Only a matter of time before you get jailed for merely having a dirty thought... :o

BeerWolf

Jail Sentence for Hentai owner

Granted, he did have child pornography - but being brought to attention due to owning fictional things of sexual nature warrants that arrest to begin with ?

Only a matter of time before we all have a cheap in our heads that detects any deviant thoughts and alerts the authorities. :eek:


Bye bye freedom of expression and speech.

Nehaxak

BeerWolf wrote: »

Only a matter of time before we all have a cheap in our heads that detects any deviant thoughts and alerts the authorities. :eek:

Ooh ooh, I want a blue canary in mine !

Nehaxak

No but really, it's child porn ? Whether it's real or virtual comic book stuff, it's still depicting images of children in a sexual nature so really, I don't see what the problem is here with him and others like him being put in prison for it.

Ruu_Old

Giz a bag of chicken and cheaps!

lmtduffy

Nehaxak wrote: »

No but really, it's child porn ? Whether it's real or virtual comic book stuff, it's still depicting images of children in a sexual nature so really, I don't see what the problem is here with him and others like him being put in prison for it.

I always thought the problem with child porn was that it is exploitative of children as they can not consent to it?

Who really is the victim of someone creating an image with nothing but there mind and a pencil?

lmtduffy

lmtduffy wrote: »

I always thought the problem with child porn was that it is exploitative of children as they can not consent to it?

Who really is the victim of someone creating an image with nothing but there mind and a pencil?

Yeah, but then there's a stigma attached to it, and anything and everything relating to it, well, 'they' have to be seen to be doing something about it.


Don't get me wrong, obviously I'm not in favour of child porn, but as you say, it's a drawing. I didn't hear of the Simpsons getting in troube when they "exposed" Bart in their movie.

Caoimhín

BeerWolf wrote: »

Jail Sentence for Hentai owner


Only a matter of time before we all have a chip in our heads that detects any deviant thoughts and alerts the authorities. :eek:

How, how is it only a matter of time?

That is simply conspiracy theory nonsense. You should think these things through before blurting them out on a public message board.

I actually worry that there are loonies like you walking our streets.
Ask your self the following questions;

• Who decides what is a deviant thought.
• What is a thought.
• How can a thought be detected.
• How do you establish what is a conscious thought and what is an unconscious thought.
• What about dreams? I have had some bizarre dreams/nightmares, are they deviant.
• Who would implant these chips? That is risky brain surgery that No surgeon/doctor would be willing to do.
• How is a deviant thought punished in a court of law, for example, how does society measure the severity of the "deviant thought"?

I think people who write bizarre conspiracy daydreams on a public message board should have certain civic rights removed, for example, the right to own a firearm, to vote and to have children.

Rant over.

Karl Hungus

Nehaxak wrote: »

No but really, it's child porn ? Whether it's real or virtual comic book stuff, it's still depicting images of children in a sexual nature so really, I don't see what the problem is here with him and others like him being put in prison for it.

So, a depiction is the same as the real thing, and should carry the same consequences? Necrophilia is illegal, so by the above logic, the depiction of such should be illegal also and carry the same consequence, and anyone owning a copy of a film that depicts Necrophilia should be put in prison, be that Visitor Q, Nightwatch, Braindead, Clerks or Weekend At Bernie's. Does that sound right to you?

You know, you could draw a pornographic cartoon of some kinda cannibalism fetish, or anything as equally horrific and horrendous, snuff or whatever, and while people may find it a bit sick, you wouldn't be sent to prison for it. But if it's a depiction of a child? Lock him up! Seriously, I think it's as KKV said, there's a stigma attached. Imprisoning someone for having a depiction of pedophilia as if it were the same as the real deal, that's just a freakin' witch-hunt.

Dravokivich

"he was also convicted of possessing actual child pornography"

You missed a bit in that report....

No problems with hentai...

the guy actually had child porn FFS!

- Drav!

TheZohanS

Wait 'til they see Itchy and Scratchy...or SouthPark...

Fink Goddie

lmtduffy wrote: »

I always thought the problem with child porn was that it is exploitative of children as they can not consent to it?

Who really is the victim of someone creating an image with nothing but there mind and a pencil?

No f*cking normal person would want to look at that sh1t whether its an image or not, its really sick that you're even defending it.

johnny_knoxvile

No depiction is not the real thing. But anyone who wants to read "fantasy" about anything of a sexual nature involving children is disturbed.

As was the guy in this case.

seamus

It's worth noting that here in Ireland it is actually illegal to have images of child pornography, whether or not they contain real children.

