Men jailed for having drawing of illegal acts.

[SkullKing]

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=716162

Essentially, a man was jailed for possession of drawing depicting minors engaged in sexual acts.

To me, this is just as stupid as jailing movie goers, for whatever illegal acts happen on the movie.

[Zod]

I hope they don't hear about my collection of Judge Dredd comics : I could be going down for several thousand counts of murder

[SkullKing]

Maybe judge Dredd is a special case? If you are guilty for the acts perpetrated in the comic, can´t you say you also served the penalties administered in the comic for the aforementioned crime?

[Andara Bledin]

Last I checked, hadn't the US decided that drawings of minors didn't actually count as being minors?

Oh, no. The SC had struck down a stupid law making drawings illegal, but then the lawmakers doubled down on their "let's persecute artists and their fans under the cry of 'think of the children'," and made a brand new law with nearly the same text. >_<

And don't worry, Zod. They don't care if you attempt to virtually murder the entire population of the world (screw you, Madagascar *shakes fist* ). But if they could figure out a way to know when people were even thinking of sex acts that they can get away with prosecuting, then you'll be in trouble.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

I'd think that such artwork would, if anything, be beneficial to children by providing an outlet other than the real world for such interests.

[TheHuckster]

Nice to see the comments section in the article depicts the kind of asshattery I come to expect on the Internet.

There was discussion a while back about "virtual child porn" where software came out which depicted children in acts. I believe the final decision from the supreme court was that this sort of thing was protected by the first amendment.

That being said, the drawings could still be considered illegal if they could prove that a child nude model was used to compose said drawings. If these were cartoons as the article says, however, I really can't imagine any children were used to draw them, so I don't think the prosecution has a legal leg to stand on.

[siead_lietrathua]

ya know, i'm gonna play other side of the fence.
where hubs was working, there was a guy who posted comics up in the booth (gas station) that were of a pedophile nature. (a teddy bear teaching a toddler about sex). i ripped it off the wall and told him if i saw it again i would get his ass in shit.
yes it's a comic. yeah it's freedom of expression, etc. but it's still depicting sexual intercourse with children.

to the comics that the guy in the article was viewing it says
"These comics contained multiple images of minors engaging in graphic sexual intercourse with adults and other minors. The depictions clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

but really, in my wholly and admittedly biased opinion: if he's whacking it thinking of boning kiddos, regardless if he's watching cartoons or live action kiddo porn, i give him zero sympathy and enjoy the jailtime creepo.

[Andara Bledin]

First, there is a massive difference between what you look at while in private and what you post in even a semi-public location. The stuff in the gas station booth was way out of line and should never have even been a glimmer of an idea.

However, it really shouldn't matter to anyone what anyone else looks at if nobody is being harmed in the production or viewing of the material.

I could really give a rat's ass if some guy is at home "wacking it" to whatever floats his boat. If it's not hurting anyone, then why the hell should any of the rest of us give a flying fuck what he's doing?

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

his wife reported him. i think she has a bit of a say in what kinda shit goes on in her home.
also, it's kiddie porn. i don't need a justification for finding that disgusting and i am not required to feel bad for anyone that's been caught spanking it to kids in any form.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

also, it's kiddie porn. i don't need a justification for finding that disgusting and i am not required to feel bad for anyone that's been caught spanking it to kids in any form.

It's fine if you find it disgusting. However, people should not be arrested for doing something that in no stage of the action (production, purchasing, using, etc.) was ANYONE harmed or taken advantage of.

It's fine you think it's creepy. I, personally, consider it to just be how their brain is wired and it's something they cannot change. They can try to repress it, but that would probably cause even more trouble in the future from those repressed issues. If there is something, like a cartoon, that let's them get out any kind of frustration without doing any harm to any one then I am all for it.

I'd prefer they'd be wacking off to cartoons of children than to repress the urges until their control snaps and they hurt a real child.

[TheHuckster]

his wife reported him. i think she has a bit of a say in what kinda shit goes on in her home.
also, it's kiddie porn. i don't need a justification for finding that disgusting and i am not required to feel bad for anyone that's been caught spanking it to kids in any form.

I agree it's disgusting. It's fucking disgusting. A lot of things are disgusting, yet do not have any victims and therefore remains legal. There are cartoons depicting rape, bestiality, torture, and all kinds of other stuff that people are, amazingly, fapping to.

The problem I have is if you start to prosecute people for merely drawing something that's vile and furthermore illegal if it happened to real people, where is the line drawn (no pun intended)? How do you even prove that the person in the drawing is even a child, especially if it's a cartoon or a poor drawing? Do you bring some expert witness to scrutinize the drawing and somehow define an age?

[Duelist925]

his wife reported him. i think she has a bit of a say in what kinda shit goes on in her home.
also, it's kiddie porn. i don't need a justification for finding that disgusting and i am not required to feel bad for anyone that's been caught spanking it to kids in any form.

I find kiddie porn to be intensely disgusting.

On the same hand though, quite a few people would probably find what I find enjoyable to be a bit off.

It hurts no one. Thats basicly it. And hey, I'd rather the one who DID like this stay at home and jerk off to this than to go out and act on any impulses.

[telecom_goddess]

I find kiddie porn to be intensely disgusting.

On the same hand though, quite a few people would probably find what I find enjoyable to be a bit off.

Agree 100 percent. I definitely think it's disgusting and I definitely am into some things that other people would be disgusted by even though it involves consenting adults. But if someone does a random drawing, just out of their head and no models used...who gives a shit? It's not like photos which require a model.

[Mytical]

Has anybody even seen some of the 'anime' (using it as a broad term to cover many genre here) out there? Some of the people in them indeed look like children, and a lot of the videos do include nudity.

Don't get me wrong, I think anybody involved in child pornography ... well what I think should happen to them wouldn't even be appropriate for fratching. I agree that it can be a difficult case, unless there is a living model on which it is based, to say 'this person is x years old' however. Not saying it is right, or good, or anything..but that unless the artist says "Yeah this person is under age, and meant to be under age" I think the age of a cartoon person is subjective.

Though I've lost all interest in it, in my time I've watched hentai and such (Yeah, yeah I am a deviant..tomatoes are on your left..feel free to grab you some). It is understood (and usually said in the beginning of the hentai) that everybody is of age even if they may not look like it. It might be hard to put such a warning on a drawing however. *shrugs*

[TheHuckster]

Don't get me wrong, I think anybody involved in child pornography ... well what I think should happen to them wouldn't even be appropriate for fratching. I agree that it can be a difficult case, unless there is a living model on which it is based, to say 'this person is x years old' however. Not saying it is right, or good, or anything..but that unless the artist says "Yeah this person is under age, and meant to be under age" I think the age of a cartoon person is subjective.

Even in those cases, though, it's difficult to define a line between legal and "illegally inappropriate." If I drew two circles with dots in them and simply labeled it, "14-year-old breasts" could I go to prison under such a hypothetical law? How much detail must go into a drawing, and how explicit does it have to be in order for the first amendment to no longer apply and send me to jail? What if no genitalia are shown but it's very obvious as to what is happening? What if I drew a cartoon about a young girl who magically becomes an old lady and I have her do sexual acts? How does simply drawing a series of lines into a certain shape become illegal simply because it simply references something about the subject matter being underaged without breaking the first amendment?

Drawing is not the only medium that could be scrutinized. Stories (fan-fiction), songs, and the like could be affected as well. I see it as a big slippery slope into the same problems we had decades ago with book burnings and banning art.