Men jailed for having drawing of illegal acts.

[Panacea]

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.

I find it disgusting as well.

It's important that art represents fantasy, and fantasy is by itself harmless.

With sexual predators, the tendency is to escalate the level of the crime, and that is the concern with kiddie porn; is that it will escalate to actual action. For most people, it won't. But for some, it may.

But it is protected speech, and I don't think that disrupting protected speech is the way to deal with sexual predators.

[Ginger Tea]

The net is full of simpsons porn featuring bart and lisa as their current age (forever however old they are decades after the first show) or some as grown ups and probably a vast majority is incest based.
I personally have never found the art style of the show to generate 'hot chicks' so a porno version featuring an 'of age' cast still wouldn't float my boat.

I many years ago read an online story where the ages of the highschoolers was ambigious, I'm not 100% aware of what years are highschool, I originally took them to be like Secondary school here in the UK but last till 18 and just retconned their unstated age to somewhere between leaving school and going to college, I don't think I would have gotten far if it was stated that the principle cast was say thirteen, hell why say don't think, I know I wouldn't.

[Nyoibo]

I can see this being a dangerous ruling, rape is illegal too, so how long until depictions of rape become illegal? Then a whole heap of movies and other things become illegal too, the thought of being able to be prosecuted or jailed for having a movie in my possession is disturbing.

[siead_lietrathua]

maybe i read the wrong act, but hubs read me out the part of the obscenity law that applied in this case. and it specifically said in the law that it applies to depictions of MINORS. so it wouldnt stretch to adult on adult media.

[HYHYBT]

There are cartoons depicting rape, bestiality, torture, and all kinds of other stuff that people are, amazingly, fapping to

There are many things people find fun to imagine but would never, ever want to happen for real.

[KabeRinnaul]

So, great example of why making drawings of minors in sexual acts illegal is a stupid idea:

Konata Izumi: 18 years old. (completely SFW)
Yoko Littner: 14 years old. (a little less SFW)

[siead_lietrathua]

sigh. i'm just gonna hunt down the protect act wiki and post it here. but in short, it requires a sexual act to be occurring. neither of those images would apply.
"Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors)."

so it HAS to be considered obscene or it's fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s...#United_States

and to be considered obscene, it has to go through the "miller test".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test


oh, and to the simpsons porn comment, i found this.

"In October 2010, a 33 year old Idaho man, Steven Kutzner, entered into a plea agreement concerning images of child characters from the American animated television show, The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts.[63][64] In January 2011, Kutzner was sentenced to serve 15 months in federal prison. According to court documents, Kutzner had been downloading, receiving and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for at least eight years.[65]"

not everyone that views parody porn may be a pedo, but it DOES give a nice "stacking" law to increase their jailtimes if they have it.

"So far Christopher Handley has been the only person found guilty of possession under laws against artificial depictions that was not also under investigation for child pornography involving real minors"
however he was just looking for meaningless spunk fodder and claims if he knew it was banned he wouldn't have seeked it out. which when he was devouring 35 manga in a week, i doubt. he also is exempt from having to register as a sex offender.
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news...-obscene-manga

i guess the OP guy would now be the second. someone better update the wiki lol.

[Dreamstalker]

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.

I would agree, with the qualifier being cartoons.

While I think child-porn in general is completely disgusting, I also feel that if it's clear no real children are involved then it's okay (which would make wholly computer-generated stuff fine, but apparently the courts disagree).

[DGoddess]

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.

That's why I have to be cautious when I'm putting some of the fanfic stories up on my website. A few years ago when I finished a major novella, when I divided it up into parts on my site, I had to do some rather major editing and remove at least a couple of explicit scenes b/c I do not want to risk getting myself in hot water over what I do come up with.

There are certain challenges to writing about a pair of sisters who found themselves in rather adult situations and circumstances before they were actually considered old enough to do so.

Even if I were to release my stories in print form, I'd still have to edit. There again, we do have sites such as Literotica where one can find all kinds of erotic stories, some of which include the more taboo subjects including teen girls/older guys or even incest. That said, those forms of expression can be at risk as well if we allow censorship, even if it's ones we don't particularly care for. Once you start restricting certain types or forms, nobody will know where it finally end.