That includes Hentai or Animé. It also includes women posing as children. So if you have a model/porn actress playing an underage girl (as opposed to just dressing in a school uniform or wearing pigtails), then yes you can be done for child pornography. Even if the woman is in her 30's.

It's a weird one and a tough one to call.

My name is URL

So if a porn photographer decided to get an 18 yo girl to dress young for a shoot it would be legal, but if he uses Photshop to add a cartoon filter to the pic it becomes illegal?

Insane!

edit/ didn't see Seamus' post. Still very obscure though

johnny_knoxvile

My name is URL wrote: »

So if a porn photographer decided to get an 18 yo girl to dress young for a shoot it would be legal, but if he uses Photshop to add a cartoon filter to the pic it becomes illegal?

Insane!

edit/ didn't see Seamus' post. Still very obscure though

it may be a tough one to call. But why would anyone go to such lengths to want to achieve such an image or fantasy?

I cant see why anyone would defend it.

biko

seamus wrote: »

It's worth noting that here in Ireland it is actually illegal to have images of child pornography, whether or not they contain real children.

That includes Hentai or Animé. It also includes women posing as children. So if you have a model/porn actress playing an underage girl (as opposed to just dressing in a school uniform or wearing pigtails), then yes you can be done for child pornography. Even if the woman is in her 30's.

Oops She said she was 32, I swear.

My name is URL

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

it may be a tough one to call. But why would anyone go to such lengths to want to achieve such an image or fantasy?

I cant see why anyone would defend it.

God knows tbh, theres hundrends of paraphilias.

Many of them are classed as mental disorders

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

No f*cking normal person would want to look at that sh1t whether its an image or not, its really sick that you're even defending it.

except, he's not.

Reading comprehension, it's fantastic!

LouOB

Jeez Fink
Are you just trolling every single thread here?

I just hope you are never tried by your own standards

walshb

What are the actual laws concerning 'child pornography' here in Ireland.

I mean, to me, I wouldn't be able to view it as it would be far
too upsetting, but to some, it's what gets them off.

I want to know if it's an offence to have images, whether they be electronic or
physical images.

How is it an offence, if it is, to simply view images. What is the crime here?

seamus

It's an offence to be in possession of any image which depicts a child engaged in activity of a sexual nature, basically.

"In possession" I guess doesn't require you to own it or it be in any particular format. However, glancing at a picture in a shop window (for example) is not a crime. In terms of surfing the web, data is cached, so if the Gardai can bring up an illegal image from you cache, then you are "in possession" of said image. With IE/Firefox caches of typically 0.5GB nowadays, anyone who likes to surf this kind of stuff may be at risk.

Karl Hungus

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

I cant see why anyone would defend it.

Why can't you? It's an overboard, hysterical reaction to the issue of child porn, and I'm not just talking about drawings or other depictions here, child porn laws are extremely overboard in a lot of ways (I think Seamus' example is pretty overboard too). There's been many cases of teen girls being charged with child porn possession and distribution, having to be listed as sex offenders, for taking semi-nude or even suggestive pictures of themselves and sending them to boyfriends. Do a quick search on the subject, it's fairly rampant. Here is one example, and it's extremely disturbing when you actually read what some people are defining as child porn. It's a complete witch hunt, and makes no sense, like charging someone who committed suicide with murder.

I absolutely do not defend any actual child porn. There's a victim involved there. There is abuse implicit in an adult pornographer exploiting minors, that's why such laws exist. But slapping the 'victim' (a minor who took a picture of themselves) with severe criminal charges is a step too far. There's no victim involved in a drawing. I think this article is fairly important to this discussion, and illustrates how vague and over the top a lot of child porn laws are becoming, and how fuzzy those definitions are.

seamus wrote: »

It's an offence to be in possession of any image which depicts a child engaged in activity of a sexual nature, basically.

"In possession" I guess doesn't require you to own it or it be in any particular format. However, glancing at a picture in a shop window (for example) is not a crime. In terms of surfing the web, data is cached, so if the Gardai can bring up an illegal image from you cache, then you are "in possession" of said image. With IE/Firefox caches of typically 0.5GB nowadays, anyone who likes to surf this kind of stuff may be at risk.

By those standards, you could get done for possession of child porn if you're reading a forum where someone has posted a funny pedobear pic.

Fink Goddie

LouOB wrote: »

Jeez Fink
Are you just trolling every single thread here?

I just hope you are never tried by your own standards

Nope just cant have an opinion that people dont like in AH or ya get banned.

How am i trolling this thread or any other, tell me that.

Anyway get back on topic xxx

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

except, he's not.

