3 year sentence for porn cartoon

[Newbian]

I have nothing to worry about. All I have is pictures of underaged ponies.

Careful or you will get arrested by the pony police.

 

[disappoint]

Sounds like he had a shitty lawyer. Doesn't the first amendment protect art?

That is only if it can't hurt someone! Have you never heard of a paper cut? FFS YOU ARE SO DENSE!

 

[Nintendesert]

He acted on those thoughts, when he drew or obtained a copy of that drawing. While that doesn't necessarily rise to a criminal action, we should do what we can to be reasonably sure it never will.

That's what the psych eval is for - to find out whether he knows right from wrong, whether he understands the impact of acting on those thoughts has on others, especially children - via his drawings or actual criminal actions.

So we're practicing Minority Report type pre-crime now. Thought crimes and pre-crimes.

 

[wirednuts]

this is so fucked. america the middle east! what the fuck is this? at some point doesnt anyone say GIVE ME A LITTLE FUCKING PRIVACY and NO, I WILL NOT BE GOING TO JAIL FOR A DRAWING. FUCK YOU.

 

[classy]

Child porn is child porn. Just because its depicted in cartoons makes it no less sick. Hope he draw a cartoon of Vaseline.

 

[Schmide]

hmm I though that was the one with the teenage girls having sex with tentacle creatures?

No that's not Cowboy Bebop. Although Ed is young, she is very mature for her age.

My reference was from Episode 21 Boogie-Woogie Feng-Shui

You're probably thinking of La Blue Girl.

 

[BladeVenom]

Time to start burning copies of Romeo and Juliet. Has anyone else read that filth? Juliet is only 13!

 

[Jodell88]

Child porn is child porn. Just because its depicted in cartoons makes it no less sick. Hope he draw a cartoon of Vaseline.

By that logic anyone who has material (comics, movies, video games, etc.) where a crime is committed (murder, rape, stealing, etc.) should be jailed?

 

[Jeff7]

18, not 16. Child porn has nothing to do with the age of consent, which varies between 16 and 18 depending on the state.

I think there's also a provision that it has to be pornographic. There are some photographers who have taken non-sexual nude pictures of children and successfully defended themselves.

It is a bit troubling that they can go after you now for drawings, but I suppose it depends on the drawing. What about stick figures with a sign that declares them to be underage? What about drawn girls that look underage but are declared to be 18?

Stick figures having sex: Fine.

Now put the number 15 over one of them, and 18 over the other. Is it now illegal?

Though without units next to the numbers, they may simply be counting by threes, because that's one of their fetishes.
And seriously, come on, why not?
3
It totally looks like a butt or boobs.

I mean, with fictional characters, they have no age outside of what the creator decides.

I think there's a character in that Bleach anime/manga/whatever-it's-called thing who's supposed to be some very old being......uh, let's see....Rukia. Looks like she's stated to be 150 years old, but she certainly doesn't look it.


Oh well. When in doubt, there's always Wally's argument.

Should've just drawn cartoons of a bunch of kids getting shot or stabbed. That's not illegal

Just to be clear I'm not trying to defend child pr0n but cartoons, no matter how offensive they are, are different. There was no victim here.

Screwy thing is, you're probably right. We're much softer on violence than on sex.
Want to show someone getting tortured to death on TV? Go for it. Want to show someone being beaten brutally and then shot in the legs and chest? Sure thing. Then toss a grenade on the body and show it being blown apart.
Is the person naked? Might a female's nipple become visible at some time? Better censor some of that. We don't want people getting any bad ideas.



We got the Puritans here. We got the religious wackos that were so out-there and screwed up that they were incompatible with contemporary society of the time. And some old traditions stubbornly refuse to die.

Prosecuting someone for something done involving an imaginary thing.
Christ, Quentin Tarantino and Peter Jackson (well, and Tolkien too I suppose) should be in an asylum. They produce some pretty violent stuff. How many people died in the Lord of the Rings movies? Not just drawings, either - actors, creating very realistic portrayals of fictitious characters, being stabbed, crushed, burned, and shot with arrows. Shouldn't murder of fictional characters also be a felony?

