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

omgitsthelazor

Just as a general question about some cartoon/video game/anime characters which of the below would you say "represents a child".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Milhouse.PNG/222px-Milhouse.PNG
Milhouse (The Simpsons) - non-human skin colour
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C14w9hToSAU/Tioo_QdjolI/AAAAAAAAAp4/2aa1pcrQjaU/s1600/Yuki_Nagato_2.jpg
Nagato (Haruhi) - In the anime she's an alien many thousands of years old.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Model_buster_color.jpg/175px-Model_buster_color.jpg
Buster Bunny (Tiny Toons) - A blue rabbit
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/229/b/0/Vivi_from_Final_Fantasy_9_by_Kingdomaster14.jpg
Vivi (Final Fantasy) - Said to be 9 years old but due to his races (black mage) typical life span that is roughly middle age.
http://yarukizero.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/jenny_intro1.jpg?w=450&h=337
XJ-19 (My life as a teenage robot) - Is literally a robot, although one designed to look and act like a teenager.


So how many of those would you argue "represents a child", because to me they represent something fictional that doesn't exist in real life.

CrazyRabbit

omgitsthelazor wrote: »

Just as a general question about some cartoon/video game/anime characters which of the below would you say "represents a child".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Milhouse.PNG/222px-Milhouse.PNG
Milhouse (The Simpsons) - non-human skin colour
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C14w9hToSAU/Tioo_QdjolI/AAAAAAAAAp4/2aa1pcrQjaU/s1600/Yuki_Nagato_2.jpg
Nagato (Haruhi) - In the anime she's an alien many thousands of years old.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Model_buster_color.jpg/175px-Model_buster_color.jpg
Buster Bunny (Tiny Toons) - A blue rabbit
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/229/b/0/Vivi_from_Final_Fantasy_9_by_Kingdomaster14.jpg
Vivi (Final Fantasy) - Said to be 9 years old but due to his races (black mage) typical life span that is roughly middle age.
http://yarukizero.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/jenny_intro1.jpg?w=450&h=337
XJ-19 (My life as a teenage robot) - Is literally a robot, although one designed to look and act like a teenager.


So how many of those would you argue "represents a child", because to me they represent something fictional that doesn't exist in real life.

Indeed. What about 2 stick figures...one taller than the other? The smaller one could represent a child. Draw a 'stick' penis on both and it's child porn!!

opti0nal

omgitsthelazor wrote: »

Just as a general question about some cartoon/video game/anime characters which of the below would you say "represents a child".

So how many of those would you argue "represents a child", because to me they represent something fictional that doesn't exist in real life.

There's no way I'm going to look at those links. The risk and consequences are too great.

A depiction does not have to be realistic or non-fictional. To be illegal, it just has to represent a child in any way described in the act.

CrazyRabbit wrote:

Indeed. What about 2 stick figures...one taller than the other? The smaller one could represent a child. Draw a 'stick' penis on both and it's child porn!!

It would depend on the caption or context. 'Pornography' also includes written matter.

Have fun speculating about all of this in front of a jury of 'Daily Mail' readers.

Duggys Housemate

Whats funny about this is the judge probably has a copy of some version of the Marquis De Sade in his home. quite common back in the day.

Duggys Housemate

Actually, come to think of it the Game of Thrones is child porn.

fasttalkerchat

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

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.

Poor guy? He served 10 years for raping a child. **** him.


On the wider issue this case is wrong because he didn't actually do anything illegal.

Kinski

opti0nal wrote: »

There's no way I'm going to look at those links. The risk and consequences are too great.

Those are just links to pics of notable characters from American and Japanese animations...judging by the titles that is, I didn't bother clicking them 'cause I already know what Milhouse and Nagato look like.

opti0nal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

On the wider issue this case is wrong because he didn't actually do anything illegal.

He did in this country. That's why he was prosecuted.

But if he had done the same thing while in the US, he would not have broken the law. The US law is limited to pictures of actual children and some people have been found innocent because they could prove the people depicted were actual adults.

