Man convicted of "child porn" after viewing *animated cartoons*

hatrickpatrick

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/paedophile-had-25-cartoons-of-child-porn-on-pc-3167614.html

A CONVICTED child abuser downloaded computer-generated child porn because he wanted to get sexual gratification without involving children, a court has heard.

Traces of 25 computer-generated images showing children involved in sexually explicit activity were found on computer hard drives belonging to John O'Neill (54).

The court heard that O'Neill of Moyne Road, Ranelagh, Dublin had downloaded the images for free after using search terms "porn toons" and "3D Incest".

Toddlers

Detective Garda Mark O'Neill told Una Ni Raifeartaigh, prosecuting, said that the images did not depict real children but they were very graphic and clearly made to look like children. The images showed graphic depictions of sexual activity with very graphic speech bubbles.

When confronted with the images, O'Neill said he viewed them out of boredom and found them sexually gratifying.

He said viewing the thumbnail images of children as young as toddlers was like using a TV remote control.

He also said he didn't think there was any harm in it and said he thought it was a safe way of getting gratification without involving children.

O'Neill later agreed with gardai that if there wasn't a demand for the images they wouldn't be produced.

O'Neill pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to possession of 25 images of child pornography at his flat on dates between October 24, 2008 and January 10, 2009.

He previously received a 10- year prison term for rape, indecent assault and sexual assault of minors. This sentence was reviewed seven years later and O'Neill released under probation for five years.

The court heard he was on the Sex Offenders' List and was being monitored and had undergone after his release and treatment.

Forensic

Remy Farrell, defending, said O'Neill's orientation was "a life long issue". He argued that these offences were at the lowest end of the spectrum because O'Neill had only viewed the images without saving them.

Experts at the Garda Computer Crime Unit used forensic software to retrieve traces of the viewed images.

Mr Farrell said without his client's guilty plea there could have been an "interesting legal issue" around whether simply looking at porn would amount to possession.

Judge Martin Nolan adjourned sentencing until Tuesday next to consider the appropriate course of action.

Now, first of all before anyone goes down this route, I loathe those who abuse children with a firey passion and regard it as among the most evil crimes one can commit.

However.

This case really bothers me. Since when does the definition of abuse cover fictional, drawn characters? Who is being harmed in these images, exactly?
This is straying dangerously away from the "protecting children" angle to the "thought crime" angle. In this particular case, no real human beings were being abused or harmed. Realistic or not, they weren't real. How does that count as a crime?

I actually find the fact that the court considered this a real crime extremely disturbing. Where does it end, exactly? What if he had been reading x rated stories involving minors? What if someone views a fictional movie depicting adults engaged in an illegal activity, does that count somehow as a crime too? Slippery slop is ridiculously slippery. I can't think of any way to describe this other than "thought crime".

Opinions from AH?

Professey Chin

Japans fcuked

starbelgrade

I cracked one off over the Cabury's Flake bunny once.

Nothing to do with this issue really. Just felt like sharing.

Chuck Stone

I'm too thick to give this serious thought so 'kill all peados' will have to suffice.

'KILL ALL PEADOS'

hatrickpatrick

starbelgrade wrote: »

I cracked one off over the Cabury's Flake bunny once.

Nothing to do with this issue really. Just felt like sharing.

How long have you been burning for an opportunity to get that off your conscience? :P

Scioch

Bit disturbing alright, is watching Jerry smack Tom in the face with a frying pan animal cruelty now

Fight_Night

This is a disgrace imo. Yes I think we'd all agree that pedophilia is disgusting, but the sad fact is that some people are attracted to children. This is certainly a better alternative to real child porn and nobody is getting harmed in the making of it. Aside from that, is that essentially saying that you cannot draw pictures of certain things?

Tombi!

Firstly, he didn't possess it, just viewed it but the article says he downloaded it?

I think it's horrible what happened.

It was 3D images. It's not the courts fault. The law is this country is downright idiotic at times and judges have to abide by it.

It's not child porn, it's not real. It's more of a "well you have weird taste but don't share it with me".

I don't think he possessed it. I do think (if this was actual child porn) searching for it is pretty stupid and should be dealt with.

But come on it's animated. It's not like I see a few kids at a beach and start drawing them. That's creepy.

I hate this shíthole of a country at times

Millicent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/paedophile-had-25-cartoons-of-child-porn-on-pc-3167614.html



Now, first of all before anyone goes down this route, I loathe those who abuse children with a firey passion and regard it as among the most evil crimes one can commit.