Book burnings wouldn't surprise me, but I wonder what the online equivalent would be, as we're in an increasingly digital world? You can go online and find stories/fanfic/porn of all types and flavors in digital form. Only thing I can see being done is shutting down websites, but as I've discovered over the years, websites can be moved around or brought back under another name - but still basically it would be the same thing. Go figure.

I'm no fan of censorship, as I do believe all voices are equally allowed to be heard and everyone's thoughts expressed, even if some of those thoughts and speech are even more offensive than what I could dream up.

[Jester]

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).

Posting something publicly or semi-publicly (i.e., where only coworkers can see it) is not in any way the same thing as drawing something for one's own amusement. I found nowhere in the article any indication that this guy showed or transmitted his drawings to anyone else, period. So, the story of your husband's coworker is not relevant.

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.

There is nothing said in the article of whether or not he was whacking it, nor if he was thinking of boning kids. By the way, even if he was, last time I checked, it was not illegal to masturbate, nor was it illegal to think of things that were illegal to actually do. I myself have thought, in detail, of various ways to kill certain people I find despicable. To date, my body count is still at zero.

He was arrested, jailed, charged, and convicted of possessing these depictions, nothing more. Just because he drew and possessed them does not mean he was doing so because it was what he wanted to do, nor more so than my writing about various ways I would love to rub out one of my niece's less savory boyfriends makes me a murderous psychopath.

Some people might say that a story about a 13 year old and a 15 year old falling in love, running away from their families, and eventually committing suicide because they were prevented from being together would be some pretty sick shit. Others would call it "Romeo and Juliet." One man's trash is another man's treasure.

By the way, lest anyone gets the wrong idea here, I find pedophiles to be among the most revolting and deplorable creatures on the planet, and I have no sympathy for them, wishing all the ills of the world on them while they are locked up in prison. But--and this is an important point--the man was not convicted or even charged with being a pedophile. Merely of drawing and having these pictures depicting such acts.

Personally, I don't see any difference between what he did and the kind of stuff we see in movies. Should Bruce Willis be locked up for his depiction of a man who kills people on the big screen? Should Jackie Chan be arrested for assault? Are these silly questions? Of course they are. These actors are merely depicting these acts, they are not actually committing them. And this man was arrested, charged, and convicted of possessing depictions of pedophilia. So actually, I guess my actor analogy was off. It is US who should be arrested for murder and assault for possessing Bruce Willis and Jackie Chan movies.

his wife reported him. i think she has a bit of a say in what kinda shit goes on in her home.

Of course she does. But under the law, she cannot really say what her husband draws in his free time. Especially since she "found" these drawings on his computer. He didn't show them to her. So he wasn't showing them to her, as he probably realized they would upset her. She went and found them. Trust me when I tell you that I have stuff that I would hope my roommates wouldn't find, but that doesn't make it illegal for me to have it. Nor should it.

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.

Kiddie porn is disgusting, as it is the exploitation of innocent children for the sexual gratification of men.

No children were exploited here. The guy drew stuff from his mind. We do not know whether he was spanking it or not, and that is not what he was charged with. Sure, you don't have to feel bad for him, but his drawings are no more kiddie porn than a drawing of an exploding building is a terrorist act.

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.

I hate to repeat myself again and again, but we have zero evidence that this guy had any unsavory urges, that he was whacking off to his drawings, or that he might have preyed on children at some point in the future. For all we know, he was merely drawing some fucked up shit, because he felt like drawing some fucked up shit.

And I should point out that, even if he WAS fantasizing about sex with children, that is not pedophilia, any more than my looking at a hot chick in a bikini and thinking lecherous thoughts is rape. Thinking things is not illegal. At least not in any civilized and free country.

There are many things people find fun to imagine but would never, ever want to happen for real.

The vast majority of people who fantasize about doing stuff that is immoral, unethical, or illegal, do not actually DO those things. That is why fantasization is a healthy thing: it provides an outlet for such thoughts without harming anyone else.