Star Trek's writers: In one episode, the story was that a powerful alien wiped out a species called the Husnok. That's genocide, and it was super-effective, far moreso than any genocides that humanity's ever attempted. That alien actually succeeded in destroying an entire species of sentient life forms. The writers must have some seriously warped minds to have allowed that to take place. (And based on some of the Voyager episodes that were spawned into existence....yeah, that's probably true.)

Careful or you will get arrested by the pony police.

Hey....what'd I tell you about staying out of my shed?

 

[DrPizza]

I wonder how many people arguing that it's right to jail someone for such cartoons, were arguing a couple years ago, "USA USA! 1st Amendment! We can portray Mohammed in cartoons and it's not offensive."

I'm seeing a logical disconnect.

 

[Jeff7]

I wonder how many people arguing that it's right to jail someone for such cartoons, were arguing a couple years ago, "USA USA! 1st Amendment! We can portray Mohammed in cartoons and it's not offensive."

I'm seeing a logical disconnect.

My thoughts as well.

Back to the stick figures.

Stick figures having sex: Oh well.

Stick figure "15" and stick figure "18" having sex: Oh teh noes!

Stick figure "15" and stick figure "18 Mohammed" having sex: Shit's going down. Commence mandatory hiding of kids and wives.


Some of the same thing you see with people who'll be going on about "Freedom! We don't want the government intruding into our lives! Oh, and ban nasty stuff like anal sex, and gay people doing crazy things like showing love for one another. Government! We want you to take some other people's freedom away! Just don't touch mine."
I kind of like to think that there's some small part of their brain that's whispering, "You're an idiot, I hope you know that."

 

[wirednuts]

I wonder how many people arguing that it's right to jail someone for such cartoons, were arguing a couple years ago, "USA USA! 1st Amendment! We can portray Mohammed in cartoons and it's not offensive."

I'm seeing a logical disconnect.

or youre just seeing american cognitivity

 

[classy]

By that logic anyone who has material (comics, movies, video games, etc.) where a crime is committed (murder, rape, stealing, etc.) should be jailed?

Possessing pictures of child porn or "drawing" cartoon pictures of child porn, please explain to me the difference?

If you are using the analogy that its not real, I can't disagree or agree with that premise. But to depict children being sexually assaulted even though only through cartoons, especially with the intent to possibly distribute to me is no different.

I am glad he got outted. Ask yourself this question, if this was your best friend and you found out he was drawing stuff like this, would you leave your kid alone with him?


And I would like to add, I do see this as being different than someone writing a book or doing a movie.

 

[Howard]

This doesn't bode well for Japanese immigrants.

 

[Squisher]

Imagine what would happen if you killed a cartoon character.

 

[BudAshes]

Possessing pictures of child porn or "drawing" cartoon pictures of child porn, please explain to me the difference?

If you are using the analogy that its not real, I can't disagree or agree with that premise. But to depict children being sexually assaulted even though only through cartoons, especially with the intent to possibly distribute to me is no different.

I am glad he got outted. Ask yourself this question, if this was your best friend and you found out he was drawing stuff like this, would you leave your kid alone with him?


And I would like to add, I do see this as being different than someone writing a book or doing a movie.

This is insane, you are the kind of person that would prosecute a parent for having a picture of their own naked child. This is not a crime because there is no victim. Is it creepy, yes, but is it criminal?

 

[classy]

This is insane, you are the kind of person that would prosecute a parent for having a picture of their own naked child. This is not a crime because there is no victim. Is it creepy, yes, but is it criminal?

You know what you are right. I thought about this some more. There is no victim and until he actually did something like this for real, there is no crime committed. A sicko yes, but actually all he was, was a draw a sick picture.

 

[rommelrommel]

There are plenty of things that are illegal that have no victim.

Usually however, they are things that increase the risk of harm to real victims. I guess one question about this is does jerking off to drawings of children make it more or less likely that a child will be harmed? Or not at all?