However.

This case really bothers me. Since when does the definition of abuse cover fictional, drawn characters? Who is being harmed in these images, exactly?
This is straying dangerously away from the "protecting children" angle to the "thought crime" angle. In this particular case, no real human beings were being abused or harmed. Realistic or not, they weren't real. How does that count as a crime?

I actually find the fact that the court considered this a real crime extremely disturbing. Where does it end, exactly? What if he had been reading x rated stories involving minors? What if someone views a fictional movie depicting adults engaged in an illegal activity, does that count somehow as a crime too? Slippery slop is ridiculously slippery. I can't think of any way to describe this other than "thought crime".

Opinions from AH?

Yeah, I'm in two minds about this. I would think, perhaps, that treatment might be the answer rather than a jail sentence. Then again, should we arrest everyone who reads Lolita or who reads hentai? It's one I'm glad not to have to decide on, tbh.

krudler

starbelgrade wrote: »

I cracked one off over the Cabury's Flake bunny once.

Nothing to do with this issue really. Just felt like sharing.

who hasnt? that rabbit has some curves.

humbert

I think it crosses the line between harming children and committing thought crime.

starbelgrade

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How long have you been burning for an opportunity to get that off your conscience? :P

Since the late 1980s probably.

Still, she was sexy little bunny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLIALgETSM

Tombi!

Here's a thought: if he drew images of cartoon kids for his own use (ew)... is he producing child porn?

Millicent wrote: »

Yeah, I'm in two minds about this. I would think, perhaps, that treatment might be the answer rather than a jail sentence. Then again, should we arrest everyone who reads Lolita or who reads hentai? It's one I'm glad not to have to decide on, tbh.

I thought hentai was drawn images?
But yes, according to Irish law if you did view hentai and the imaginary girls were underage, it's child porn. That's the exact thing that happened to the poor guy in the OP.

Owen_S

Obviously it's quite a messed up case, but at least no children were harmed as a result of this animated stuff.

Gongoozler

That is actually mental. I read and re-read in an attempt to find what the crime he committed was, assuming the thread title was just sensationalist, but that really is it. I suppose the word 'depicting' may cover animation...

Odaise Gaelach

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Firstly, he didn't possess it, just viewed it but the article says he downloaded it?

Well, technically, in order to view content on the web it needs to travel from a webserver to your computer and thus is downloaded, regardless of whether it's being permanently stored on the computer or not.

saiint

oh gawd imagin been banged up for **** over cartoon pictures
media will love this

Ms.M

I've watched them animé porn things. They're only cartoons!!!!!!
I'm a good person!!!

Tombi!

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

Well, technically, in order to view content on the web it needs to travel from a webserver to your computer and thus is being downloaded, regardless of whether it's being permanently stored on the computer or not.

Well when one thinks of downloading it's more of a "save file" thing.
I forget where but one country (or state in America maybe) did rule that coming across child porn and not saving it/trying to view more is legal.

But still, even he searched for cartoon porn, who gíves a fúck, it's a ****ing imaginary cartoon. (that wasn't in reply to your post though)

Sinfonia

That makes no sense.

hatrickpatrick

Millicent wrote: »

Yeah, I'm in two minds about this. I would think, perhaps, that treatment might be the answer rather than a jail sentence. Then again, should we arrest everyone who reads Lolita or who reads hentai? It's one I'm glad not to have to decide on, tbh.

TBH I would decide on it very easily. No real human being being abused = no offense.
These laws exist to prevent children being abused for the purposes of filming and distributing. Kill the market for it and you kill the supply.

They do not exist to prohibit certain fantasies. I mean let's take this even further: If he is found to have pictured illegal activity in his mind, should that also be a crime? I honestly don't see a difference. This is fantasy. It's cartoon. It's text.

This absolutely should not be a crime. Not because I approve of it, but because to be honest I don't want to live in a society which criminalizes things purely based on "bad taste".

Gummy Panda

It's considered intent. If I remember correctly, if you look at porn featuring an actor who looks and is depicted as underage even though they're legal, you can be arrested and put on sex offenders list

Millicent

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I thought hentai was drawn images?
But yes, according to Irish law if you did view hentai and the imaginary girls were underage, it's child porn. That's the exact thing that happened to the poor guy in the OP.

He's not a "poor guy", to be fair. He was somebody Googling "3D incest". I'd say intervention with a counsellor or something similar might be a good approach if our legal system deems him guilty. That's not to say I'm comfortable with what he's been found guilty of. I'd rather someone view that kind of porn than one of a child being abused.