Reading comprehension, it's fantastic!

My reading comprehansion is fine thanks honey.

I see you couldnt help but comment on what i have to say, u love me that much xxx

LouOB

-making statements with no back up
-making statements for the sake of making them
-only posting 'opinions' that seem derogitory or negative
-failing to see 'issues' in the threads
-focusing on people who challenge your closed beliefs
-not being open to others opnions but driving your own, on limited facts or limited reading of previous posts/threads

that enough

please play nice otherwise the guys will red card you
we like discussions but would appreciate if you read the issue rather than making sweeping statements e.g. 'freak'

seamus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

By those standards, you could get done for possession of child porn if you're reading a forum where someone has posted a funny pedobear pic.

I'm not sure actually. I'd need to re-read the legislation, but unless the child is naked or there's some semblance of sexual activity being portrayed, then it wouldn't fall into the category. Innuendo (in-your-endo) isn't the same as actual depiction.

mike65

Karl Hungus wrote: »

There's been many cases of teen girls being charged with child porn possession and distribution, having to be listed as sex offenders, for taking semi-nude or even suggestive pictures of themselves and sending them to boyfriends.

Not to mention incidents the Julia Somerville case.

LouOB

Question - by above standards could you be put on the registered offenerds list without being charged? being that the letter of the law is vague

Fink Goddie

LouOB wrote: »

-making statements with no back up
-making statements for the sake of making them
-only posting 'opinions' that seem derogitory or negative
-failing to see 'issues' in the threads
-focusing on people who challenge your closed beliefs
-not being open to others opnions but driving your own, on limited facts or limited reading of previous posts/threads

that enough

please play nice otherwise the guys will red card you
we like discussions but would appreciate if you read the issue rather than making sweeping statements e.g. 'freak'

When has a statement in AH ever needed back up, this is not a court of law my friend.
I dont only post derogitory or negative posts, and so what if i did, can negative people not post no???
Failing to 'see' issues, nope just stick by my opinion, everyone has a different one, i'm not a sheep.

Focusing on people who challenge my beliefs, its called a discussion, i challenge theirs they challenge mine, not everyone has to agree.

You're the one challenging me, you're also going off topic and talking about me and trolling instead of the OP's statement like i was doing until you started this.
go to feedback if you have a problem.

Kintarō Hattori

Dravokivich wrote: »

"he was also convicted of possessing actual child pornography"

You missed a bit in that report....

No problems with hentai...

the guy actually had child porn FFS!

- Drav!

The OP mentioned the guy had actual child pornography, second line down.

johnny_knoxvile

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Why can't you? It's an overboard, hysterical reaction to the issue of child porn, and I'm not just talking about drawings or other depictions here, child porn laws are extremely overboard in a lot of ways (I think Seamus' example is pretty overboard too). There's been many cases of teen girls being charged with child porn possession and distribution, having to be listed as sex offenders, for taking semi-nude or even suggestive pictures of themselves and sending them to boyfriends. Do a quick search on the subject, it's fairly rampant. Here is one example, and it's extremely disturbing when you actually read what some people are defining as child porn. It's a complete witch hunt, and makes no sense, like charging someone who committed suicide with murder.

I absolutely do not defend any actual child porn. There's a victim involved there. There is abuse implicit in an adult pornographer exploiting minors, that's why such laws exist. But slapping the 'victim' (a minor who took a picture of themselves) with severe criminal charges is a step too far. There's no victim involved in a drawing. I think this article is fairly important to this discussion, and illustrates how vague and over the top a lot of child porn laws are becoming, and how fuzzy those definitions are.



By those standards, you could get done for possession of child porn if you're reading a forum where someone has posted a funny pedobear pic.

my view which you quoted, that i dont know why anyone would try to defend it. That quote was in relation to anyone trying to create or achieve, a picture or fantasy of a minor in a sexual light.

I still do not see how you can defend that. If you want to be my guest. Thats my view.

I was not talking with regard to what teenagers do, regarding your article, or definitions of child porn.

Karl Hungus

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

my view which you quoted, that i dont know why anyone would try to defend it. That quote was in relation to anyone trying to create or achieve, a picture or fantasy of a minor in a sexual light.

I still do not see how you can defend that. If you want to be my guest. Thats my view.

I was not talking with regard to what teenagers do, regarding your article, or definitions of child porn.

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

K-9

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I absolutely do not defend any actual child porn. There's a victim involved there. There is abuse implicit in an adult pornographer exploiting minors, that's why such laws exist. But slapping the 'victim' (a minor who took a picture of themselves) with severe criminal charges is a step too far. There's no victim involved in a drawing. I think this article is fairly important to this discussion, and illustrates how vague and over the top a lot of child porn laws are becoming, and how fuzzy those definitions are.