If you say that there's no victim, who is the victim of child porn that's already in existence? Obviously there was a victim at the time of creation but lets say someone is jerking off to that 100 years later after everyone originally involved is dead. Is there a victim? Should that be illegal?

All I'm trying to say is that a law like this is open to a lot of arguments for and against. It's not nearly as obvious as some of you are claiming it is.

 

[Doppel]

This is for all intents and purposes a thought crime.

 

[Jeff7]

Possessing pictures of child porn or "drawing" cartoon pictures of child porn, please explain to me the difference?

If you are using the analogy that its not real, I can't disagree or agree with that premise. But to depict children being sexually assaulted even though only through cartoons, especially with the intent to possibly distribute to me is no different.

I am glad he got outted. Ask yourself this question, if this was your best friend and you found out he was drawing stuff like this, would you leave your kid alone with him?

Do you own any movies or TV shows where someone is killed?

If yes, are you planning to kill the next person you see?

And I would like to add, I do see this as being different than someone writing a book or doing a movie.

Why? Especially a movie? You want a realistic portrayal of some event, you can't get much more realistic than some movies, with or without advanced CGI. You can show someone being literally torn in half, complete with entrails hanging out, and the person choking on their own blood.
The owners, distributors, and viewers of the movie probably aren't going to start wondering how they can most easily rip a their neighbors and coworkers in half, tempting as it may sometimes be, without ending up getting blood all over their own clothes. (Blood can be tough to get out of fabric, especially if it's had time to dry.)

There are plenty of things that are illegal that have no victim.

Usually however, they are things that increase the risk of harm to real victims. I guess one question about this is does jerking off to drawings of children make it more or less likely that a child will be harmed? Or not at all?

If you say that there's no victim, who is the victim of child porn that's already in existence? Obviously there was a victim at the time of creation but lets say someone is jerking off to that 100 years later after everyone originally involved is dead. Is there a victim? Should that be illegal?

All I'm trying to say is that a law like this is open to a lot of arguments for and against. It's not nearly as obvious as some of you are claiming it is.

It's like the "receiving of stolen property" thing. The original theft was illegal. You receiving that stolen property does not serve to further deprive the original owner - he still doesn't have the thing that was taken, regardless of who now has it. But it's still illegal, as you're something of an accessory to the original crime; that thing should not have been in circulation in the first place. It was the property of a private citizen.
So in your example, harm was done in the first place, and now others who might receive some "benefit," if it can so be construed D:, from this illicit creation are thus themselves doing something illegal and harmful.



So, in any case, yeah, we're ultimately debating about the danger of offensive cartoons. Again.
I blame Mohammed.

This is for all intents and purposes a thought crime.

It rather nicely shines a light on that mentality of "But I'm not doing anything wrong! Why should I care if the government's watching me?"
Yeah, nothing wrong. So what is "wrong?" Those who say that probably like to think that those who are deciding the definition of "wrong" share their own views on everything.

A stable, sane, and intelligent mind is not required to attain and hold political office.

 

[andylawcc]

/ deletes that pr0n image of Bart from the Simpsons having sex with Marge

:thumbsup;

 

[Nintendesert]

I wonder how many people arguing that it's right to jail someone for such cartoons, were arguing a couple years ago, "USA USA! 1st Amendment! We can portray Mohammed in cartoons and it's not offensive."

I'm seeing a logical disconnect.

Very true. :thumbsup:

 

[wirednuts]

anyone think this will be the final straw for paper? it clearly is a mechanism for creating child porn...

 

[Sonikku]

Was probably Japanese.

 

[lxskllr]

anyone think this will be the final straw for paper? it clearly is a mechanism for creating child porn...

You'll only be able to buy 10 sheets at a time, and only after submitting to a psychological evaluation, and background check. Oh, you want pencils too?! That'll require a $250 non-refundable service fee, and more extensive checks(For faster service, be sure to include your facebook login credentials). We should know within 3 months whether or not you're authorized to to use pencils.