So, material on many USA pornography websites is legal to view while there (even if you're Irish) but not while you are here.

batistuta9

opti0nal wrote: »

He did in this country. That's why he was prosecuted.

But if he had done the same thing while in the US, he would not have broken the law. The US law is limited to pictures of actual children and some people have been found innocent because they could prove the people depicted were actual adults.

So, material on many USA pornography websites is legal to view while there (even if you're Irish) but not while you are here.

this below is what is viewed as child porn in the U.S.

batistuta9 wrote: »

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

opti0nal

batistuta9 wrote: »

this below is what is viewed as child porn in the U.S.

Quite rightly, a children's charity is not going to bow to legal technicalities, they know what's morally wrong and inappropriate.

This is what WiKi says:

Simulated child pornography was made illegal with the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. The CPPA was short-lived. In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, holding that the relevant portions of the CPPA were unconstitutional because they prevented lawful speech. Referring to Ferber, the court stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."

That said, practice may vary from state to state.

batistuta9

look at this then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

can't believe were using Wikipedia as a credible source, but it's handy

EDIT: look at this too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_pornography


here's a better source http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

(f) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;
(2) the term “sexually explicit conduct” has the meaning given the term in section 2256 (2)(A) or 2256 (2)(B); and
(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.

omgitsthelazor

opti0nal wrote: »

There's no way I'm going to look at those links. The risk and consequences are too great.

A depiction does not have to be realistic or non-fictional. To be illegal, it just has to represent a child in any way described in the act.

It would depend on the caption or context. 'Pornography' also includes written matter.

Have fun speculating about all of this in front of a jury of 'Daily Mail' readers.

Oh dry up they're pictures of the characters from their respective shows/games and not fan adaptions or pornographic.

A depiction does in fact have to be realistic, if it is not then it isn't representing the real life subject. If you claim something isn't intended to be realistic then you concede it isn't intended to exist in the world of fantasy and not resemble a real world situation.

laoch na mona

a bit stupid really it hurts no one

Micky Dolenz

He viewed them out of boredom while he knew he was being monitored. What else was he capable of doing out of boredom? Treatment obviously didn't work. some people are better off out of society . I certainly would not want him as a neighbour.

Squ

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

oh shít.

PC CDROM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

He/she didn't.

They compared it with a "supposed" pre disposed biological sexual orientation.

Musiconomist

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.

I must call bs on this. You cant change someones sexual preferences.

Show me anything to support the above.

Millicent

Musiconomist wrote: »

I must call bs on this. You cant change someones sexual preferences.

Show me anything to support the above.

http://www.medicinenet.com/paraphilia/page3.htm#treated

Alternatively, have a Google there.

Musiconomist

Millicent wrote: »

http://www.medicinenet.com/paraphilia/page3.htm#treated

Alternatively, have a Google there.

"Most cases of paraphilia are treated with counseling and therapy to help these people modify their behavior. Medications may help to decrease the compulsiveness associated with paraphilia, and reduce the number of deviant sexual fantasies and behaviors. In some cases, hormones are prescribed for individuals who experience frequent occurrences of abnormal or dangerous sexual behavior. Many of these medications work by reducing the individual's sex drive."

So where does it say that you can change someones sexual preferences? You can lessen the negative effects of compulsive behavior, but the underlying urges remain.

PieForPi

Ah just throw it onto the heap of other f*ck ups our justice system has made this year. The justice system here is such a joke that it's genuinely frightening now. Fair justice is almost never served.

hatrickpatrick

This thread is still here?!

I stand by my original post, unless an actual human being is being harmed there's no crime. If viewing such fake images is "intent", then watching Oceans 11 clearly means I'm intending to head off to Ballybunion and rob the ridiculous number of casinos there at the same time.

Wait a minute, that actually isn't a bad idea

Millicent

Musiconomist wrote: »

"Most cases of paraphilia are treated with counseling and therapy to help these people modify their behavior. Medications may help to decrease the compulsiveness associated with paraphilia, and reduce the number of deviant sexual fantasies and behaviors. In some cases, hormones are prescribed for individuals who experience frequent occurrences of abnormal or dangerous sexual behavior. Many of these medications work by reducing the individual's sex drive."

