dude gets jailed for have manga child porn

[KillerGremlin]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/

thoughts? :ohreilly:

[Professor S]

He broke the law, plead guilty, and has been sentenced. Pretty cut and dry to me. On a side note, he sounds like a pretty sleazy guy.

[TheGame]

As strange as that fetish is, I don't know if it should be against the law. Obviously child porn should be, since a child is being harmed in the creation of the product.. but I think people should have the freedom to look at any drawings/animations/movies they want in the privacy of their home as long as it's not hurting anyone else..

[Typhoid]

To be fair to what I'm about to say, I didn't read the article.

It's a tough call.
I mean, it's not real child pornography. However that doesn't make it less disturbing or disgusting. But I don't think it's...jailtime worthy, really.

I mean, it would be the same - to a degree - of sticking a "They shake me" t-shirt on a kid. Do they shake the baby? Probably not, no. If you draw a picture of - let's say - a murder, that's not the same as committing a murder.

I don't know.
Anything to do with Child Porn is fucking disturbing, regardless.

[The Germanator]

This comment from the article generally sums up my views...

I’m not a huge fan of the manga myself, BUT
If no real humans (or animals) are involved in the creation of a work, then no one/nothing is harmed and thus no crime can possibly have been committed. It really is that simple. Elevating fictional characters to the status of real people in this manner is absolutely idiotic, no matter what manner they’re being portrayed in.

“I don’t like it!” or “It’s icky!” is no justification for charging someone with a crime, especially such a serious one and thus ruining their life and reputation for a VERY long time. This is an absolute heinous mockery of “justice” and an insult to real abuse victims (plus it’s hypocritical… I don’t see these people jumping on the producers/viewers of gore flicks like Hostel, Saw, The Hills Have Eyes, etc… and those are far more graphic and disgusting than any manga could hope to be.)

[TheSlyMoogle]

He broke the law, plead guilty, and has been sentenced. Pretty cut and dry to me. On a side note, he sounds like a pretty sleazy guy.

Wow...

I think I'm finally beginning to understand you a bit more Prof.



As far as that goes...

The law is fucking dumb. Germy pretty much found the comment that summed it up.

I still don't understand our society most of the time as far as the child issue goes. The general solution is "Catch a predator, Send them to jail for x amount of time, release them and put them on a list that basically guarantees they will never work again"

Thus not only keeping them from being a productive member of society in some manner, but also not actually helping them towards rehabilitation at all. It's a vicious cycle, and hey the system usually fails to prevent those who violate the law from doing it again.

America the beautiful. The place where we'll spend 4 years investigating and convicting someone for beating off to cartoon kiddie porn. Yeah, real great place to be sometimes.

[Vampyr]

Well, the guy is obviously creepy and I would not want to hang out with him.

But this is a really stupid law. No real people were harmed - it's fiction. He should have the right to look at that if he wants to.

[Professor S]

There are two issues here that we need to avoid confusing:

1) Was a law broken?

2) Is the law just?

The answer to the first is obvious. Yes, a law was broken and the breaker of the law should be held accountable. If we are going to be a civil society we can't subjectively decide what laws we enforce and what laws are "stupid" and not enforce. If you don't like the law, work to change it, but expecting it to not be enforced is silly.

As for the law being just, I couldn't really say. I would have to see evidence of cartoon child porn and its relation to action. If there is evidence that it does increase the likelihood of a pederast violating a kid, the law is just. If not, then it is not just. Laws are meant to protect individuals. If this law does, in fact, protect the innocent I think it is just. If it does not protect anyone, then it is simply unnecessary censorship and the government should not be involved.

If I were to guess I would say that porn like that helps people with penchants for pedophilia deal with those feelings without touching kids, but I would only be guessing.

In any case, I'm not sure how my response garnered a "wow".

[TheGame]

As for the law being just, I couldn't really say. I would have to see evidence of cartoon child porn and its relation to action. If there is evidence that it does increase the likelihood of a pederast violating a kid, the law is just. If

If a study was done that proved that watching violent movies/cartoons caused people to commit more acts of violence, do you think it would be just to throw people in jail for 6 months for watching something with violence in it?

[Bond]

This is a tricky one. The problem here is somewhat two-fold. 1) Do these people choose to be attracted to children? All current research points to this not being the case, just as the majority of people do not choose to be gay. 2) Do people have a choice whether or not to act on these desires that are against societal norms? All current research points to that, yes, while there is not a choice to be attracted to children, there is still a choice whether or not to act on those desires.

I'm not trying to defend those who engage in these acts, but I do think we need to recognize it is not an easy struggle.

