KnifeMissile

Pedophilia is not illegal... or is it?
Now, let me clarify my point and say that pedophilia is not illegal but having sex with children is.

I can understand and fully support making child pornography illegal. Its creation entails abusing children, which is a horrible crime against humanity and the law. However, Whorley (oh, what an unfortunate name) had no such thing. He merely had depictions of child pornography. These are images concocted out of nothing but one's own imagination and, obviously, involved absoluetly no children, or anyone for that matter.
This leads me to believe that the US government really do want to make pedophilia, as I've described it, illegal, which I truly find frightening and offensive. How far must the government's reach be to satisfy them and how far are we willing to tolerate their invasion of our hearts and minds?

Okay, melodrama aside, the day you try to legislate what I may think is the day I tell you to fuck off!

stevie667

It'll be stories depicting minors next, then people talking about minors, then any picture of minors, and then, all the children will be locked away so the adults can't get at them.

Stupid conviction.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Da Munk

Incredibly stupid law. If no actual children are harmed then what is the point of locking someone up for it? Who is this law protecting? I can understand wanting to protect actual children from predators, but this man found a way to satisfy his urges in a way that harmed no one.

flat5

First person convicted. 20 years. No one involved.
For receiving and looking at intimate drawings of young humans with older humans.

Compassionate Republicans indeed.
Administration from Hell is more like it.

itch vaccine

These pictures are Japanese Anime. Most Pedophilia would be related to Japanese Anime, and it was banned before, I read somewhere in the Titty Board when someone was posting hentai, that you should practice caution when viewing anime.

This ruling is stupid. It's just cartoons.

__________________
"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes.
When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours.
That's relativity."
- Albert Einstein

DJ Happy

How do you prove how old someone in a cartoon is?

sbscout

You are correct, according to your source... however it does state that it is a "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object."

Are "highly stylized" and/or "anime" words that PROVE that no one was used as a model for this stuff? IMO, there was a source somewhere, at sometime as a "mind model."

Why is this frightening and offensive? The laws are on the books in an attempt to protect the children from what you acknowledge is a perversion.

That being said, do I agree that this judge overreacted? Quite probably, although I don't know what the pictures looked like. I am appalled when a convicted child molester - one who I assume you are holding up as a true criminal - is given probation or a light sentence when an actual child is abused.

He has a right to think what he wants... once the thinking becomes action, however, the government has the right to decide if he's acting within the boundaries of what it deems to be acceptable.

This man still has the option of appealing the conviction, which I am sure he will do. If the conviction is as ludicrous as it appears on the surface, he may yet be released - hopefully with a little more knowledge.

If that happens, maybe he should sign up with the TFP... we have restrictions against showing anyone under the age of 18 in any forum... that way he's sure to stay out of trouble.

__________________
Always question authority... it'll keep the bastards on their toes!

KnifeMissile

Let me answer your question with a question... How do you prove that someone in a photograph is a minor if you can't find that person?

KnifeMissile

sbscout, your quotes are a lot better now but can still stand to use some cleanup...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. First, you agree that I am using the term correctly but then you attempt to contrast my usage with a quote, verbatim, from my source (which happens to be Merriam-Webster...). What are you trying to say?

Well, I guess you don't believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" garbage...
Honestly, I am so astonished by this attitude that I don't actually know how to respond. You don't think someone, an artist, can imagine a child? A person's imagination can't be the "source?"
Hell, suppose all your wild assumptions are true. Even if they drew a child that they actually saw in life (unlikely if you've ever seen anime/manga), so what? I see a child walk down the street, go home, draw images of that child doing disturbing things, and suddenly that child is abused? I never touched that child or even interacted with them in any way. All those images represent is an idea and, again, we're back to regulating thought. My thoughts can involve other people, that doesn't make it abuse...

In this case, no children were harmed so, exactly, what children were protected by these laws? The frightening part is that this guy is going to prison for the rest of his life despite having hurt no one. The offensive part is that "the land of the free" wants to imprison you for what you think.

Does it really matter what the drawings (not pictures, remember) were?

