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

Lone Stone

Quick arrest the animators !!

Close down their studio's and parade them on tv for manufacturing and producing a fictitious cartoon with super powers monsters and school girls who may or may not be of a certin age as their age is never disclosed and entirely subject to the viewers imagination and or perception of what it is they are meant to be looking at.

Sinfonia

*underage* ( . ) ( . ) *underage*


Ha! Everybody in this thread is now a paedophile, worthy of conviction.

Richard Hillman

Just reading the article again, he was arrested for looking at "thumbnails" of the videos. So he didnt watch the videos, they were image links to the videos.

cocoshovel

This genuinly makes me feel quite nervous about what I view online in this ****hole now. To think somebody could be just labelled a pedophile just for doing something like that (ignore his other convictions) is horrible. I think I would consider offing myself if that happened to me. Your entire life would just be destroyed in an instant. Family, friends, the whole country would hate you etc. and honestly, do the Gardai not have REAL PEDOPHILES to go after?

We've all seen stupidly drawn cartoon porn of minors. I remember back in 1st year of school people were discovering these badly drawn ****e pictures of simpsons porn on their phones, and everyone was amazed by them!

Those who are a bit more adventurous on the web have ALL wandered into that dodgey hentai board of a specific website, or that certain imgur /r/(or whatever its called). Even when browsing the "normal" porn sites they do pop up every now and then.

Most people arent into it. A lot of people have viewed it out of pure curiosity. But to convict someone as a pedophile for viewing it just sickening imo. Its NOTHING like real child pornography. Christ almighty.

Im interested to know where exactly in the law books does it say "viewing drawn images of underage porn is illegal".

Millicent

cocoshovel wrote: »

This genuinly makes me feel quite nervous about what I view online in this ****hole now. To think somebody could be just labelled a pedophile just for doing something like that (ignore his other convictions) is horrible. I think I would consider offing myself if that happened to me. Your entire life you just be destroyed. Family, friends, the whole country would hate you etc.

To be fair, he was a paedophile before this. You can't really ignore his other convictions in this context.

Tombi!

cocoshovel, he was on bail if I remember right.
No doubt it was more of a "don't be an idiot" and he was an idiot.

cocoshovel

Thats why I said ignore his previous convictions.

Perhaps I over reacted to the sentence, but I read a similar story on RTE about 2 months ago. It makes me wonder that if without previous convictions could someone be convicted for something like this?

Millicent

cocoshovel wrote: »

Thats why I said ignore his previous convictions.

But you can't. It's pertinent to the discussion. He's inseparable from his convictions and was labelled a paedophile before this sentence. Flouting the terms of your probation/bail and getting done for it is not the same as someone being done for watching a cartoon. He should have been on his best behaviour. I'm guessing that his behaviour was seen by the judge as disrespecting the court's ruling and was thus cracked down on.

LETS BE AVN IT

Computer graphics are getting more realistic every year , what happens when the graphics look very like real humans ? Will people think it's acceptable to look at this stuff then. I think the law did it's job here , if someone on the sex register is looking around porn sites I'm glad he was monitored.

batistuta9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To all those saying the sentence is justified because he was convicted, if I get convicted of a bank heist tomorrow should I subsequently be arrested for watching Ocean's 11 or the Italian Job? Both are entirely fictional depictions of heists which never actually happened to any actual human beings.

You and most other people here don't seem to understand what exactly is considered child pornography - or maybe you do but don't think it should be considered such.

child pornography can be a photo, video, computer generated image or picture, drawing, cartoon, sculpture, painting, even writings that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or the likes


this is a site with U.S. laws regarding it but i'd say a lot of what's covered under child pornography there is the same in a lot of countries.
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

batistuta9

LordSmeg wrote: »

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

No.

But i'd say that woman - tom's owner, you only see her legs - hitting tom with a brush at times, wouldn't be a million miles away in some peoples eyes.

Millicent

Millicent wrote: »

To be fair, he was a paedophile before this. You can't really ignore his other convictions in this context.