OK, the law is an ass.

Still, I think possession of cartoon representations of child porn should be illegal.

thelordofcheese

Fink Goddie wrote: »

When has a statement in AH ever needed back up, this is not a court of law my friend.

this is true, but people are far more likely to take you seriously if you can back up what you say.

As for the rest, "abloo, abloo my opinions", fine, have all the opinions you want, more power to you. Just don't expect people to not think less of you if they find your opinions repugnant.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

I'd agree with this, laws exist mainly to protect people. In the case of hentai (which isn't even close to being a realistic depiction of human anatomy) who is the law meant to protect in this case?

walshb

seamus wrote: »

It's an offence to be in possession of any image which depicts a child engaged in activity of a sexual nature, basically.

"In possession" I guess doesn't require you to own it or it be in any particular format. However, glancing at a picture in a shop window (for example) is not a crime. In terms of surfing the web, data is cached, so if the Gardai can bring up an illegal image from you cache, then you are "in possession" of said image. With IE/Firefox caches of typically 0.5GB nowadays, anyone who likes to surf this kind of stuff may be at risk.

As far as I am concerned, adults should be allowed view absolutely anything they want. The criminal is the person committing the act on the child and the person or persons
involved in the actual acts. Go get these guys! If child porn is out there and viewable, then to view it should not be a crime. Like I said, I personally wouldn't be able to view it, but that is just me.

K-9

Karl Hungus wrote: »

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

It doesn't. Say somebody has a depiction or cartoon of the exact same child porn, that is still child porn. Child porn is illegal, not just the abuse.

The problem is people would then see this type of child porn as ok and justify it as such because it isn't illegal.

LouOB

walshb wrote: »

If child porn is out there and viewable, then to view it should not be a crime. .

serious?

what if it was your child?

johnny_knoxvile

Karl Hungus wrote: »

My points with regards to what teenagers do, articles linked, and definitions, are all to do with how I could defend it. Because child porn laws exist to protect children from being abused and exploited by pornographers, the children themselves are victims. A drawing, cartoon, painting, or any other depiction has no victim.

the cartoon has no victim. Why anyone would want to depict children in a sexual manner? (my point, how can you defend that, im not discussing the point of Law)

In MY OWN opinion, victimless or not that is morally wrong and pretty disturbing.

As with this case, it was not just fantasy, he was in possession of child porn.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, adults should be allowed view absolutely anything they want. The criminal is the person committing the act on the child and the person or persons
involved in the actual acts. Go get these guys! If child porn is out there and viewable, then to view it should not be a crime. Like I said, I personally wouldn't be able to view it, but that is just me.

This comes with the argument that the demand for childporn drives the people who commit and photo said acts. Basically if there is a market for it, someone will step up and supply it.

Arresting the viewer is effectively trying to crush the demand and ergo reduce the supply.
Think the war on drugs only with less people and money.

K-9 wrote: »

It doesn't. Say somebody has a depiction or cartoon of the exact same child porn, that is still child porn. Child porn is illegal, not just the abuse.

i would imagine child porn is illegal BECAUSE of the abuse, but that's just me

walshb

LouOB wrote: »

serious?

what if it was your child?

Yes, to view something, how the hell is that a crime and where does one
draw the line? We view/see crime every day of the week on
the television and nobody is prosecuted.

How can viewing OR seeing be a crime?

If I click on my google search for these images and they pop up and I view them, what
exact crime have I committed?

So, all those who logged in to watch beheadings, what should be
done with them?

Now, participating in the acts is where the crime is!

Karl Hungus

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'd agree with this, laws exist mainly to protect people. In the case of hentai (which isn't even close to being a realistic depiction of human anatomy) who is the law meant to protect in this case?

Exactly. It's like comparing a snuff movie to one of the Guinea Pig films. One is a very real thing where there's a victim of a crime, and the other is just a depiction that you could buy on Amazon.

Fink Goddie

thelordofcheese wrote: »

this is true, but people are far more likely to take you seriously if you can back up what you say.

As for the rest, "abloo, abloo my opinions", fine, have all the opinions you want, more power to you. Just don't expect people to not think less of you if they find your opinions repugnant.

I did back up my opinion in the michael jackson thread, hanging a child off a balcony and thinking your peter pan is back up enough. If he was a normal guy and not MJ people would agree but because he sings a few songs people like they get their back up.