Tombi!

The guy was a convicted child abuser.
But I have to say at least he had a f**king good idea to keep him away from real kids.

Gummy Panda wrote: »

It's considered intent. If I remember correctly, if you look at porn featuring an actor who looks and is depicted as underage even though they're legal, you can be arrested and put on sex offenders list

In Ireland? It's still messed up though. There are women aged in their 30s that still look young and have barely any womanly features.

starbelgrade

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't want to live in a society which criminalizes things purely based on "bad taste".

Jedward & Westlife would agree.

RobbieTheRobber

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/paedophile-had-25-cartoons-of-child-porn-on-pc-3167614.html



Now, first of all before anyone goes down this route, I loathe those who abuse children with a firey passion and regard it as among the most evil crimes one can commit.

However.

This case really bothers me. Since when does the definition of abuse cover fictional, drawn characters? Who is being harmed in these images, exactly?
This is straying dangerously away from the "protecting children" angle to the "thought crime" angle. In this particular case, no real human beings were being abused or harmed. Realistic or not, they weren't real. How does that count as a crime?

I actually find the fact that the court considered this a real crime extremely disturbing. Where does it end, exactly? What if he had been reading x rated stories involving minors? What if someone views a fictional movie depicting adults engaged in an illegal activity, does that count somehow as a crime too? Slippery slop is ridiculously slippery. I can't think of any way to describe this other than "thought crime".

Opinions from AH?

He is an offender and was being monitored.
I think in this case the judge should look at some sort of treatment.
However he was still getting sexual gratification from viewing images of children and as such posed a risk to real children.
I can only imagine the AH outrage had this man re offended and then it was found out that garda had information about him viewing images but didn't act.

So I think they had to go after him and once the DPP had the file this has to go to court.
Perhaps a lighter sentence but with continued monitoring because in this case it worked.

The Snipe

This is a disgrace, considering a lot of Hentai is based around minors (if you consider some videos, and a lot of the doujinshi are based off Anime, such as Pokemon etc. where the characters are minors). Aswell as there being a full section (Lolicon) based around this.

Although I do not condone child porn in anyway, as mentioned this is a very very messy ordeal.

Tombi!

Millicent wrote: »

He's not a "poor guy", to be fair. He was somebody Googling "3D incest". I'd say intervention with a counsellor or something similar might be a good approach if our legal system deems him guilty. That's not to say I'm comfortable with what he's been found guilty of. I'd rather someone view that kind of porn than one of a child being abused.

In this case I have nothing buy sympthy for him.

Being "cured" of liking kids is like being cured of being gay, it's impossible.

All of us have fantasies. Who's to say his 3d cartoons weren't just fantasies?
There's a bunch of lovers of porn where the actors pretend to be related.

I still feel disgusted. I honestly think he had the right idea if it prevent him going near kids. But there you go, he's demonized for trying to fix his own issues.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

However he was still getting sexual gratification from viewing images of children and as such posed a risk to real children.

I get sexual gratification about looking at sexy blondes.
Am I danger to blonde women?

No, I'm not. That attitude of "he's a danger" is outdated and is akin to all man are rapists for looking at porn.

RobbieTheRobber

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

The guy was a convicted child abuser.
But I have to say at least he had a f**king good idea to keep him away from real kids.



In Ireland? It's still messed up though. There are women aged in their 30s that still look young and have barely any womanly features.

If you knew they were overage I don't think there is a legal issue or surely then genre of schoolgirl porn would be child porn.

RobbieTheRobber

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

In this case I have nothing buy sympthy for him.

Being "cured" of liking kids is like being cured of being gay, it's impossible.

All of us have fantasies. Who's to say his 3d cartoons weren't just fantasies?
There's a bunch of lovers of porn where the actors pretend to be related.

I still feel disgusted. I honestly think he had the right idea if it prevent him going near kids. But there you go, he's demonized for trying to fix his own issues.



I get sexual gratification about looking at sexy blondes.
Am I danger to blonde women?

No, I'm not. That attitude of "he's a danger" is outdated and is akin to all man are rapists for looking at porn.

Have you raped women?
This guy was a convicted paedo, should the justice system have just released him and pretended he never done wrong when he was released?

Gummy Panda

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

In Ireland? It's still messed up though. There are women aged in their 30s that still look young and have barely any womanly features.

How they're depicted is important. It's the same in the UK. A guy got done for having some video of an Asian American pornstar called kitty. He proved she was legal age but judge ruled it was intent based on her being depicted as a minor.