Well generally previous convictions are only used in court at the sentencing stage I thought.

batistuta9

Millicent wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Millicent wrote: »

See this I most strongly agree with. I think paedophiles are ****ed up people who need help.

you seem to think it can be cured or something they learn. maybe it is something that is brought on by a abuse experience but you'll have to take my word for this as i seen it in a program...

that when monitoring the brains of different paedophiles whilst viewing images of men, women and children the only time the part of the brain that is stimulated - or whatever it's called - by attraction showed any reaction at all was when the image was that of a child, nothing what so ever for any other image as if they were asexual

so how can you cure that? it'd be like trying to cure a homosexual or trying to make a heterosexual person stop being attracted to the opposite gender.

Denise90

My worry here is that they have taken away the one safe(to children) outlet this person had that "gratified" him. Does he try to find a new (or old) way to act out his fantasies? Everyone would like to think that being punished would alleviate him of his problems but we know that isn't true for the most part. Worse yet, he may become more creative.

Ellis Dee

Richard Hillman wrote: »

--- Could you imagine the **** storm that would take place if the government amended the law to allow such stuff. The opposition would have a field day and the media will go into overdrive. Joe Duffy would explode.

I'm just having a delightful vision of that happening - literally, with bits of him flying all over Dublin.:D:D:D

I suppose that makes me guilty of some pretty major-league thought crime in addition to wishful thinking.:)

CodyJarrett

Won't somebody please think of the ink.

Crooked Jack

Sinfonia wrote: »

*underage* ( . ) ( . ) *underage*


Ha! Everybody in this thread is now a paedophile, worthy of conviction.

No way those bad boys are underage. They are clearly the product of the long trek through puberty and a womanly dose of oestrogen.

smash

I watched Rambo last night... does that make me an accessory to 500 fake murders?

Millicent

batistuta9 wrote: »

you seem to think it can be cured or something they learn. maybe it is something that is brought on by a abuse experience but you'll have to take my word for this as i seen it in a program...

that when monitoring the brains of different paedophiles whilst viewing images of men, women and children the only time the part of the brain that is stimulated - or whatever it's called - by attraction showed any reaction at all was when the image was that of a child, nothing what so ever for any other image as if they were asexual

so how can you cure that? it'd be like trying to cure a homosexual or trying to make a heterosexual person stop being attracted to the opposite gender.

A person's brain function can change over time in response to different events. That doesn't mean the change has to be permanent or that paedophilia is biological. As someone else posted, it is a paraphilia meaning it is a learned sexual preference. Anything learned can be unlearned with enough work and will.

wilkie2006

humbert wrote: »

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

Humbert?

Humbert Humbert?

smash

Has anyone ever been done for uploading photos of their children bathing etc on facebook, flickr, pix.ie? Doubt it...

batistuta9

Millicent wrote: »

A person's brain function can change over time in response to different events. That doesn't mean the change has to be permanent or that paedophilia is biological. As someone else posted, it is a paraphilia meaning it is a learned sexual preference. Anything learned can be unlearned with enough work and will.

so your saying all paedophiles "learned" that behaviour

Tombi!

batistuta9 wrote: »

so your saying all paedophiles "learned" that behaviour

Not all.

Stiffler2

I don't see the problem here ?

someone gets murdered - they're out in a week
someone draws a picture - they're a paedo

isn't this how Irish justice works ??

seems normal to me


* total disgrace tho, no way should that have even made it to court
Totally F****g stupid

PrincessLola

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Humbert?

Humbert Humbert?

Unfortunate user name.

PrincessLola

I still think this is trying to punish thought crime tho.

I could draw two stick figures having sex on MS paint and then say one of them is 15 and that would be child porn by the law's definition.

Fupping Grasshole

PrincessLola wrote: »

I still think this is trying to punish thought crime tho.

I could draw two stick figures having sex on MS paint and then say one of them is 15 and that would be child porn by the law's definition.