Some people agree with my opinions, some might think they're repugnant, but thats life, we cant all have the same opinion and if we were all banned from having a different opinion there would be no boards.ie

You're dragging this thread off topic, something i got in trouble for doing in the zimmer gang thread.

back on topic please Lordofcheese, stop obsessing over me and everything i say, i know u love me but this is ridiculous xxx

seamus

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This comes with the argument that the demand for childporn drives the people who commit and photo said acts. Basically if there is a market for it, someone will step up and supply it.

Arresting the viewer is effectively trying to crush the demand and ergo reduce the supply.
Think the war on drugs only with less people and money.

This is probably the "gateway" argument in a different guise. There's nothing to say that someone can enjoy depictions of child porn, while at the same time realising that actual child porn causes grief and suffering, therefore they avoid actual child porn and opt for cartoons. In much the same way that people buy fair trade coffee I guess.

You can apply the same criteria to other non-illegal forms of "weird" porn, such as torture porn or rape porn. They depict events in a simulated manner - events which would be illegal if they actually occurred. The argument exists that some people enjoy these forms of porn without any desire to mimic the actions in real life and actively working to avoid "real" images.

K-9

thelordofcheese wrote: »

This comes with the argument that the demand for childporn drives the people who commit and photo said acts. Basically if there is a market for it, someone will step up and supply it.

Arresting the viewer is effectively trying to crush the demand and ergo reduce the supply.
Think the war on drugs only with less people and money.



i would imagine child porn is illegal BECAUSE of the abuse, but that's just me

The consuming of drugs is illegal, not just the supply.

johnny_knoxvile

thelordofcheese wrote: »

this is true, but people are far more likely to take you seriously if you can back up what you say.

As for the rest, "abloo, abloo my opinions", fine, have all the opinions you want, more power to you. Just don't expect people to not think less of you if they find your opinions repugnant.

is that a general sweeping statement of your own? Or can you support that?

My name is URL

walshb wrote: »

Yes, to view something, how the hell is that a crime and where does one
draw the line? We view/see crime every day of the week on
the television and nobody is prosecuted.

How can viewing OR seeing be a crime?

If I click on my google search for these images and they pop up and I view them, what
exact crime have I committed?

Now, participating in the acts is where the crime is!

Unless you deliberately save the image on more than a few occasions I doubt you'd be prosecuted. Most cases involve people who actively share pictures of child abuse in large numbers, and visit sites intentionally for that purpose.

thelordofcheese

seamus wrote: »

This is probably the "gateway" argument in a different guise. There's nothing to say that someone can enjoy depictions of child porn, while at the same time realising that actual child porn causes grief and suffering, therefore they avoid actual child porn and opt for cartoons. In much the same way that people buy fair trade coffee I guess.

of course, my bad - i should have made it clear i was refering explicitly to 'real' child porn with that post. As far as i'm concerned hentai child porn is legally fine. Morally... well your millage may vary on that.

K-9 wrote: »

The consuming of drugs is illegal, not just the supply.

Not like with like though. A closer example would be snuff films, i'd imagine. They are illegal because killing someone is illegal - not the other way around.

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

is that a general sweeping statement of your own?

nope, but thanks for playing.

Fink Goddie

Anyone remember the case in Ireland where a load of employees in an insurance company got sacked for sharing images of Lisa and Bart Simpson that were viewed as child porn??

walshb

My name is URL wrote: »

Unless you deliberately save the image on more than a few occasions I doubt you'd be prosecuted. Most cases involve people who actively share pictures of child abuse in large numbers, and visit sites intentionally for that purpose.

I know what you mean. I think it's the actual downloading that is the problem; but it can be tricky, because maybe a person viewed images, clicked the 'x' to get rid of the image, yet it was saved to cache?

I am not a tech expert, but if an image is displayed and viewed and the person then
clicks the 'x' to close the image, does this image get stored somewhere that it can be retrieved without
the user knowing this?

K-9

seamus wrote: »

You can apply the same criteria to other non-illegal forms of "weird" porn, such as torture porn or rape porn. They depict events in a simulated manner - events which would be illegal if they actually occurred. The argument exists that some people enjoy these forms of porn without any desire to mimic the actions in real life and actively working to avoid "real" images.

I can see the point there alright. I suppose the underlying assumption is there that it is fantasy porn and it's consenting adults.

I suppose you could argue this is similar. If it's sexual depictions of 5/6 year olds it tends to blur that line though.

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

I am not a tech expert, but if an image is displayed and viewed and the person then
clicks the 'x' to close the image, does this image get stored?

Yup, and deleting a file doesn't get rid of it either. Ain't technology grand