Well I agree if he was convicted because of having cartoons depicting underage sex, it is wrong. He might be twisted, but having cartoons should not be illegal. 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.

Somebody who supports the decision, please explain to me how this is not censorship. If you agree that it is censorship, please explain to me why it is okay to censor certain things (and/or people) and not others. Please explain this for me, please, because I simply cannot understand your position.

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.

It is censorship and I don't care. From the law these were NOT drawings, but porn that was INDISTINGUISHABLE from the real thing, as in photoshoped kiddie porn. Due to limitations in telling whats a real image and a photoshoped one, this law is to prevent the need for experts in digital manipulation for EVERY kiddie porn image found on some sick fucks computer to prove its real or not.

Take the good fight elsewhere, this is a dead end and only a concern for NAMBLA.

I don't mind my civil liberties being stepped on to prevent animals like this from finding a legal loophole.

Then again, I am not allowed to type out what I would do to this guy if given a room with no windows, a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.

I do not (I say again, Do NOT) agree with the slippery-slope argument in this case. I think society is smart enough to make the distinction.

In Jest: Then again, I am a Liberal, and would quickly deal away all of your rights and freedoms for one moment of safety and security.

There's no way he was going to find a legal loophole. Taking out the cartoon counts, he still would have been charged with 54 counts of child pornography.
Ah! You're joking. I hope. I understand your anger, though I don't necessarily condone the way you express it.
Which society? These sorts of laws vary so wildly, why should we assume any society is "smart enough?" Shouldn't they always need to get smarter? Are we always right, and others always wrong? Take a look at this:

So, who is right? Should somebody go to jail here for a drawn picture of a fourteen year-old having sex from a serious Hungarian graphic novel that is trying to make a point about how 14 is too young?

Furthermore, who in that society should be empowered to make these decisions? I mean, when the Muslim world got fired up about the Danish cartoons, most of them didn't even know what the cartoons looked like, because they were against their religion. If society demanded to see these pictures, to see if they are what in fact what Ustwo says they are (in which case, fair dues) would we be allowed to see them? Or would we be thrown in jail for asking? For merely suggesting that the people making these decisions may not know what's best, would we be labeled pedophiles and left to rot alone?

Honestly, I'm a bit bothered about playing the devil's advocate on this one. I don't like the fact that Ustwo is trying to descredit my opinion and arguments by labelling me as a NAMBLA supporter, which I'm not. I'm not trying to say that our age of consent is wrong. I think 18 is just fine and dandy, and before this post, I wasn't aware that the US federal age was 16. I'm not trying to defend a convicted sex offender from prison... he's in jail where he belongs. I'm not trying to defend sexual perversion, when that is indeed what it is.

All I hope to accomplish with the statements I've made here is to complicate this issue. This is a cultural issue as much as it is an issue of domestic law. Art and mass media are frequently the best arenas to play out matters of cultural difference, and strangeness, and as long as we are censoring things from other cultures that are considered "normal" or at the very least "acceptable" we are preventing ourselves from understanding our neighbors in the global village.

Furthermore, I do also see this as a slippery slope, and I don't think that's as far-fetched as others have tried to make it out to be. Any time there is censorship, period, we have started down the "slippery slope." If it is a crime to make a media-object, because crimes were committed in its creation, then it should be handled accordingly... but it should never be a crime to engage a media-object, no matter what.

The UK consent age may be 16 however you have to be 18 to make porn...

Out of curiosity what does the North American Marlon Brandon Lovers Association have anything to do with this UsTwo?

whorley had one lousy lawyer.

I think that it was the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, wasn't it?