My point is that he has not acted on his thoughts. He is indulging his thoughts and that is enough for the government to prosecute you. That's like my wife divorcing me and winning alimony because I was commiting adultery by reading Playboy!

sbscout

I agree with you that the judge in this case overreacted...

as I said in my first post, I am appalled when a child molester is given a suspended or light sentence... i.e. when a real child is actually abused...

I guess my objection to your argument is one of semantics...

"perversion," to me, means something that is unacceptable, either morally, socially, or legally. To say, therefore, that pedophilia - which is by your definition a perversion - is not illegal is, IMHO, a matter open to discussion. (This seems to be supported by your source's definition of the term perversion - "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right.")

Whether we like it or not, we are part of a society, which brings with it parameters which some people do not choose to stay within. When they stray from these parameters - laws - they become eligible to be prosecuted and punished.

Someone in authority has decided that this man strayed according to this law...

I disagree with the judge's decision, period.

We in general, and the defendant in particular have the right to appeal and challenge the legality of this law. It's been on the books for three years and this is the first time it's been prosecuted? That tells me that other judges and prosecutors have steered clear of it because they thought it was an unjust law.

I believe in the process enough to think that this judgement will be overturned on appeal. It is truly unfortunate that until this happens, this gentleman will be in prison, subject to all of its horrors. Upon being released, though, he will be able to seek justice for an unjust conviction (at least he would be allowed to do so in my state).

My objection to your thread's title and part of your argument may be kneejerk but it is heartfelt - I come in contact with children who have been victims of physical, mental, and sexual abuse everyday.

The people I work with commonly refer to victims of sexual abuse as victims of pedophilia. That's the way our official paperwork is also filled out.

My intent was not to flame you... it was to voice my objections to what I perceived was a "free pass" to pedophiles... I know now that you are obviously not condoning what happens when those who think of such things decide to act upon them...

__________________
Always question authority... it'll keep the bastards on their toes!

cyrnel

Indulging perversions is dicey. Find a psychologist or psychiatrist who denies the guy's activities could encourage "acting out" and I'll do more reading.

If the guy lived next to me and family and had cartoons depicting real or imagined children in sexual situations I'd be concerned. It's a sign something's bent, even if he hasn't crossed shifting legal boundaries (yet). Parents will always be worried about these things. The guy appears very close to being incompatible with acceptable society, and the system reacted. This case appears to have gone too far but the guy is living on the edge.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

ironman

But he didin't do it, there is a uge difference between thinking of something, and DOING something. Writers and cinematographers constantly think and depit ways to break the law (the perfect crime, the perfect bank robbery, hell, even the perfect rape) but they're not liable 'cause they never acted out their thoughts. I have to give you that if this man lived next to my house i'd be concerned about my children and that i for sure will have an eye on him 'cause he may be a threat, but untill he does something to someone he is innocent as my other neighbor. Reading about this, i even got all scared out remembering the time i receive by mail a cartoon depicting all the peanuts characters (snoopy, charlie brown, etc...) in a mega orgy, the cartoon was hillarious, but under this law and this judge's interpretation i could face jail time.
There's nothing wrong about been cautios, but you can't prosecute someone BEFORE the crime is done a la Minority Report.

__________________
If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

Willravel

Man: She said she was 18!
Judge: well obviously she isn't
Man: Well how the f*** do you know? It's a cartoon with no evidence of any age in particular! How do you know she's under 18?
Judge: I'm a power hungry, self important, limelight grabbing judge, that's how! Now shut up and sit down so I can get my 15 minutes of fame! I could even get to be on the Supreme Court for this! Muuhahahaha!!!
-verdict-
Eveyone who enjoys Hentai: *GASP* Are you flipping serious?!

AngelicVampire

Indeed, working out the age of a person from a body can be difficult in real life (if you don't have experience of this go to a local night club and point out all of the 16,17,18 year old girls correctly, then find the 15 year olds pretending to be 16 etc... scary, our locals are normall mostly <18 ). While we might not agree that a cartoon depicting child molestation etc is good right or whatever as long as the user does not actually act out their impulses what is the problem, thought generally isn't action.