Is everyone over 18 on this epic thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055045591

:pac:

Stiffler2

Was he in the IT industry.
I have this feeling that all paedo's work in I.T. ?

steddyeddy

batistuta9 wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Millicent wrote: »

See this I most strongly agree with. I think paedophiles are ****ed up people who need help.

you seem to think it can be cured or something they learn. maybe it is something that is brought on by a abuse experience but you'll have to take my word for this as i seen it in a program...

that when monitoring the brains of different paedophiles whilst viewing images of men, women and children the only time the part of the brain that is stimulated - or whatever it's called - by attraction showed any reaction at all was when the image was that of a child, nothing what so ever for any other image as if they were asexual

so how can you cure that? it'd be like trying to cure a homosexual or trying to make a heterosexual person stop being attracted to the opposite gender.

Please dont compare homosexuality to the desire to abuse a child.

wonderfullife

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

I can't find any reference to that in the Statute books - either the original act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/index.html or the 2007 Ammendment.

Furthermore that would be saying if you have a 40 year old porn 'actress' (cough) dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, clear under-age depiction no? If that was an offence then a lot of us would be locked up!!

Gummy Panda

wonderfullife wrote: »

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

I can't find any reference to that in the Statute books - either the original act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/index.html or the 2007 Ammendment.

Furthermore that would be saying if you have a 40 year old porn 'actress' (cough) dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, clear under-age depiction no? If that was an offence then a lot of us would be locked up!!

It's in the definition section. Your example doesn't apply. The actress would have to look preteen and depicted as one.

Gummy Panda

Gummy Panda wrote: »

It's in the definition section. Your example doesn't apply. The actress would have to look preteen and depicted as one.

Not preteen, just under the age of consent.. As far as I can gather, having sex with a woman who is dressed as a highschool student at halloween is legal but viewing images of the same woman having sex that night is paedofelia.

wonderfullife

Gummy Panda wrote: »

It's in the definition section. Your example doesn't apply. The actress would have to look preteen and depicted as one.

Under the statute the actress would have to look under 17 years of age, which could encompass women well into their 20s and early 30s in cases.....Even under the strictest interpretation of the Act, you couldn't really make a case for it. Let's say a 22 year old actress dressed as a school-girl, most sites have a disclaimer saying "actress at or over 18 years of age at time of filming".

The statute is just there to protect children in it's wording, there's no appetite for the Guards or DPP to be arresting anybody for watching 20-something year old actresses dressed as schoolgirls.

FishBowel

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Opinions from AH?

You can download videos of real-life killings and nothing happens?

fitzYOLO

Hilarious. I wonder if someone drew a load of pictures and threw them in letterboxes could he get the entire village arrested?

FishBowel

Even better, what would happen if Ms Murphy the local middle-aged primary school teacher had downloaded these cartoons?

batistuta9

steddyeddy wrote: »

Please dont compare homosexuality to the desire to abuse a child.

I wasn't if you actually read it.

i said it'd be like trying to cure a homosexual - meaning it's not a disease, and included a heterosexual example as well

untwist your knickers ffs

steddyeddy

batistuta9 wrote: »

I wasn't if you actually read it.

i said it'd be like trying to cure a homosexual - meaning it's not a disease, and included a heterosexual example as well

untwist your knickers ffs

Wanting to abuse a child isnt something that can be cured probrably but offenders should be casterated in my opinion then its problem solved.

CrazyRabbit

Millicent wrote: »

But you can't. It's pertinent to the discussion. He's inseparable from his convictions and was labelled a paedophile before this sentence. Flouting the terms of your probation/bail and getting done for it is not the same as someone being done for watching a cartoon. He should have been on his best behaviour. I'm guessing that his behaviour was seen by the judge as disrespecting the court's ruling and was thus cracked down on.

The problem is that this ruling sets a precedent about what the definition of abuse images means. What about the next person who views (not downloads or creates) a similar cartoon...quite possibly by accident, and it is discovered?

