As much as I hate pedofiles...

[ICantSpellDawg]

This case happened in Australia a couple of years ago. But it wasn't drawings. It was actual photographs.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...803-115dg.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/artis...0111-m2s5.html


By the literal definition of porn, it is any text (be it pictures, videos, novels, whatever) that arouses sexual excitement. So, by that logic, a person might be sexually aroused by Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Is that considered porn?

Ha. I've got a hot site for you. Warning, it may not be appropriate for work, what with cylinders entering into greased plugs and electricity coursing through throbbing transistors. Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

[Greyblades]

Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

They have a pill for that now.

[spankythehippo]

Ha. I've got a hot site for you. Warning, it may not be appropriate for work, what with cylinders entering into greased plugs and electricity coursing through throbbing transistors. Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

Mini me is throbbing from the PC & Video game section of that site.

Better finish off with this site.

http://www.trollandtoad.com/


UNLEASH THE INNER GEEK!

[Major Robert Dump]

You people advocating for the banning of cartoons in which there is no real victim are treading on a very slippery slope. Yes, yes, "for the children" got that, blah blah, carry on.

Pretend child porn is oodles and oodles better than real child porn, as there are no victims. What gets me about this thread are several of the people wanting to ban the cartoons are also th same ones who wanted to ban porn in general, where at least you could argue -- indirectly in most cases -- that there was a victim. There is no victim here. If we are saying a pado will use the cartoons to groom a child then that is an entirely different law violation altogether. If we are saying that viewing the cartoon makes them more likley to commit the act (a worn out, disproven argument along the lines of the marijuana-is-a-gateway-drug argument) then now we are dealing with intangibles and what-ifs and, as already stated, a very slippery slope, and it would be pretty hypocritical to levy such an argument but not also weigh the possibility that this product staves people off from becoming predators because they can act on their impulses without involving actual children.

I think the whole issue is pretty disturbing and disgusting... but bannin frikkin cartoons?... just wow. The way I see certain facts, figures and realities brushed under the rug in the USA, where one becomes an "ist" for stating certain opinions, I can totally see something like this breeding over into the political realm with politcal cartoons being banned because they incite hatred, which anymore simply means you offended someone

[Ironside]

It might behoove certain authoritarians to ask themselves: Will this legislation improve national cohesion or the efficiency of the state? If not, it's probably a waste of time.

The chief of police for investigating child porn crimes basically said: "can we please free him so we can focus the resources on real child porn crimes?". So I think that counts as a waste of time.

I'm agreeing there, by itself it shouldn't be punishable.

Besides, imagen using the same rule for murder or torture. Man that's a lot of crimes then.

[Kadagar_AV]

Worth mentioning is how it got started... His ex was angry with him and reported him to the police.

Kind of dangerous... I myself think I still have some kiddie pictures of my sister with a friend naked in the bathtub, and naked with friends on the beach (when we were younger it wasn't uncommon to see children running around naked on the beach, these days people put a bikini on their toddlers!)

So, technically, my ex could report me for having those photos.

I would then never again be able to work as a teacher, would I be found guilty, even if the court deemed the very lowest punishment (like a fine). Ridiculous? I think so...

Edit: Not to mention my grandmothers photo box of all her grandchildren. She must be the Pablo Escobar of kiddie porn by today's standard.

The law has to be better at the "intent" part, and also remember that a victim is needed for things to be a crime (a very basic principle I wish the law followed).

[Major Robert Dump]

Well if we are going to criminalize hate speech, if we are going to water-down what it means for something to be a hate crime, if we are going to make it illegal for a kid to fantasize about shooting up his school, all the while allowing outright slander and lies in political discourse, then this whole banning cartoons thing fits right into the idiotic mold. Have at it, and enjoy the fallout

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some terrorist attacks being prevented as dangerous. Could've been used to introduce Patriot Act, TSA, war in Iraq, that one. Or just about any witch hunt.

The more salient point is that "banning" something just because it looks like something else which is already banned is a very bad idea. (Incidentally there's no such thing as questionably-underage porn, no person is "questionably-underage" by definition; and underage porn is better known as child porn which is already banned pretty much everywhere). That way you end up like the British ("extreme porn") or the Australians ("small breasts") or Japanese ("penises"), and none of that works.

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.

Course it depends on the age and so on, but shame and self-blame is often enough a more overwhelming emotion even in adults who are abused. Victims are extremely reluctant to come forth and testify against the perpetrator. To make matters worse abuse can instill the notion that this is in fact "normal" behaviour.

People are quick to "learn". Bullied people are more likely to become bullies, an entire American government talked themselves into "believing" that "enhanced techniques" were not torture.

[lars573]

Pretend child porn is oodles and oodles better than real child porn, as there are no victims. What gets me about this thread are several of the people wanting to ban the cartoons are also th same ones who wanted to ban porn in general, where at least you could argue -- indirectly in most cases -- that there was a victim. There is no victim here. If we are saying a pado will use the cartoons to groom a child then that is an entirely different law violation altogether. If we are saying that viewing the cartoon makes them more likley to commit the act (a worn out, disproven argument along the lines of the marijuana-is-a-gateway-drug argument) then now we are dealing with intangibles and what-ifs and, as already stated, a very slippery slope, and it would be pretty hypocritical to levy such an argument but not also weigh the possibility that this product staves people off from becoming predators because they can act on their impulses without involving actual children.

Oh there is a victim alright. The person what comes across this lolicon (yes there is a enough volume of pedobear approved Hentai it has a name) stuff whilst looking for some other filthy degenerate drawings. People like me.





pomfers gonna pomf

[Greyblades]

Bah, finding things that offend you is just part and parcel of browsing the internet, if we banned everything that offended people we'd have very little left. Suck it up and press the page back button, ya wuss.

[Ironside]

And he got aquitted.

Nice dodge by the judges there. Although I'm a bit curious on what a realistic drawing means in this context.

[Kadagar_AV]

And he got aquitted.

Nice dodge by the judges there. Although I'm a bit curious on what a realistic drawing means in this context.

You beat me to it..

And yes, thank the gods he got aquitted. Would have set a really abusable precedent otherwise.

When I have time I will try to read the actual verdict to find out more about what they mean with realism, I wondered about that too.

[Ironside]

Since you replied in between, the gray area for a realistic drawing going from despicable to illegal is when it's quite possible for it to have a foto reference. Thousands of child pornographic drawings based on as many actual pictures isn't an improvement really.

[Beskar]

Since you replied in between, the gray area for a realistic drawing going from despicable to illegal is when it's quite possible for it to have a foto reference. Thousands of child pornographic drawings based on as many actual pictures isn't an improvement really.

That is the disturbing part. They basically transfer photos into drawings.

[Major Robert Dump]

I was probably a 3d graphic type photo, those tend to look pretty realistic, but ultimately anyone can tell they are not and ultimately, they are not realistic. Real vs fake should be the only issue imo, not how real or how fake

[Kadagar_AV]

I was probably a 3d graphic type photo, those tend to look pretty realistic, but ultimately anyone can tell they are not and ultimately, they are not realistic. Real vs fake should be the only issue imo, not how real or how fake

Word.