There have been many public figures that I have found unsavory, and many people I have met over the years who I have found equally distasteful. I have often thought about some horrible things I would love to do to some of these people, and if I were of an artistic bent, I might draw depictions of such acts. Thinking about it, drawing it, writing about it--these are not illegal, nor should they be.

As for the PROTECT Act, it "does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value." So someone, presumably a judge, must decide if such drawings are lacking any value, artistic or otherwise. Judges have not been the best judges of such things over the years. Many great and wondrous works of art and literature have been banned over the years for having "no value."

And, and this is the part that I want to stress, "mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the internet, or transported across state lines." Which in the case in question, they were not. He possessed them, but he in no way transmitted them ANYWHERE. He merely was too dumb to adequately hide them from his wife.

I guess stupidity really is criminal now.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

And I should point out that, even if he WAS fantasizing about sex with children, that is not pedophilia, .

I agree with most of your other points, not this one. Pedophilia is not the description of the illegal act, as the illegal act is statutory rape. Pedophilia describes the fact that one is sexually aroused by children. So yes, fantasizing about sex with children is pedophilia if said person then becomes sexually aroused by the fantasy. Pedophila is defined as "sexual feelings directed toward children" not "the act of having sex with children."

The "philias" are fact, and exist whether or not one takes outward action upon said "philias."

I also found it a bit disturbing that you want all pedophiles to suffer, but I suppose that relies on your definition that pedophiles are only the ones who acted on their brain wiring for finding children sexually arousing. There are plenty who don't. They're still pedophiles, they get aroused by children, but they keep it to themselves and find other outlets for the frustration.

[Andara Bledin]

I guess stupidity really is criminal now.

Only when it involves sex and "OMG! Think of teh childrens!"

I'm not sure a lot of people can maintain objectivity once even the thought of children enters the equation.

^-.-^

[Jester]

I'm not sure a lot of people can maintain objectivity once even the thought of children enters the equation.

To quote the inimitable George Carlin, "...your children are overrated and overvalued, and you've turned them into little cult objects. You have a child fetish, and it's not healthy."

To those who support what happened to this man, because it was "child pornography," I have one simple, basic question: exactly how many children were in any way harmed by this man's drawings? If the answer is one or more, if he harmed any children by drawing these pictures, or used any as models to draw them, I will agree with you that he deserves the full weight of the legal system crushing down on him. If, however, the answer is zero, if he did nothing to any child to draw these cartoons, and harmed none by having them, then where, exactly, is the crime?

I have always been staunch and even rabid in my condemnation of pedophiles, as their crime is one of the vilest there is. But to lump this guy in with them is simply comparing apples and Winnebagos.

[KabeRinnaul]

sigh. i'm just gonna hunt down the protect act wiki and post it here. but in short, it requires a sexual act to be occurring. neither of those images would apply.

Yeah, that wasn't my point. Of course neither image contained sexual acts. They were just some of the top GIS hits for those characters. My point is that Konata is at the age of consent, but looks maybe 10-12 years old, while Yoko is still a minor but could easily be taken to be something more like college aged. This is because the "true" age of a character in a drawing or other depiction that doesn't rely on a living model isn't related to their apparent age at all, since both are determined by the artist.

And it can be even muddier with things like fantasy races. What if someone wrote a sex scene involving a 9-year-old nezumi from D&D's Oriental Adventures? It's under what we'd consider the age of consent, but nezumi are a very short-lived race - they consider 8 years old "Adult" and rarely live past 15. Or a 30-year-old D&D elf. 30 is well into adulthood for us, but elves age slowly in that setting - 30 for them is more like 9 for us.

That's my argument - that attempting to hold artistic/written depictions to the same standard as recorded mediums breaks down almost immediately simply because there's no basis in reality to work from.

Never mind the fact that, like everyone else has said, no children are actually harmed in any of these cases.

[Nekojin]

What makes this all the more egregious is that porn that features legally-aged actresses pretending to be teenagers is perfectly legal. So appearances clearly aren't the problem...