View Full Version : Cartoon porn kids are people


w1z4rd
12-08-08, 04:10 AM
Before I post this information I just thought I would share some personal information. Up until recently, Australia was seen has a good place for Saffies (South Africans) to work for a year or two... or for some families to migrate to.

This is starting to change for the youth of our nation. Australia seems to be becoming a intellectually hostile place to go. With their censoring of the internet ... and now this:

A court in Australia has convicted a man for child pornography offences involving pictures of the children from The Simpsons cartoon series having sex


CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person'
included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said.

"... The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."

In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs in the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

This kinda ruling I would only expect from America and their law system, but it appears Australian Judges need a wake up call as well.

Do you think this kind of ruling is reasonable or rational?

phlogistician
12-08-08, 04:15 AM
While the psychology of paedophilia is rather abstract, this ruling is even more so.

I guess the crux for me is that nobody was harmed, coerced or abused in the production of the cartoon, and therefore there is no crime.

I don't see how this could be a crime, it's clearly a parody, and not meant to be arousing, surely? Even so, I'm sure there are far more edgy publications, such as Manga cartoons, which I would think needed more defense than a parody of the Simpsons.

Asguard
12-08-08, 04:17 AM
strange, but then NSW laws are stange anyway. Look at the stupid "annoyance laws" which were struck down by the full bench of the federal court.

That being said i think this could go to the high court if the guy chose to apeal, i have no idea wether he would win or not though because it depends where the definition of "person" is written and HOW its written

w1z4rd
12-08-08, 04:18 AM
Hentai is the japanese word you are thinking of? Manga as I know it are print cartoons (even if they are in electronic format). Hentai is japanese erotic cartoons. They out of this world weird.

Steve100
12-08-08, 04:18 AM
It is proposed in Britain that any realistic looking (computer or otherwise generated) underage pornography will become illegal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm
This I support.
The OP I do not.

draqon
12-08-08, 04:19 AM
I agree to the court's decision.

Steve100
12-08-08, 04:30 AM
Don't press the post button repeatedly when the site is having a dud moment.

phlogistician
12-08-08, 06:50 AM
Hentai is the japanese word you are thinking of? Manga as I know it are print cartoons (even if they are in electronic format). Hentai is japanese erotic cartoons. They out of this world weird.

Manga and Anime both have some edgy content, which is referred to as 'hentai', yeah. Too many school girl types in sailor outfits, and too many demons with reaching tentacles.

If this Simpsons thing steps over the line, Hentai sure as hell does, unless it carries disclaimers that the characters portrayed are of a certain age, but the whole thing sounds like bullshit to me. If no-one was harmed, coerced or abused, it's weird, and certainly tasteless, but should it be illegal? I'd say no.

Captain Kremmen
12-08-08, 07:39 AM
Surely pictures of Bart and Lisa screwing are ok.
They don't mean it do they?

I hope not. Otherwise the UK Olympics committee is in trouble.
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:0URxE0mfnDN0-M:http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/06/04/2012_logo_white_385x450.jpg

Yes. This is really the official logo of the 2012 Olympics.
If you don't believe me, look it up.

All Australian medal winners may have their medals confiscated, and be thrown in prison.

Syzygys
12-08-08, 08:10 AM
It is proposed in Britain that any realistic looking (computer or otherwise generated) underage pornography will become illegal.


Who exactly gets harmed by computer generated graphics??? We could view it as a safety valve for weirdos....

Anti-Flag
12-08-08, 11:38 AM
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:0URxE0mfnDN0-M:http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/06/04/2012_logo_white_385x450.jpg

I haven't been able to look at that without laughing since I saw it. Surely somebody noticed before it became official?

CutsieMarie89
12-08-08, 12:03 PM
What's wrong with cartoons? I don't get it. I thought the point of cracking down on people who view child pornography was to keep children from being abused and/or exploited by people taking pictures of them or forcing/coercing them into sexual situations. But a cartoon does none of these things. There are absolutely no children harmed in the process of drawing a cartoon character. Personally I would prefer a pedophile to look at drawings of children engaged in sexual activities than look at porn with actual children or actually having sex with actual children. Who is harmed in cartoon child pornography? Shouldn't this law include books as well, that mention underage sex?