Case in point, my avatar is technically 14 (in the series she is from), she is often depicted in rather risque situations though in fan art etc, I don't want to go to jail for trying to find a good wallpaper for my laptop!

ASU2003

I thought that the law was that cartoons and art were legal. I don't know, I probably don't need to worry about it.

Anyway, somebody accused of having child porn is automatically discredited and guilty in the eyes of the American public. If they government found out you knew too much, they would just put a few pictures on your computer through some back door in the OS, and you have no case.

xepherys

Yeah, this is pretty crazy. First of all...

Your definition is correct, though it can have varying levels based on context and social stigmas. But making IMAGINATION a crime, no matter WHAT the topic, is horrible. I'm staunchly anti-pedophilic molestation, to include any physical contact with a real human child or ownership of any real life images taken of underage children in a sexual fashion. But see, this is also part of human nature... an adults desire to protect their children versus a males desire to procreate, and frankly, nature has not caught up to human social issues. A hundred years ago, 14 year olds were married off. Nowadays that's considered "perverted" because our morals have changed. I bet at LEAST half the guys on this board have looked at a 15-year old girl and thought "damn she's nice on the eyes". Don't think you have? I bet you just didn't even know she was 15... it's hard to tell these days!

At any rate, that's beside the point... this is a drawing. Artists need no real life inspiration for their art. At least not all the time. What if drawing pictures of the president in a bad light becomes illegal? Okay, so shittalking the prez is not illegal, so let's say... a cartoon about the president being killed? Should that be illegal? It's certianly illegal to ACTUALLY kill the president. There are movies with that topic... they aren't illegal. In fact, there are movies that give notion of underage debauchery, such as:

Lola (1961) http://imdb.com/title/tt0055093/ - About an American Soldier and a 14-year old French Girl. Should I go to prison for 20 years if I rent this movie?

Kids (1995) http://imdb.com/title/tt0113540/ - Puts "underage" kids into sexual situations. Should I go to prison for 20 years if I rent THIS movie? If you haven't seen it, it's quite disturbing. But alas, it is not illegal to own, buy, rent, et cetera.

Kinsey (2004) http://imdb.com/title/tt0362269/ - This is a movie about sexual-pioneer Alfred Kinsey. There is at least ONE scene that I can remember implying that kids may be having sex. Is that implication enough to break the law?

Hopefully, you can all see how ridiculous this law REALLY is and that it should be repealled entirely.

MSD

I really hope this is a case of sarcasm not translating properly to text.

xepherys

Well, MSD, it's not ENTIRELY odd. I mean, if you lived in China, you'd SURELY fear something like this. We often assume our government is more benevolent, but paranoia aside, things like the US PATRIOT act have proven they don't always have our best interest in mind. *shrug* Just food for thought.

ScottKuma

Yet another example of a law being created to protect a victim-class. This is the problem with many of the laws that are created to "protect the children." It raises an emotional issue...which triggers a response from the judge/lawmaker's constituency.

The way the law should have been worded is to have made it an add-on crime, much like the posession of weapons during the commission of a felony. The posession of a knife/gun may not be illegal on its own, but it certainly adds to the seriousness of a crime. In my opinion, the posession of such materials IN ITSELF is not a crime - possession of same materials that lead to sexual misconduct should bring a harsher penalty.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

MSD

I don't think they have our best interest in mind very often, but I think it's ridiculous to think that the government would feel the need to plant child pornography on a computer to get you out of the way when there are much more efficient and convenient ways to do so. If the Attorney General says I'm a suspected terrorist, I go to Guantanamo, no questions asked. I'd be far more concerned with the possibility of someone out for revenge or with malicious intent planting files on my computer and calling the feds on me than the government planting something and busting me for it. I suppose anyhting's possible, though, and things like Magic Lantern aren't exactly reassuring.

If we're going to continue a discussion on these lines, I suggest a starting thread in Tilted Paranoia and giving us the link so we don't derail this one (which is mainly my doing.)