Tombi!

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If you knew they were overage I don't think there is a legal issue or surely then genre of schoolgirl porn would be child porn.

Hmm, I misunderstood what you were saying, sorry.
But there are women who do look as young as 11/12/13 etc. Still it's bizzare that stuff like that is allowed (once you know they're really overage) but cartoon porn isn't.

I wonder if I made a cartoon and said "these are all over 18" but drew them as 11/12/13 am I a child abuser?

SeaFields

If i remember correctly a number of people were convicted of possessing CP for having those the Simpsons cartoon porn that did the rounds awhile back. I think this was in the UK rather than here tho.

Millicent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

TBH I would decide on it very easily. No real human being being abused = no offense.
These laws exist to prevent children being abused for the purposes of filming and distributing. Kill the market for it and you kill the supply.

They do not exist to prohibit certain fantasies. I mean let's take this even further: If he is found to have pictured illegal activity in his mind, should that also be a crime? I honestly don't see a difference. This is fantasy. It's cartoon. It's text.

This absolutely should not be a crime. Not because I approve of it, but because to be honest I don't want to live in a society which criminalizes things purely based on "bad taste".

But given that he was on a sex offenders list and was being monitored, it gets a bit more murky than that. I would assume he would have been instructed to keep away from any materials or images linked to the abuse of children.

As I said, I'm in two minds. At least he wasn't complicit in children being harmed but he wasn't being whiter than white either. Again, some treatment would be in order, I would think, to help him deal with those impulses.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Being "cured" of liking kids is like being cured of being gay, it's impossible.

What are you basing that on though? I don't know that I would agree that paedophilia is innate. I can't find any studies to suggest either way at the moment either.

Tombi!

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Have you raped women?
This guy was a convicted paedo, should the justice system have just released him and pretended he never done wrong when he was released?

He was a conviced abuser. It didn't say what he did. There are many different things that come close to "abuse" under the law.

I still think he had the right idea with the cartoon porn.

Gummy Panda wrote: »

How they're depicted is important. It's the same in the UK. A guy got done for having some video of an Asian American pornstar called kitty. He proved she was legal age but judge ruled it was intent based on her being depicted as a minor.

I know her, Kitty Yung. I think she's her in late 20s or so. I assume it was based on the file name. I mean if I go looking for a pornstar who is clearly over the age of 18 do I need to have her say "I was born in 19xx, I'm 18 or over so this islegal!" in every video. I'm still in shock at this stuff.

someuser905

i just watched a bank robbery video, maybe i get arrested for thought crime intent?

RobbieTheRobber

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

He was a conviced abuser. It didn't say what he did. There are many different things that come close to "abuse" under the law.

I still think he had the right idea with the cartoon porn.

It said;
He previously received a 10- year prison term for rape, indecent assault and sexual assault of minors. This sentence was reviewed seven years later and O'Neill released under probation for five years.

I think what happened in this case was the right thing to do. He posed a risk!

Tombi!

Millicent wrote: »

What are you basing that on though? I don't know that I would agree that paedophilia is innate. I can't find any studies to suggest either way at the moment either.

That it's a fetish. I know it sounds like I'm defending it or I'm trying to normalize it.

I'm not, at all. But I honestly believe it's no different to having an attraction towards feet, for example.
Some fetishes are clearly more dangerous (like kids, rape, etc). Some just shouldn't be acted on and should be given some sort of help to help control it. Thats my thoughts on it at least.

Tombi!

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

It said;
He previously received a 10- year prison term for rape, indecent assault and sexual assault of minors. This sentence was reviewed seven years later and O'Neill released under probation for five years.

Oh. That's um, I'll just shut up

But still I think he does have a point with the whole fake images.

Of course the fact he did abuse someone takes it to the area of "I really think he shouldn't be getting thoughts about rape again".

Bit of a grey area. But I still think he does have the right idea (for non convicted abusers).

PrincessLola

No real children were involved. Its basically just a provate fantasy, no one is getting hurt. You can't police people's thoughts and fantasies.

Millicent

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

That it's a fetish. I know it sounds like I'm defending it or I'm trying to normalize it.

I'm not, at all. But I honestly believe it's no different to having an attraction towards feet, for example.
Some fetishes are clearly more dangerous (like kids, rape, etc). Some just shouldn't be acted on and should be given some sort of help to help control it. Thats my thoughts on it at least.

Ah no, I know you're not trying to defend it. Don't worry.