Anti-Flag
12-08-08, 12:19 PM
We live in a hypocritical world that's why. I suspect money is also involved somewhere. No doubt the makers of the simpsons had something to say on the matter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm

MacGyver1968
12-08-08, 01:11 PM
Hmm..the Simpsons went on the air in '89. Doesn't that make Bart and Lisa almost 20 years old?

Child porn is obviously bad...but come on.

orcot
12-08-08, 01:49 PM
Okay let's see if I get this right
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00021/Bart_Simpson_nude_2_21368a.jpg
Evil


http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=4wSEW37cLDk (saw 1,2,3)
entertaining

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Hefner2006.jpg/800px-Hefner2006.jpg
Wow?

madanthonywayne
12-08-08, 02:01 PM
A court in Australia has convicted a man for child pornography offences involving pictures of the children from The Simpsons cartoon series having sex


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

This kinda ruling I would only expect from America and their law system, but it appears Australian Judges need a wake up call as well.

Do you think this kind of ruling is reasonable or rational?
This ruling is absurd. The reason child porn is illegal is becaus children must be abused to produce it. With cartoons, that's not the case. Hell, I've seen pop ups for sites featuring cartoon characters having sex. I even went to the site, because I thought it would be funny to see Marge Simpson having sex with Flanders (I don't remember anything about child characters being involved). Sadly, it was a pay site and I never pay for internet content so I didn't see any of the movies. (and they didn't offer any previews).

Thank God I don't live in Australia!

I am unaware of any such conviction in the US, by the way. It is absurd, especially for characters such as the Simpsons. If the cartoon characters were ultra-realistic, perhaps you might say it could encourage child molesters, but I really don't think that's the case with the Simpsons.

Xelios
12-08-08, 02:04 PM
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:0URxE0mfnDN0-M:http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/06/04/2012_logo_white_385x450.jpg

Yes. This is really the official logo of the 2012 Olympics.
If you don't believe me, look it up.

Can you believe they paid $1 million for that?

vslayer
12-08-08, 02:14 PM
"seeing it on the internet encourages doing it in real life"? i thought jack thompson was disbarred already.

just as video games are an outlet for violence, porn is an outlet for sexual energy. what are they going to ban next? any porn that doesnt involve two people clearly portrayed as married doing it missionary?

Challenger78
12-08-08, 03:47 PM
Things are getting weirder here. First our delay on investing in the solar energy, our attempt to censor the internet, and now this. I agree with phlogistician, that no one was abused or harmed in the making of this porn, therefore he shouldn't be charged.

madanthonywayne
12-08-08, 05:14 PM
This case gives a whole new meaning to:
http://mysite.verizon.net/chris6942/MySpace/jessica_rabbit.jpg
"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way..."

Captain Kremmen
12-08-08, 05:34 PM
I haven't been able to look at that without laughing since I saw it. Surely somebody noticed before it became official?

Once you are told about what it looks like, you can't see it in any other way.
It will make us a laughing stock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Challenger.
The internet needs regulation.
All they have to do is put all the porn onto say .sex
Then people can block it if they wish, or block everything else if they wish.
Where's the problem?

Anti-Flag
12-08-08, 05:53 PM
It will make us a laughing stock.
Too late for that!
It's not even as though it takes a lot of imagination to see it, so how they could have a group of people look at it and not one of them manage to spot it is beyond me. The cost is even more unthinkable, just another waste of money. I'm clearly in the wrong line of work however!:p

MetaKron
12-08-08, 08:42 PM
The ruling is beyond stupid. Is that magistrate one of the moderators here?

Captain Kremmen
12-09-08, 04:24 AM
I wonder what proportion of people they would have to prosecute if they could examine every computer?

The situation at the moment is like having free drink on display at every shop and supermarket, and prosecuting everyone who becomes an alcoholic.
You have to stop it at source.

Service providers should be blocking sexual material. Even the stupid Bart cartoons, which is not even porn just a sick joke. Not that I've ever seen any Bart cartoons, you understand, and I didn't think they were very funny anyway.

You should be required to opt into it, and pay some charge with a credit card.
The charge would be whatever it costs to pay for the screening, which I'm sure could be done using the current net spiders.
Many computer chipped cameras now have face recognition, and it's not just faces which have a recognisable shape.


I know people like the idea of free expression etc. but the internet is like a modern version of the wild west. It needs regulation.

Syzygys
12-09-08, 09:04 AM
Trial lawyer could easily win any case by showing that after porn magazines were aviable in Sweden for the first time, rape rate went down....

Act as safety valve. When humans have urges they would do anything to statisfy those urges...

Having a bunch of pedophiles quietly masturbating at home to cartoons is much better than them roaming the street looking for victims...

Crunchy Cat
12-09-08, 10:29 AM
Before I post this information I just thought I would share some personal information. Up until recently, Australia was seen has a good place for Saffies (South Africans) to work for a year or two... or for some families to migrate to.

This is starting to change for the youth of our nation. Australia seems to be becoming a intellectually hostile place to go. With their censoring of the internet ... and now this:

A court in Australia has convicted a man for child pornography offences involving pictures of the children from The Simpsons cartoon series having sex


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

This kinda ruling I would only expect from America and their law system, but it appears Australian Judges need a wake up call as well.

Do you think this kind of ruling is reasonable or rational?

Oh cool, if a cartoon kid is drawn drinking alchohol can someone be arrested for serving alchohol to a minor? If I draw a picture of bart simpson lighting my house on fire, can I sue marge and homer? The possibilities are mind boggling.

Baron Max
12-09-08, 12:06 PM
Having a bunch of pedophiles quietly masturbating at home to cartoons is much better than them roaming the street looking for victims...

Hmm, but what happens if those same porno cartoons excite them enough to go out roaming the streets seeking those victims?

Perhaps what we have here is a two-edged sword, huh?

Baron Max

Baron Max
12-09-08, 12:08 PM
...but the internet is like a modern version of the wild west. It needs regulation.

How? And equally important ...who?

I'm afraid that a monster has been created with no way to kill it.

Baron Max

CutsieMarie89
12-09-08, 12:14 PM
Oh cool, if a cartoon kid is drawn drinking alchohol can someone be arrested for serving alchohol to a minor? If I draw a picture of bart simpson lighting my house on fire, can I sue marge and homer? The possibilities are mind boggling.

Well since cartoon character's are people too. :shrug: I don't know anymore.

Syzygys
12-09-08, 12:41 PM
Hmm, but what happens if those same porno cartoons excite them enough to go out roaming the streets seeking those victims?

A valid concern, but I would say no. Here is the reasoning:

Poor and ugly people get statisfaction too by using porn but don't necesserily go out on the street raping people. So I don't see why it should be different for pedophiles... As long as they can live out their fantasies in a safe way, good for society...

Baron Max
12-09-08, 06:01 PM
Poor and ugly people get statisfaction too by using porn but don't necesserily go out on the street raping people. So I don't see why it should be different for pedophiles... As long as they can live out their fantasies in a safe way, good for society...

So you think that pedophiles are "poor and ugly"???

Geez, what kind of "-ism" is that ....."poor-ism" ..."ugly-ism"?

Baron Max

Michael
12-09-08, 06:48 PM
http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:0URxE0mfnDN0-M:http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/06/04/2012_logo_white_385x450.jpgHahahahaahaaahhahaha... .

CheskiChips
12-09-08, 10:52 PM
So what about this Disney movie?
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Who-Framed-Roger-Rabbit-jessica-rabbit-681462_400_309.jpg

Captain Kremmen
12-10-08, 04:52 AM
How? And equally important ...who?

I'm afraid that a monster has been created with no way to kill it.

Baron Max

That's always a diificulty when it comes to censorship, which is what I'm proposing. It's a valid question.
I don't think material that comes into the home through the internet should have different rules on content than what comes into the home through a TV set. I mean US TV and UK TV not Saudi TV, so yes I am applying my own country's standards.
When it came down to it, it would be US standards which held sway.

Someone earlier mentioned Sweden, and yes they have permissive regulations, but they do have limits and specified outlets.

I don't think there is any will to do anything.
The creation of a separate domain for sexual material is a simple matter.
It wouldn't of course solve the problem but it would be a move in the right direction.

I'm not talking about Bart cartoons here.
That is just stupid nonsense, and the judge that ruled it as child porn is an idiot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Btw. Are there any Australians on here from New South Wales?
What other strange laws are there in this state?
Being branded as a sexual pervert for possession of a Bart cartoon is one.
What others do you have?
The death sentence for not keeping a dog on a leash?
Two hundred lashes for dropping litter?
What?

Captain Kremmen
12-10-08, 05:40 AM
So what about this Disney movie?


Marge is looking good these days!

Challenger78
12-10-08, 06:27 AM
Once you are told about what it looks like, you can't see it in any other way.
It will make us a laughing stock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Challenger.
The internet needs regulation.
All they have to do is put all the porn onto say .sex
Then people can block it if they wish, or block everything else if they wish.
Where's the problem?

Who gets to define porn ? and what if someone wants to block Communist sites as well ?

Baron Max
12-10-08, 06:37 AM
That's always a diificulty when it comes to censorship, which is what I'm proposing. It's a valid question.
I don't think material that comes into the home through the internet should have different rules on content than what comes into the home through a TV set.

The Internet is a helluva lot different to TV. I don't know the Internet and computers very well, but my guess is that if people want to provide it, there's a way to get it.

With TV, they can censor the broadcasters. With the Internet, who do you censor? With the Internet, the sites are out there just waiting, ...how CAN you censor something that's everywhere?

I'm afraid that we've created a monster that can't be killed.

Baron Max

Captain Kremmen
12-10-08, 06:58 AM
Who gets to define porn ? and what if someone wants to block Communist sites as well ?
Again, a good question, but I'd personally be happy with the US Government making the decisions on sexual content. As regards political content, that could have a much wider remit.

It's not that I think that they'd do it any better than anyone else, just that the US might make more progress.

The main point I am making is that the same regulations should cover the internet as cover TV and Cable. Cable allows people wider choice, but they opt in for it and pay for it.
At the moment, the internet is like having every cable channel and adult video shop on mainstream TV. This is bad.
TV and internet are merging as a source of entertainment and information.

I'm not saying that it would be easy, but why is there no attempt to do anything.
Other, that is, than drive some poor sap to the point of suicide, for having a cartoon of a type which is probably on every student's computer in the Western World.

Meanwhile, mass exploiters of Women Men and Children are making Billions of Pounds with very little restricting their activities.

Hypocrisy? Stupidity?
You tell me.

Syzygys
12-10-08, 07:49 AM
So you think that pedophiles are "poor and ugly"???

Come on man, you have been improving so much, don't fall back!

It was an analogy....

Captain Kremmen
12-10-08, 09:18 AM
Come on man, you have been improving so much, don't fall back!

It was an analogy....
Many paedophiles are clever, influential and screwed up.
If , in the future, you want 50 times as many as there are at present, just leave things as they are.

Syzygys
12-10-08, 10:04 AM
I didn't get your point, but I don't really care...

Captain Kremmen
12-10-08, 10:23 AM
And.....

Cellar_Door
12-10-08, 10:48 AM
Hmm, but what happens if those same porno cartoons excite them enough to go out roaming the streets seeking those victims?

Perhaps what we have here is a two-edged sword, huh?

In theory that's a good point, but so far research has only found hat access to porn DECREASES sexual crime.

w1z4rd
12-30-08, 05:08 AM
Okay.. so this has taken on a new level of insanity with America jumping on the cartoon porn bandwagon:


"Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199/

Points I have picked up and would like to make:

"1:)The act defines a "child" as a "person":
(1.2) the term "child"(TM) means a person who has not attained
the age of 18 years and is"
-(A) under the perpetrator‚(TM)s care or control; or
-(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;"

2) Some Cartoons are over the age over 18 like the Simpsons for example. They're 20 years old as a point of fact.

3) If a cartoon is now a person.. how is this going to effect the legality of political cartoons and satires?

4) Is cartoon porn now just illegal or are art pictures like Jan van Hemessen, Madonna and Child, 1543 now considered illegal now?

I think Judges should have to go through an IQ test before they can sit on the bench.

DNA100
01-28-09, 10:20 AM
why is porn wrong(specially,if it's computer generated)?never got a satisfactory answer.the idea that people will go crazy and start raping by simlply watching a porn movie is ridiculosly crazy!crime statistics have always supported porn.we should increase porn,not ban it.

Stryder
01-28-09, 10:26 AM
why is porn wrong(specially,if it's computer generated)?never got a satisfactory answer.the idea that people will go crazy and start raping by simlply watching a porn movie is ridiculosly crazy!crime statistics have always supported porn.we should increase porn,not ban it.

Why not just ask "Why do we bother wearing clothes?", I think I could see a sudden trend in how our "Civilized Society" would suddenly start to fray at the edges with everyone exposing there nakey selves.

DNA100
01-28-09, 10:34 AM
Why not just ask "Why do we bother wearing clothes?", I think I could see a sudden trend in how our "Civilized Society" would suddenly start to fray at the edges with everyone exposing there nakey selves.

i don't think the 2 issues are even remotely related.based on current state of the world,i can see certain issues arising from "not wearing" clothes.Althogh,it does not have to be wrong in all circumstances.but i can't see how watching computer generated porn over the internet can harm anyone.

Enmos
01-28-09, 10:39 AM
i don't think the 2 issues are even remotely related.based on current state of the world,i can see certain issues arising from "not wearing" clothes.Althogh,it does not have to be wrong in all circumstances.but i can't see how watching computer generated porn over the internet can harm anyone.

It's about them being kids.

DNA100
01-28-09, 10:42 AM
It's about them being kids.
i don't think computers can generate kids.they can only generate images.but still,i can understand what u mean.

Enmos
01-28-09, 10:42 AM
i don't think computers can generate kids.they can only generate images.

Images of kids.

Syzygys
01-28-09, 11:16 AM
So did we eventually all agree that cartoons are not real people?

Enmos
01-28-09, 12:21 PM
So did we eventually all agree that cartoons are not real people?

How can anyone not agree.. ?

Stryder
01-28-09, 08:18 PM
Lets put it like this, if you say a Cartoon that represents a kid being naked is fine, what's to stop a paedophile running his real kiddy porn images through a "Cell shading" filter on photoshop? They could argue in a court of law that "the images were cartoons and not real people" when they know full well that they had abused children to make them.

It's pretty simple really, stop the cartoon porn and stop the paedophile's from trying to pervert law.

Who would actually suffer from the lack of cartoon porn?.

Xelios
01-29-09, 06:48 AM
Who would actually suffer from the lack of cartoon porn?.
There's an episode of South Park where Cartman is shown naked, now maybe I don't care enough "for the children", but it'd be disconcerting to know I could be arrested on child porn charges for having that episode on my hard drive.

Captain Kremmen
01-29-09, 08:18 AM
The internet needs regulating so that everything openly transmitted is in line with the content receivable on standard TV. (If you don't agree, say why.)
These regulations were set up to define what was OK for a normal home.
With the internet, you cannot designate a time where more adult content is acceptable, so if anything, content should be more restricted than with terrestrial or cable TV.


Everything outside this should be available on subscription.
Same as cable.
Adult content should not be available at all. Unless you pay for it.

The providers of illegal content should be pursued and prosecuted.

The only problem is the difficulty in controlling the medium.
There does not seem to be any great effort to do this.
Any ideas why?

cosmictraveler
01-29-09, 08:21 AM
So did we eventually all agree that cartoons are not real people?

:eek: WHAT! They aren't real! :bugeye: How can you say such a thing?

iceaura
01-29-09, 10:01 AM
Lets put it like this, if you say a Cartoon that represents a kid being naked is fine, what's to stop a paedophile running his real kiddy porn images through a "Cell shading" filter on photoshop? They could argue in a court of law that "the images were cartoons and not real people" when they know full well that they had abused children to make them. If you can't show that kids were abused, and you can't show a picture that looks like a real kid being abused, and you can't show that there ever was a picture that looked like a real kid being abused, you can't show a crime.

Everything outside this should be available on subscription.
Same as cable.
Adult content should not be available at all. Unless you pay for it. That's the current situation. I pay a subscription for internet service.

There's a problem here, but an attempt to make evil thoughts not exist is a dubious base for handling it.

Syzygys
01-29-09, 11:01 AM
Lets put it like this, if you say a Cartoon that represents a kid being naked is fine, what's to stop a paedophile running his real kiddy porn images through a "Cell shading" filter on photoshop?
Who would actually suffer from the lack of cartoon porn?.

But seriously... You might want to study the History of Porn. Once porn magazines became legal in Sweden, the number if rapes decreased. It is called safety valve.

If childporn can be made safely without the inclusion of children, why shouldn't we let pedophile have this as a safety valve instead of trying to cure them?

So who would actually suffer? The parents of missing children who got kidnapped by pedophiles because they couldn't live out their fantasies in the cartoon world....

P.S.: Same goes for cartoon animals. :)

Xelios
01-29-09, 01:08 PM
The internet needs regulating so that everything openly transmitted is in line with the content receivable on standard TV. (If you don't agree, say why.)
Don't agree. The internet is not like TV. It's always been a free and open medium, and I sincerely hope it will always stay that way. I have nothing against people restricting what can be accessed from their own machine, even if this restriction is done at an ISP level, but I'd be dead set against this restriction being the default for an internet connection. I don't need a nanny.

The only problem is the difficulty in controlling the medium.
There does not seem to be any great effort to do this.
Any ideas why?
The structure of the internet makes it very difficult to control. For example, if your ISP decided to censor your access to a porn site you could simply route the connection through a proxy and voila, you have access again. More recent solutions like Tor and Freenet make censorship of material all but impossible by encrypting data transfer and setting up completely anonymous "subnets" within the internet where people can share data.

People have had open access to the internet for decades now, and any move to restrict that access is going to be met with a lot of opposition.

Another big hurdle is that as soon as ISP's make an active effort to censor material (even if that material is illegal) they lose their common carrier status and become responsible for everything that passes through their pipes. This is a huge can of worms that no ISP wants to open, because common carrier status is the only thing that's kept them from being sued into the ground by conglomerates like the RIAA.

Stryder
01-29-09, 03:02 PM
But seriously... You might want to study the History of Porn. Once porn magazines became legal in Sweden, the number if rapes decreased. It is called safety valve.

There are a number of other statistics you tend to neglect though. For instance the Population per Capita, Male to Female Ratio of Swede's, HIV/AID's Statistics, Time of year the study was done (During the winter it's dark for most of the time which is usually used to conceal crimes, however during the summer it's lighter making it more difficult not to be seen.).

It's hardly a convincing argument that Porn makes everyone law abiding citizens, it's just a Strawman.


If childporn can be made safely without the inclusion of children, why shouldn't we let pedophile have this as a safety valve instead of trying to cure them?

You are talking about people that have psychological problems and allowing their psychosis to progress to potential dangerous episodes. In seriousness these people should be seeking help far before ever getting that far, they could avert ever being a paedophile if they sought help, but most of the time they live in a divergent bubble where they think what they are doing is acceptable when it most definitely is not.


So who would actually suffer? The parents of missing children who got kidnapped by pedophiles because they couldn't live out their fantasies in the cartoon world....

P.S.: Same goes for cartoon animals. :)

You really are missing the problems aren't you? These people are predator's and you are willing to dress them up as sheep and stick them in a flock.

Bricoleur
01-30-09, 06:27 AM
I agree the court ruling is pretty p*ss poor. The only angle I can see that would give it some credence, is that by finding or encouraging humour in pedophilia/child porn, it may tend to soften the community's stance against it. Weaken our resolve by finding it cute or laughable? But I know I'm drawing a long bow!:rolleyes: they need to get real.

Syzygys
01-30-09, 08:59 AM
It's hardly a convincing argument that Porn makes everyone law abiding citizens, it's just a Strawman.

Again, studying the History of Porn would do you good...


You are talking about people that have psychological problems and allowing their psychosis to progress to potential dangerous episodes.

OK, so the main question is this:

Is it OK for people ti have sexual fetishes and aberrations or should we do something about it? Also: Can something be done about it? (one could argue that can not, people's sexual preferences are hardwired and almost impossible to change)


In seriousness these people should be seeking help far before ever getting that far,

In a perfect world, yes. Although they might not see themselves as one who needs help.

Let's say furries. Is it a sexual aberration or harmless fun? If we allow furries to enjoy and play out their sexual fantasies why can't we do that to others AS LONG AS they don't hurt anyone???


they could avert ever being a paedophile if they sought help,

I am not an expert, but I would say once a pedophile, always a pedophile. Otherwise we could just cure them instead of imprisoning them.


You really are missing the problems aren't you?

Hardly ever. :)


These people are predator's

Hey, I am all for executing pedophiles as a ultimate solution! On the other hand, please argue why a pedophile who lives out his fantasies online with cartoon children and NEVER hurts anyone is more dangerous to society than a potential rapist (most male under certain circumstances)??

Syzygys
01-30-09, 09:03 AM
For extra credit:

How the Web Prevents Rape

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=tap3

"The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. "

I assume the same stands for pedophiles molesting children....

Syzygys
01-30-09, 09:16 AM
Weekend reading:

"The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

Orleander
01-30-09, 09:52 AM
Is it possible that rape has gone down because women now take self-protection glasses, carry mace/guns, and the internet now puts men who like dominating a woman in contact with women who like being dominated?

Stryder
01-30-09, 10:41 AM
For extra credit:

How the Web Prevents Rape

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=tap3

"The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. "

I assume the same stands for pedophiles molesting children....

I think it's more likely that Women aren't prepared to be targetted anymore and well this is proven with teenager girls becoming more violent.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Girls-Violent-Crimes-By-Girls-Rises-Says-Ministry-Of-Justice-Report/Article/200901415213687?f=rss

Basically if a rapist threatens someone with a knife, they are likely to get themselves stabbed up.

Syzygys
01-30-09, 10:46 AM
Is it possible that rape has gone down because women now take self-protection glasses, carry mace/guns, and the internet now puts men who like dominating a woman in contact with women who like being dominated?

No. If one really wants to rape and dominate, noone and nothing stops him. But pornography can help the borderline cases...

Orleander
01-30-09, 10:48 AM
No. If one really wants to rape and dominate, noone and nothing stops him. ...

Of course they can be stopped. :bugeye:

Stryder
01-30-09, 10:50 AM
No. If one really wants to rape and dominate, noone and nothing stops him. But pornography can help the borderline cases...

I think the arguments you are giving are just to try and put your own mind at ease that you aren't a pervert than loves smutt. It's okay, we can understand your weakness however you don't have to stand up for all the porn kiddies out there. Some are like I said "Predators", they won't be happy with just a collection of images from some coke headed ex-prostitutes, so they put people at risk. I really wouldn't suggest standing up for them.

DNA100
01-31-09, 07:31 AM
What we should stop is child-abuse,not porn.
If you ask me,the proposal of stopping all porn because there is a remote possibility that it may stop some paedophile is like stopping all mothers from giving birth because there is a possibility that a criminal may be born.
If we need to treat paedophiles, then it can be done without stopping porn.
And Syzgys is right, there is statistical support for porn.Sure,correlation is not causation ,but this puts forward a strong case.

If sensual pleasure was such a bad thing then the world would not have evolved to this point.Also,there is a thing called "freedom of expression".the idea that i will tie up whoever imagines a crime happening in his head purely because it may lead him to commit a crime is just plain ridiculous!

I think people need to realise that the bad part in a rape incident isn't the sex part itself,it's the abuse part,it's the domination part,it's the violence part!The important thing here is to spot those real criminals who don't feel for others.Stopping all porn is just not the solution.there are plenty of absoutely innocent people who like porn.

Syzygys
01-31-09, 01:44 PM
bleh-blah-blah

Excuse me, but was there an actual argument in your posts? Me thinks not.

I understand your frustration because of your inability to deal with the issue or refute me, but that is life, get over it. :)

Orleander
01-31-09, 04:35 PM
....there are plenty of absoutely innocent people who like porn.

there are NO innocent people who like child porn

Syzygys
01-31-09, 06:19 PM
there are NO innocent people who like child porn

Let me ask you this:

If you think that gays are not responsible for being gay, then wouldn't you say the same about pedophiles? Is a pedophile responsible for being one?

As long as a pedophile doesn't act on his fetish and harm children he is not different than a sadist, a foot fetishist, a furry, an animal lover,etc...

Orleander
01-31-09, 06:27 PM
Let me ask you this:

If you think that gays are not responsible for being gay, then wouldn't you say the same about pedophiles? Is a pedophile responsible for being one?

As long as a pedophile doesn't act on his fetish and harm children he is not different than a sadist, a foot fetishist, a furry, an animal lover,etc...

I do believe you can be born attracted to children. You just damn well better be celibate.
And I am not naive enough to think that cartoon child porn will satisfy their lust. Porn increases my husband's and my lust. We act on it. That cartoon child porn shows a child wanting it. I think that feeds their delusion that real children want it.

Captain Kremmen
02-02-09, 05:15 AM
The structure of the internet makes it very difficult to control. For example, if your ISP decided to censor your access to a porn site you could simply route the connection through a proxy and voila, you have access again. More recent solutions like Tor and Freenet make censorship of material all but impossible by encrypting data transfer and setting up completely anonymous "subnets" within the internet where people can share data.


Thanks Xelios, I can tell that you know what you are talking about.
Yes, it would be difficult, and I accept with you that internet freedom with no censorship is bringing great benefits as well as difficulties.
What do you think of the idea of having a separate domain for pornography?

Stryder
02-02-09, 11:08 AM
blah-blah-blah x 2

I don't want to hear about how sticky your magazine pages are and this is why you think they should have porn openly on the internet. You neglect to take into consideration that *if* porn was such a great institution, why did the .XXX domain fail?

Syzygys
02-02-09, 01:25 PM
Stryder, since you like non-sequiturs, how about comparing our avatars? Looks like mine has all the fun and yours has the ulcer! :)

Xelios
02-02-09, 03:15 PM
What do you think of the idea of having a separate domain for pornography?
It's been tried several times but it's always failed. The biggest problem is that the internet is world wide, and different countries have different laws about what's pornographic and what isn't. ICANN, the international organization that "governs" the internet, ultimately decided that it's not their job to be the world's morality police, and that setting up a .xxx domain has some technical difficulties that make it impossible to implement fairly. At best it would have to be optional, not mandatory, for sites to use it.

Thanks Xelios, I can tell that you know what you are talking about.
Yes, it would be difficult, and I accept with you that internet freedom with no censorship is bringing great benefits as well as difficulties.
Well thanks, this stuff interests me :)

I'm a pretty liberal person and I think censorship is best left up to the individual. Everything is so much simpler if people just decide for themselves what they want to be exposed to, and it really isn't so hard to avoid content that you don't want to see. Children are another issue, but lets just say I'm not too worried about "protecting the children". IMO, children are being coddled way too much these days. By the time they're old enough to figure out how to circumvent parental control software I think they're old enough to be exposed to the world as it really is, instead of how we think it should be.

Stryder
02-02-09, 10:47 PM
Stryder, since you like non-sequiturs, how about comparing our avatars? Looks like mine has all the fun and yours has the ulcer! :)

Come on, you're the one that wants to argue like a kid. I stated a simple reason as to how Cartoon Porn of Kids could be misuse. I don't mean Bart Simpson doing a moon run, I meant cell shaded images of real people being manipulated to look cartoony just to get past the legal system.

I guess it should really take into consideration "Realism", so a Nude Charlie Brown won't ring the Paedophile alarmbells.

scott3x
02-04-09, 08:16 PM
Come on, you're the one that wants to argue like a kid. I stated a simple reason as to how Cartoon Porn of Kids could be misuse. I don't mean Bart Simpson doing a moon run, I meant cell shaded images of real people being manipulated to look cartoony just to get past the legal system.

I guess it should really take into consideration "Realism", so a Nude Charlie Brown won't ring the Paedophile alarmbells.

I think the real issue is that the thought police are coming to roost; the idea is that the mere -thought- of children being sexual is taboo; thus, depictions of it, no matter how fictional, must be banned.

If real children doing sexual things are being cartoonized, if it's ever discovered, the people will do time. However, the idea that even depictions should get the person to do time just means we're 1 step closer to 1984's thoughtcrime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime).

It's dogma, plain and simple. Call it religion or the law; religions used to make the laws, now politicians do, but the same principle applies. I think Frank Herbert of Dune fame (http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/goldenpa.htm), put it quite well when he said:
Religion is the emulation of the adult by the child. Religion is the encystment of past beliefs: mythology, which is guesswork, the hidden assumptions of trust in the universe, those pronouncements which men have made in search of personal power, all of it mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always the ultimate unspoken commandment is "Thou shalt not question!" But we question. We break that commandment as a matter of course. The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of the imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity.

Syzygys
02-04-09, 09:10 PM
I meant cell shaded images of real people being manipulated to look cartoony

You are really pushing the non-sequiturs. We were talking about cartoons not real stuff made look like cartoon.

get fucking real...

P.S.: In the future (actually now) they can make cartoons look like real, there is no need to use real people/children.

Ladicius
02-04-09, 10:30 PM
Did they do anything to the person who made the video? If not that seems kinda petty and also pointless.

scott3x
02-05-09, 06:22 AM
Did they do anything to the person who made the video? If not that seems kinda petty and also pointless.

We're not talking about hate crime here; there were some animations done, that's all. For this reason, I would think that only people who should be censured are the people who considered any of this a crime to begin with.

Stryder
02-18-09, 10:57 AM
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/009/en/09009x-e.htm#index_link_81

The link contains the amendments for "Pseudo-Photography". However it definitely brings into question whether certain works of art that depict cherubs within Art Galleries will require being "Shelved".