Ustwo

Ironicly I was thinking the other day if you wanted to really get someone, put some kiddie porn on their computer in an out of the way directory and then give an anonymous tip. Even if you were found innocent your reputation would be destroyed.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

analog

I think this thread is a good reminder that regardless of how the US government runs things, we here at the TFP don't allow any pictures (which includes graphical depictions, like cartoons) of anyone under the age of 18.

So... the above comment of "my avatar" henceforth refers to an old avatar, since it's now removed.

And before I get PMs or this thread fills up with comments like, "but Halx has an avatar that..." - when you own the board, you can break any of your own rules, since you're the one responsible if shit goes down.

fastom

Isn't this like getting a speeding ticket in your parked car because the speedometer scale goes up to 150 mph ?

AngelicVampire

Thats a really good analogy, art of kids is not molesting kids, how long before having pictures of your own kids is illegal? Also if posession of non-harming stuff is illegal then where do you draw the line, harming others is generally illegal... BDSM pictures = bad? What about wallpaper expressing a feeling about drugs (too many people have these or stickers/patches)... will this become "intent to use drugs"... actually better not give anyone ideas, big government may be listening.
.

ubertuber

No. It's not like that. It's more like someone wanting to put speedbumps in a road that goes past a school even though the speed limit is only 25 mph. We don't want to take any chances here. In case you haven't noticed or made the connection, there is a tremendous amount of adult content on this site - so we choose to play it safe with the kiddos. What we don't want is for someone to get an itchy trigger finger and launch an investigation. While it would ultimately exonerate our site owner, in the meantime our servers would be confiscated for years. So, we avoid the impression that such a thing is even possible.

This is also a faulty comparison. Possessing, distributing, and consuming illegal substances are not internet crimes - the Feds don't come knocking on your door because you have pictures of pot leaves on your hard drive. Child pornography is a computer/internet crime, and therein lies the substantial difference.

In any event, it's a moot point now - and Analog's post was worded very pleasantly. No harm done.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

robbdn

I just want state, for the record, that the porn in question here is completely legal in Japan, as are pictures of actual naked children. Child porn is NOT legal in Japan (children in sexual situations). I know that naked children would be considered child porn here in the states. Are sex crimes more common in Japan? The statistics say no, but it is also convincingly argued that they are just as common (if not more common) and that most of the alleged sex crimes go unreported. What does this mean to this thread? Nothing more than the fact that this is an incredibly complicated issue. Here are the things I would like to point out:

1) I agree that any form of media that involves either a) consenting adults, or b) is made exclusively by and sold exclusively to consenting adults should be protected under free speech. This is regardless of what is actually being depicted in the media-object.

2) The argument can be just as easily be made that depictions of child pornography prevent "acting out" as the argument that it encourages "acting out." Japan's situation, oddly, supports BOTH of these arguments. I say this not to endorse one position or the other, but to encourage caution in using these arguments, we simply DO NOT KNOW.

3) Finally, Japan allows these materials under a system of STATE-CONTROLLED CENSORSHIP. The "otaku" is regularly marginalized in the mainstream Japanese press, but for some reason this state censorship hasn't seen fit to ban the materials outright. Compare this to America, which supposedly supports freedom of speech and vehemently opposes censorship. Who has more freedom in this situation? Making it illegal to possess these materials IS A FORM OF CENSORSHIP. For that reason alone, I cannot support it. Our freedoms are more valuable to the whole, and for our "broader social good," than is the perceived danger of a minority of perverts (which, oddly enough, happen to be the same mainstream press that "counted down" to the Olsen twins 18th). Prosecute only when a real crime is committed. I feel sorry for the victims, but I feel sorrier for the public that has their freedoms taken away.

__________________
I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.

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?

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

robbdn

That was posted in a comment... here is a quote from the DoJ

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.