I just wonder is innate or learned. A massive proportion of paedophiles have been abused themselves. That would suggest to me that it is learned as are other fetishes.

RobbieTheRobber

PrincessLola wrote: »

No real children were involved. Its basically just a provate fantasy, no one is getting hurt. You can't police people's thoughts and fantasies.

No but we can police what they view on the internet and in this case the law does.

flyswatter

We're tiny, we're toony, We're all a little looney.

Tombi!

Millicent wrote: »

Ah no, I know you're not trying to defend it. Don't worry.

I just wonder is innate or learned. A massive proportion of paedophiles have been abused themselves. That would suggest to me that it is learned as are other fetishes.

Interesting. I was raped as a kid but I don't remember ever being attracted to kids though I was very young when it happened.

It could be more of a taboo thing.
I mean when I was 12/13/14 I'd notice in kids shows some of the girls were really sexy for shows aimed at kids (obviously to attract the guys as viewers) but still, I don't think it's a "monkey see, monkey do" kind of learning. I think it's more akin to a "oh I can't have them" sort of thing.

Crooked Jack

Tough one alright. I can see for a lot of people it's difficult differentiating between this particular person's scenario and the more general issue of legislating taste.
Honestly, while i think this fella is a scumbag and the idea of someone sitting down to draw kiddie porn is revolting and disturbing, I dont think there is any actual crime here.
Maybe for him particularly there was because of his release and as someone said earlier there were probably certain restrictions on what he could and couldnt do, but in general i think it's a dangerous ruling.

With that said the most shocking thing about that whole story is that this fucker was done for "rape, indecent assault and sexual assault of minors" and was out in seven years.

Tombi!

Crooked Jack wrote: »

With that said the most shocking thing about that whole story is that this fucker was done for "rape, indecent assault and sexual assault of minors" and was out in seven years.

I know, this is Ireland! He should have been out on bail within two hours. :pac:

Monkeybonkers

starbelgrade wrote: »

I cracked one off over the Cabury's Flake bunny once.

Nothing to do with this issue really. Just felt like sharing.

:eek: What is wrong with you? You're cracking one out over the bunny when you have this at your disposal:

Tombi!

Monkeybonkers wrote: »

:eek: What is wrong with you? You're cracking one out over the bunny when you have this at your disposal:

She better be over 18!

Millicent

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Interesting. I was raped as a kid but I don't remember ever being attracted to kids though I was very young when it happened.

It could be more of a taboo thing.
I mean when I was 12/13/14 I'd notice in kids shows some of the girls were really sexy for shows aimed at kids (obviously to attract the guys as viewers) but still, I don't think it's a "monkey see, monkey do" kind of learning. I think it's more akin to a "oh I can't have them" sort of thing.

I'm really sorry that happened to you.

There are not enough statistics out there on paedophilia, AFAIK, to have a proper picture of abuser types, causes, treatment success etc. I think part of the problem is how vilified those with paedophilic tendencies are in media and in society.

There are paedophiles who never harm kids. I found a really interesting, thought-provoking article here on the Guardian while I was searching for statistics. You might like to give it a read.

Tombi!

Millicent wrote: »

I'm really sorry that happened to you.

There are not enough statistics out there on paedophilia, AFAIK, to have a proper picture of abuser types, causes, treatment success etc. I think part of the problem is how vilified those with paedophilic tendencies are in media and in society.

There are paedophiles who never harm kids. I found a really interesting, thought-provoking article here on the Guardian while I was searching for statistics. You might like to give it a read.

I was raped once so it's not like I was put in through a cycle of abuse. I think I came to terms with it years ago. Or maybe my constant source of jokes is a defense thing

I'll read through that sometime. But I think it really does come down into two areas: the ones that generally wouldn't harm a child and views them in the same way one might view a potential boyfriend/girlriend but for whatever reason wouldn't get one. And the people who do molest kids.

One is (ideally) not going to be a harm to kids and the other is just messed up.

Millicent

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I was raped once so it's not like I was put in through a cycle of abuse. I think I came to terms with it years ago. Or maybe my constant source of jokes is a defense thing

I'll read through that sometime. But I think it really does come down into two areas: the ones that generally wouldn't harm a child and views them in the same way one might view a potential boyfriend/girlriend but for whatever reason wouldn't get one. And the people who do molest kids.

One is (ideally) not going to be a harm to kids and the other is just messed up.

Still a horrible thing to happen. I hope you're dealing with it okay now.

And do give it a read. It makes you think that line between the two is not as clear cut as one might think.