[Typhoid]

On the topic of 'acting on it'; in a sense I don't see the problem with it if it's manga. Other than being ridiculously creepy and something you shouldn't do because it happens to be really disturbing - but they aren't harming real children. I mean, maybe if it was a painted picture of a portrait of a real kid, but if it's just some fake...image, who's being harmed?

Again, clearly not condoning - but...no real person (other than this guy) is harmed in this scenario.

Undeniably creepy, and socially unacceptable - but...not real people. Cartoons do terrible stuff all the time. I personally say it should be either all or nothing.

[TheSlyMoogle]

If we are going to be a civil society we can't subjectively decide what laws we enforce and what laws are "stupid" and not enforce. If you don't like the law, work to change it, but expecting it to not be enforced is silly.

This is what garnered the "WOW" you just hadn't said it.

too tired to really coherently type it out but laws are constantly bent an broken, and the fact that they are is constantly ignored depending on the law. There are lots of laws that are now completely ignored (I.E. did you know oral sex is illegal in like 15 states even in the privacy of your own home? I mean technically police could bust you up for doing it, but you don't ever see that happen).

Just because laws exist it doesn't mean you should follow them blindly because they exist. That's ignorant. If history has taught use anything sometimes the best way to change the law is to treat it as though it doesn't exist.

This guy with no record of child abuse and no further evidence of Kiddie porn got a raw deal because he enjoy looking at naked anime children. He lost a year of his life over something as silly as that. Hell maybe the cartoons were the only thing keeping him from actually molesting a kid, and when he gets released from prison he'll actually do it.



P.S. Fuck the Establishment. It should be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.

[Vampyr]

Even if there was a 100% correlation between people watching anime porn depicting kids having sex and them actually committing pedophilia, this law would still be unjust and wrong.

You can't punish someone because they might do something, someday. Probably. Maybe.

There are countries out there where every type of porn is illegal. Even if you don't watch porn, you do not want to live in those countries. It's important for us to protect everyone's rights to view fictional entertainment even if most people find it disturbing (professional wrestling, anyone?). Because one day they may come for what -you- enjoy.

But good luck fighting against this law - you'll be going up against the single most powerful phrase in politics: "It's to protect the children." People hear that and they are automatically for it, regardless of if it violates a person's rights or not.

But if I ever get the opportunity to sit on a jury where fiction is being treated as reality, I'll be sure to argue as hard as I can to see the person is declared innocent.

[Typhoid]

regardless of if it violates a person's rights or not.

It does violate someone's rights, to be fair. The guy who had the manga.


Me and Bond talked about this last night, and then I wondered:

"Are they going to try and arrest the people who drew the picture/video? If owning cartoon porn is bad, making it must be 10x worse."

[KillerGremlin]

I think the law itself is flawed.

Someone in the Digg thread where I found this story commented on how if this guy did not plead guilty and appealed the ruling he may have gotten off. The Supreme Court actually has ruled fairly favorably in cases like this.

[Vampyr]

It does violate someone's rights, to be fair. The guy who had the manga.

That's exactly what I was saying. :p

[THEmrResilient]

When does child porn become child porn? I mean everyone has naked baby pictures. So I guess I mean why is Baby Porn OK and Child Porn isn't and when are you a child and not a baby? AHHHH! Now I am confused.

[Typhoid]

Context.

[KillerGremlin]

Context.

Context in terms of who is taking the pictures, or context in term of who is viewing them?

There is a huuuuuuuuge difference.

[Typhoid]

Context in terms of who is taking the pictures, or context in term of who is viewing them?

There is a huuuuuuuuge difference.

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

[Vampyr]

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

What if it's a picture of yourself? :o

[Professor S]

This is what garnered the "WOW" you just hadn't said it.

too tired to really coherently type it out but laws are constantly bent an broken, and the fact that they are is constantly ignored depending on the law. There are lots of laws that are now completely ignored (I.E. did you know oral sex is illegal in like 15 states even in the privacy of your own home? I mean technically police could bust you up for doing it, but you don't ever see that happen).

Just because laws exist it doesn't mean you should follow them blindly because they exist. That's ignorant. If history has taught use anything sometimes the best way to change the law is to treat it as though it doesn't exist.

For the record, I never justified the fact that some laws are enforced more than others. There are lots of blue laws that SHOULD be eliminated instead of ignored. Ignoring any law creates a precedent that any law can and will be ignored or selectively enforced. Selective enforcement is oppressive and unjust, and making is a moral sin as well as legal sin.

Reading your response though, you feel some laws just shouldn't be respected. Well then who gets to make the decision on what laws should be enforced, and what laws shouldn't? What reasoning are they using when deciding what laws should be enforced? How much money is involved? How much power can be transferred through such arbitrary decision making? These ideas you're expressing are dangerous.

This guy with no record of child abuse and no further evidence of Kiddie porn got a raw deal because he enjoy looking at naked anime children. He lost a year of his life over something as silly as that. Hell maybe the cartoons were the only thing keeping him from actually molesting a kid, and when he gets released from prison he'll actually do it.

What if the guy had thousands of files of this? What if he was distributing, illegally, and this was a way to shut him down? There is a lot we do not know. This is reason why there are laws and the expectation of equal treatment under them. This removes the emotional/sympathetic aspect. All we do know is that he broke the law, and admitted to doing so. Therefore: he should face the penalties demanded by that law.

P.S. Fuck the Establishment. It should be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.

Ok, now I think I understand you a whole lot better. If you destroy the establishment, which includes a democratically elected republic, who gets to rebuild it and what system should we adopt? See, its a lot easier to say "fuck the world" than it is to think rationally and work positively to address flaws.

There is no way to remove the human factor from the systemic governing of a society. Destroy the establishment if you like, but what establishment will take its place, and who will be making the decisions, and in what way will they be chosen? Justice is not devoid of corruption, because humans enforce justice and humans are corrupt. When any decision is made about determining how people should be treated by a government, we always need to ask: "By whose standard?"

This is why laws MUST be clear and enforced if they are remain valid and civilization is to progress. You cannot measure you personal activity against a constantly changing yard stick. To make enforcement contingent on someone's feelings and empathy is to be oppressed by that person.

[KillerGremlin]

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

I wouldn't say any other situation is not okay...perhaps there is artistic merit in photographing nude people, even children. There is certainly scientific merit in the context of studying young children for diseases, cancer, and things of that nature.

My point of bringing up the subject of context was that regardless of whose children they are, a lot of people might deem the pictures pornographic. Especially in our strange Western society where nudity is not viewed as a natural state but rather a sexualized and dirty state.

On the topic of taking non-artistic pictures of your kids naked:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/parents-sue-wal-mart-children-bath-time-photos/story?id=8622696

The knee-jerk reaction is in example of western culture failure.


We probably need a working definition of pornography in this thread, and that is just as hard as defining art.

[Typhoid]

I wouldn't say any other situation is not okay...perhaps there is artistic merit in photographing nude people, even children. There is certainly scientific merit in the context of studying young children for diseases, cancer, and things of that nature.

My point of bringing up the subject of context was that regardless of whose children they are, a lot of people might deem the pictures pornographic. Especially in our strange Western society where nudity is not viewed as a natural state but rather a sexualized and dirty state.

On the topic of taking non-artistic pictures of your kids naked:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/parents-sue-wal-mart-children-bath-time-photos/story?id=8622696

The knee-jerk reaction is in example of western culture failure.


We probably need a working definition of pornography in this thread, and that is just as hard as defining art.

I think the main thing that makes it porn is this:

Why do you have it?

If you have it to show family members - not porn.
If you have it for medical advancement/research - not porn.
If you have it as art (obviously not talking of nude children, that would be creepy art) - not porn.
If you have it to jerk off to - porn.

[BreakABone]

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

What if its a picture of a 3-year old that is a relative that you use for porn?

[magus113]

What if its a picture of a 3-year old that is a relative that you use for porn?

That still agrees with what Typhoid was saying about the context of the picture.

[Teuthida]

That's got to be one of the stupidest laws. If that's what turns some dude on and he can't do anything about it, then it's much better to read some manga where the characters don't even look human (AND AREN'T REAL!) than searching out actual child porn or gods forbid three dimensional flesh and blood kids to do things with.


As for the context of photos, isn't it more who took the photo and their reason for doing so than who might end up with it? The safety of the kid is the utmost concern.

Example A: Having fun in the bath a parent takes a photo of their kid that a creepy uncle later jerks off to.
Example B: Creepy uncle gets off at giving kid a bath and takes a photo. The kid realizes this is wrong.


Hell, the whole Catholic church problem could have probably been avoided if they handed out child porn manga to the priests. "Father John has a devilish look in his eye. Quick, fetch a copy of Tentacle-Fucking Kindergarteners." Crisis averted.

[TheGame]

As expected, Prof ignores that fact that everyone's issue with the law is that it's unjust. Nobody said the law shouldn't be enforced, people said the law as-is is unjust, therefore it shouldn't exist in the first place.