.
This all started out with a pissed of ex btw.
Thoughts?
Where do we draw the line?
Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.
I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.
So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.
I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.
So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.
I thought this case would be BR worthy :)
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.
I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.
So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.
My instinct is that an attraction to a juvanile looking woman cannot be a crime - and that what we are talking about here is appearence rather that child exploitation.Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.
I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.
So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.
It might be distasteful but it can't be a crime. I mean, I know a guy who prefers his women slim and elfin to the extreme (me, I go for your traditional Celtic beauty) - I found it wierd at 17 and I still find it wierd today but the guy only dates within his age bracket so far as I know.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
My instinct is that an attraction to a juvanile looking woman cannot be a crime - and that what we are talking about here is appearence rather that child exploitation.
It might be distasteful but it can't be a crime. I mean, I know a guy who prefers his women slim and elfin to the extreme (me, I go for your traditional Celtic beauty) - I found it wierd at 17 and I still find it wierd today but the guy only dates within his age bracket so far as I know.
How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?My instinct is that an attraction to a juvanile looking woman cannot be a crime - and that what we are talking about here is appearence rather that child exploitation.
It might be distasteful but it can't be a crime. I mean, I know a guy who prefers his women slim and elfin to the extreme (me, I go for your traditional Celtic beauty) - I found it wierd at 17 and I still find it wierd today but the guy only dates within his age bracket so far as I know.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?
Okay, but as I said, it is fiction. To me this is an important distinction. In Lord of the Flies we see children go through every horror except rape; should it be illegal to own or read Lord of the Flies?How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?
All I'm saying is that putting people in jail for fictive depictions has a long and ignoble history. I don't believe that we should criminalize made-up stories. Even horrific, loathsome made-up stories.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?
How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?
You mean, she is evidenced as having a mental age of 13?
Then I suppose the comic is a gateway drug to actual child porn, but it still isn't really child porn, and it's considerably less twisted than some of the other stuff that comes out of Japan - or anywhere else.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.
Why?The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.
Originally Posted by 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.
Who is to judge whether something is pornographic or not? Same problem. Who is to judge? Answer: a judge.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.
I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous".
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
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. Why?
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.
Originally Posted by rvg:
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 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.
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.
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.
...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.
Originally Posted by 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, 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....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.
Note the false equivalence between pedophilia and child molestation.
Is the stereotypical convict homosexual?
Is the stereotypical convict homosexual?
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.No it's not art
If he used live *ahem* models, then yes, he's guilty. Since it was all in his head, it's art.
Originally Posted by 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.
hmm what's your basic psychological theory here? Something about repression?...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.
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.
Originally Posted by rvg:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
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.That is absolute BS. If that is true, why then were such a high percentage of child molesters molested as children themselves?
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.Plenty of religious groups have worked at techniques for squashing sexual desire.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Note the false equivalence between pedophilia and child molestation.
Is the stereotypical convict homosexual?
I am sexually attracted to women, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in my life I have/will have sex with one. A straight woman is sexually attracted to men, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in her life she will have sex with one. A gay man is sexually attracted to men, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in his life he will have sex with one. A pedophile is sexually attracted to children, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in her/his life s/he will have sex with one. Make sense?Note the false equivalence between pedophilia and child molestation.
Is the stereotypical convict homosexual?
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
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.
I don't buy that, as many children who were themselves abused, hate those who abused them, and know that it is wrong. They also then live in society long enough to know that it is wrong, but still sometimes become child-molesters 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.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
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 have it.
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 nothing like regular human beings.
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 have it.
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 nothing like regular human beings.
You are right, people shouldn't be allowed to distribute it publicly, and people should be arrested for possessing it. You need to make distributers and potential buyers afraid to deal in it. Also, this guy was planning on translating and distributing it.
Yes, it is very stylized/abstract, but so was a lot of early porn. People associate the drawings with real people, even if they are stylized.
Nope.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
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 nothing like regular human beings.
Yes, but that seems pretty dubious to me. I don't see how someone can literally have an urge for a drawing in reality.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 nothing like regular human beings.
Originally Posted by :
Yeah, and they use it against homosexuals, most of the time it results in broken people and/or suicide.
I was thinking of buddhist monks etc not "conversions' of homosexuals. What standard would you hold yourself to if you had pedophilic desires?Yeah, and they use it against homosexuals, most of the time it results in broken people and/or suicide.
Ouch, big dillema, going to watch this. Gut says that there is nothing wrong with this, I really don't know
Originally Posted by :
You are right, people shouldn't be allowed to distribute it publicly, and people should be arrested for possessing it. You need to make distributers and potential buyers afraid to deal in it. Also, this guy was planning on translating and distributing it.
Eh, I agree we should make them fear having it but I disagree with making them fear arrest just for having the stuff, like I said, stick em on a list of first contacts for the police to only open and use in molestation cases and be done with it.You are right, people shouldn't be allowed to distribute it publicly, and people should be arrested for possessing it. You need to make distributers and potential buyers afraid to deal in it. Also, this guy was planning on translating and distributing it.
See my belief for what makes child porn so heinous is that it is prolificating a horrendous act, the demand for child porn creates production and production is basically taking images of molesting children, by posessing CP you are creating demand so you might as well be saying "I want children to be molested". As for drawn stuff, well, to make it you dont need kids, it's imagination made by a pen or a piece of software, as distasteful as that production is it doesnt directly hurt someone. Also the idea that a piece of fiction can make someone do something heinous kinda doesnt hold up to me as people have made the same trash argument for video games making people killers.
Drawn CP is distasteful but it shouldnt be illegal because it doesn't hurt anyone.
Originally Posted by :
I was thinking of buddhist monks etc not "conversions' of homosexuals. What standard would you hold yourself to if you had pedophilic desires?
Before or after I killed myself?I was thinking of buddhist monks etc not "conversions' of homosexuals. What standard would you hold yourself to if you had pedophilic desires?
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.I don't understand your definition of art though. Plenty of famous paintings have been based on live models.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.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.
Originally Posted by rvg:
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. 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.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by greyblades:
Before or after I killed myself?
After.Before or after I killed myself?
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.
After that it's speculation on the afterlife.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO