You be the judge - sexual assault?

Agreed.

Tiassa often includes explicit anime pictures in his posts. Some of the characters in the cartoons he posts look quite young. Should he go to jail? Should the artist?

Or is that different?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click for not the really creepy part.​

Pick one. If you can send Jeff Bezos to prison for selling Sekirei, for instance, do so, and I'll happily take my chances apologizing before a jury for not noticing. Seriously, that would be hilarious, if our American Eighties Revival destroyed Amazon.com because of anime. It wouldn't be the most unjust of outcomes, to be certain, but somewhere between the legal framework↑ in which I consider the question, and well-trod artistic arguments↑ I've applied, the next part to wonder what I might clarify.

It's just that I wouldn't know what to tell you since I don't know what part you're worried about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you are really all that interested in exploring this topic and the "attitudes" towards the question or the questioning, why have you not even bothered to refine your own hypotheticals? Whether discussing "drawings and/or stories," or even photography for that matter, what is the explicit or express intent of the creators?

For instance,

For decades, nearly all biographers and commentators on Lewis Carroll seem to have overlooked the context in which Carroll's photographs of Alice Liddell and other children were taken, i.e., the Victorian "cult of the child." Victorians had some rather Rousseauian notions about the "purity" and "innocence" of children, and photographs and depictions of naked children were quite popular and abundant, even featuring on postcards. There was nothing lewd or lascivious about them. In other words, they were in no way manufactured with the intent to arouse. (Of course, expressly pornographic work was also produced concurrent with this, but certainly not by Carroll.) . IIRC it wasn't til the late 90s/early (20)00s that anyone bothered to note that Carroll's photographs were not out of the ordinary, even if other aspects of his life and persona may have been.

Likewise, in most jurisdictions, the work of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, et al are not (legally) regarded as "child pornography." Neither is National Geographic. If you're that interested, why not even bother trying to clarify whatever the hell it is that you are simply "asking questions" about? Are these drawings just of naked kids (Darger, for instance), or is there something else entirely going on? Who is producing such, how are they distributing it, what is the intent?

More troubling, you bring this topic into a thread in which you have specifically stated that you do not regard an assault upon a person, who has no memory of the incident and can produce no evidence of "harm," to be an assault. Reconciling that with your vague questioning about these "drawing and/or stories," in which no specific persons can be named or identified, kinda makes your motivations here somewhat suspect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just take some samples to the local police station and ask them...

 

Yeah, no shit. Art isn't porn.

 

Reminds me of my classics teacher musing as to whether some ancient nude female Greek statue was just a study of beauty or or sexual admiration (for the creator and contemporaries-or us )

Even a sniff of someone's clothing can be sexually arousing(so I have heard) . The law is an ass ** but it's all we've got to mediate social interactions as the final resort.

**and a work in progress

 

You're not likely to find them on a street corner shouting, "Child pornography for sale!" You'd be lucky to assign an implicit intent.

I asked a question. If you can quote me "specifically stating" that conclusion, feel free. A couple of other posters said that it is probably not an assault.

 

And if it can not be questioned, there can be no progress.

 

I think you said that penalties should be more reflective of actual harm caused.

Can you think of specific instances where that might apply?

 

The principle is typically used in charges of impaired driving. If somebody is injured or killed, the penalties are much harsher.

 

There are other instances, as well, but frankly, I'm don't feel like putting in the effort for an idiot who can't even keep track of his own words.

 

No, but you can usually figure it out from the context, i.e., how they are packaged, distributed, etc.

 

Who said anything about packaging or distrubuting? A guy draws a picture of a child. Should that be illegal?

 

You should maybe try reading my words. "I don't see how" is not what I would call "specifically stating" a position - especially in a context where I am asking how.

 

I was actually thinking of specific cases involving child pornography.

a: Does that principle already hold in that area with the present legal situation?
b:If not , are there specific situations that might benefit from its application?

 

I think the present legal system varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, doesn't it?

Suppose somebody draws a picture of Cupid. What harm has been done? If any, who has been harmed? Jail or no jail?

 

Already asked and answered (by Jeeves, first time, IIRC)--multiple times. A guy draws a picture: not a crime. You took it further after it was answered--stop lying.

 

You may have imagined that. Feel free to quote me.