Quote:
|
Originally Posted by connyosis
But uhm, if you read the comments further down in the link posted, it says:
... In addition to the cartoons, he received 14 digital photographs of real children engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and sent and received 20 obscene E-mails which graphically described, among other things, parents sexually molesting their own children.
I don't see a problem anymore, do you?
|
That was posted in a comment... here is a quote from the DoJ
Quote:
|
Whorley was convicted under a new federal statute enacted in 2003 that criminalizes the production, distribution, or receipt of, or the possession with intent to distribute obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, paintings or any other obscene visual representation of the sexual abuse of children. Whorley's conviction for receiving cartoons is the first conviction under the statute that was not based on actual photographs of children.
|
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=8536
Regardless of his OTHER convictions (which he received seperate sentances for) he was convicted purely of the above. This conviction was pure censorship, in my opinion. Would they have bothered to bring charges against him if he hadn't had "real" child porn? I don't know, but the discussion we're having about whether or not this should be illegal is still just as valid, I think. It's one thing to have a law on the books that people will only use in certain situations NOW... 40 years down the road... who knows what people will use this law for. It is a BAD idea.