Quote:
Originally Posted by connyosis
However if the real pictures also played a part of the sentence (And I've heard both that they did and that they didn't), it doesn't seem to me like anything wrong is happening.
|
He was convicted of something like 74 separate counts of child pornography. 20 of those counts came from cartoons, and nothing but cartoons. Sure, it's one thing to say that, if somebody who doesn't actually commit "real" child porn crimes, we won't bother throwing the book at them. This law is just around for the sickos who we need to punish even more, and we'll only bring out this law for convicted sex offenders and people who have real child porn on top of the cartoons.
That's one thing to say, and that might be how they're using it now... but this law, that allows convictions for cartoons and nothing but cartoons, is on the books, and any over-zealous DA with certain moral convictions can use it and interpret it however he/she sees fit. That scares me. This is a law that legalizes the censorship of things that ought be protected under free-speech. Censorship, no matter what is being censored, is wrong. There is no grey area. We cannot be anti-censorship and for prosecuting people who have and say things we don't agree with. Japan, a nation with state-controlled censorship, allows the things this man was sent to prison for owning. That's all we need to know, in my opinion. Our so-called sacred tradition of free-speech is fast becoming merely a legacy of the long-gone American dream.