__________________
I'm swimming in the digital residue of a media-drenched world. It's too cold.

xepherys

Well, what about real life children that live in nudist colonies? They aren't allowed to have family pictures? "Obscene" is a very objective term to use for legal purposes, and is not well defined by the law. I have a professional photo studio portrait of my baby son, naked in a big egg. In two of the pictures you can see his butt. There are surely some folks, and probably some lawyers and judges, who would consider this "obscene". While most of you think the liklihood of getting prosecuted over such a thing is slim... it's surely not impossible. Sometimes, though, you just have to make a moral stand. (this goes both ways)

Yes, if he had real child porn, then he should be convicted, but it specifically says he was convicted WITHOUT pictures of real children. So I'm not sure who's lying, but the Department of Justice should know a good bit about the case. *shrug*

Vincentt

This is horribly irresponsible and misleading reporting.

1 The man was already a convicted sex offender, who had served 46 months of prison for a child pornography charge from 1999.

2. In 2003, he was sentenced to an additional 12 months for violating his probation stemming from the previous incident.

3. 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.

additional info: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=8536

This is NOT a case of a guy getting 20 years for just looking at 20 cartoons. I'm embarrassed on behalf of ABC for running the story without fact checking it.


Thanks lwfern, whoever you are.

__________________
.

Ustwo

Haha I should have known. The 4th estate has been pretty bankrupt as of late.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Zyr

Does the length of the sentence matter? The fact is, while the other things he had done contributed to the sentence, he was still convicted of possesing those cartoons, even if that was only a small part of it. It is still illegal to have them, and that law is still wrong.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

Ustwo

The 2003 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today act (PROTECT - Public Law 108-21), defines computer images that are indistinguishable from real children engaging in sexually explicit conduct as child pornography, while simple drawings which are easily distinguishable from real children are not considered child pornography.

I'm not quite sure if I read this right, but it seems that if a 'drawing' looks like a photo, then it is also illegal.

I would guess this is a way to avoid 'its photoshopped' as a defense.

I don't think this is a blow to the henti types.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

gcurl21

What if a 16yr kid recieves a picture of another 16yr old kid naked?

cyrnel

Criminal convictions carry lots of restriction baggage. Voting, gun ownership, drinking, interaction with other convicted felons, etc. Depends on the crime but many things we might usually think of as "rights" may be limited once someone is convicted of a serious crime. Is it really surprising a convicted child molester is restricted from child pornography?

I'm reminded of the South Park NAMBLA episode. "All he wanted to do was love a boy! There's nothing wrong with love!"

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

lionrock

fear your government

rainheart

Some day when all our liberties are encorached to "protect" us from ourselves, we will look around and ask, dumbfoundedly:

"But I don't understand! Where were the warning signs?"

I don't think we will ever realize that we were the warning signs, and we had all the symptoms of what it takes for liberty to fail it's people, as people failed at grasping what liberty is and what it takes to defend it.

The problem with being convicted for possessing cartoons is that it sets a precedent. In some cases, perhaps, analogous to cracks in a water dam.

The most interesting part is that this discussion continued with some people defending what took place as written in the article before anyone was told that this man was already a convicted sex offender, who was in posession of (real) child pornography. So think about the implications of that.

KungFuGuy

This is wrong and an example of how the government is trying to thought police everyone. Regardless of the real crimes he was convicted of, convicting him for owning cartoon porn that has kids in it isn't right because it's not a crime. It doesn't hurt anyone.

You can determine how right this is by extending it to things closer to home. Drinking under the age of 18 is illegal, but we've all seen scores of movies depicting underage drinking. Marijuana is illegal, but scores of films and television shows depict its usage. By the same logic as the law being discussed here; anyone that owns a film like half baked should get convicted because the material depicts an illegal activity.

These pedophilia cartoons depict an illegal activity, and this man was convicted for it (regardless of the other convictions in addition to)

Ustwo

Hell no, its wrong to supress photoshopped kiddy porn! This is a sign of the end of our freedom! This is what the Marines on Iwo Jima died for!



I rather doubt any slippery slope has been created with this one.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ASU2003

I believe it is still illegal. Except if the kids know each other, but I'm not sure. If they posted it on myspace.com as a prank, I'm not sure what would happen.