Convicting and jailing people for what is, at most, a thought crime is just wrong.

kowloon

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How do you know they have no plot, have you ever watched one? A lot of normal porn has a plot after all, usually a boring and crappy one but a plot nonetheless :P

Aren't you a bit young to repair washing machines? :eek:

Seriously though, there needs to be a genuine look at the intent of the law.
Is it to protect children or to enforce taste?

You could argue the guy was trying to stay out of trouble.

opti0nal

cocoshovel wrote: »

Im interested to know where exactly in the law books does it say "viewing drawn images of underage porn is illegal".

The law says

“child pornography” means—
(a) any visual representation.....

If you view such a thing on a computer, you are in possession of it at that time.

the_monkey

1984 Police state.

cocoshovel

opti0nal wrote: »

The law saysIf you view such a thing on a computer, you are in possession of it at that time.

Seems terribly stupid. Link to that article btw?

opti0nal

cocoshovel wrote: »

Seems terribly stupid. Link to that article btw?

You've misquoted me. The law prohibits posession. Case law construes that if it's on a screen in front of you, you posesss it.

That's why so many people deny having it when they're caught. They think it's just what they keep, but they're prosecuted for all the stuff they ever saw.

mike65

Anyone remember that Channel 4 tea time series which featured youngsters dressed to the nines as singers? Pop Tarts or something....Ah Minipops

"Is it merely priggish to feel queasy at the sight of primary school minxes with rouged cheeks, eye make-up and full-gloss lipstick belting out songs like torch singers and waggling those places where they will eventually have places? The final act of last week's show featured a chubby blonde totlette, thigh-high to a paedophile, in a ra-ra skirt and high heels; her black knickers were extensively flashed as she bounced around singing the words 'See that guy all dressed in green/He's not a man, he's a loving machine.' Kiddie porn, a shop-window full of junior jailbait? And does the show thrust premature sexual awareness onto its wide-eyed performers?"

and that was published in the liberal left leaning Observer.

omgitsthelazor

Cringed at a few things here.

• Courts not knowing whether bookmarking an image for repeated viewing constitutes the same crime as file -> save
• We live in a society where we openly accept homosexuality as something someone is born with, something tolerable and something we should adjust to accept. Yet we do not send the same courtesy towards pedophilia, despite studies showing that people can also be born with this and it is not a choice. The consequences of acting on them may be different but why as a society do we view someone who by no choice of their own is attracted to children and does no act upon it as something disgraceful and evil? They should have our sympathy and support for being born with a desire they can never realise.
• For those unfortunate people their one release is in fantasy, where it harms nobody. Making that illegal if anything drives them more towards actual children because they've no other avenue for gratification.

opti0nal

mike65 wrote: »

Anyone remember that Channel 4 tea time series which featured youngsters dressed to the nines as singers? Pop Tarts or something....Ah Minipops

That would fall under:

(c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

(d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3

The children do not need to be naked, for it to be considered as pornographic.

omgitsthelazor

opti0nal wrote: »

The law saysIf you view such a thing on a computer, you are in possession of it at that time.

The law is ambiguous, any decent lawyer would rip apart the assumption that the image represents child porn. A drawn images representation is entirely subjective, the only way he'd be caught is if evidence was found he was undeniably looking for child porn representations. "Toon sex" and "3D incest" does not imply anything to do with children, with an innocent plea he'd have walked free.

omgitsthelazor

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

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



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.

Just for reference (I'm big into Japanese culture)

Hentai refers strictly to adult character drawings, so its an impossible scenario. They have two separate names for underage character drawings over there, one for each gender.

opti0nal

omgitsthelazor wrote: »

The law is ambiguous, any decent lawyer would rip apart the assumption that the image represents child porn.

Or a decent prosecution barrister could convince a jury of the opposite:

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under section 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 a person shall be deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to be or have been a child, or to be or have been depicted or represented as a child, at any time if the person appears to the court to be or have been a child, or to be or have been so depicted or represented, at that time.

The reason the law is ambiguous is to make it as easy as possible to secure a prosecution.