So where does it say that you can change someones sexual preferences? You can lessen the negative effects of compulsive behavior, but the underlying urges remain.

There was a whole debate on this up-thread with some good links. Am I to assume your position, then, is that paedophilia is inate?

americano787

I support an instant death penalty for anybody caught looking at child porn/cartoon porn. No point in polluting the gene pool.

uriah

So you would have no problem having this man in your home with your children/working in your child's school, or in the local swimming pool giving lessons to your children? No little niggle of concern at all?

Sulla Felix

PieForPi wrote: »

Ah just throw it onto the heap of other f*ck ups our justice system has made this year. The justice system here is such a joke that it's genuinely frightening now. Fair justice is almost never served.

It's not a justice system. Cases like this go to show it. It's a legal system. Subtle distinction but that's how we get fsck ups like this.

Sulla Felix

uriah wrote: »

So you would have no problem having this man in your home with your children/working in your child's school, or in the local swimming pool giving lessons to your children? No little niggle of concern at all?

Course we would, he's a convicted sex offender. Take a read of the Straw Man article on Wikipedia and get back to us when you have something sensible to add.

Squ

What would boards.ie be without strawman arguments and folk calling folk out on said arguments?

inmyday

I dont know if its been said already . But I saw the movie "A Serbian Film", mad film, not recommended.
In it, a fully grown man has sex with a really really young child. Obviously you dont see anything, but its all implied. So should I be convicted, or maybe the director of the film?

Musiconomist

Millicent wrote: »

There was a whole debate on this up-thread with some good links. Am I to assume your position, then, is that paedophilia is inate?

By innate, do you mean at birth? If so, I would argue that the development of sexuality occurs mainly during puberty, therefore, a victim would most likely already have been exposed to abuse by this stage. I realise that most people have some idea of their sexuality before entering puberty, though do not know specifically what arouses them until this point. Who doesnt remember vividly the first pornographic image they saw?

It seems to me that given that a high percentage of offenders were once victims, there is a link between suffering and perpetrating abuse. However, not all offenders were victims, so it cant be said factually that it is learned behavior.

Also, given that humans can be aroused by pretty much anything, how can one say at what moment each stimulus is formed.

inmyday

inmyday wrote: »

I dont know if its been said already . But I saw the movie "A Serbian Film", mad film, not recommended.
In it, a fully grown man has sex with a really really young child. Obviously you dont see anything, but its all implied. So should I be convicted, or maybe the director of the film?

Depends how clear the image was in your mind.

NegativeCreep

If this is the case, then anyone who has seen those weird cartoon porn pictures of the Simpsons and all the other cartoons is a pedo as
well! Personally I don't see anything wrong with what he's done. And it's a safe way for him to indulge his twisted, yet uncontrollable fantasies.

Sala

How is it child pornography if it is animations? The moral issues aside, if you drew a picture would that count?

Millicent

Musiconomist wrote: »

By innate, do you mean at birth? If so, I would argue that the development of sexuality occurs mainly during puberty, therefore, a victim would most likely already have been exposed to abuse by this stage. I realise that most people have some idea of their sexuality before entering puberty, though do not know specifically what arouses them until this point. Who doesnt remember vividly the first pornographic image they saw?

It seems to me that given that a high percentage of offenders were once victims, there is a link between suffering and perpetrating abuse. However, not all offenders were victims, so it cant be said factually that it is learned behavior.

Also, given that humans can be aroused by pretty much anything, how can one say at what moment each stimulus is formed.

Which was my point. If something is learned, it can be unlearned. Just as someone can learn addictive or destructive behaviours, so too can they learn dangerous sexual fetishes. That doesn't mean that paedophilia is ingrained and impossible to treat or change.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Point has probably been raised, but doesn't Bart streak in the Simpsons Movie? ****... I watched that... I'm a perv.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Point has probably been raised, but doesn't Bart streak in the Simpsons Movie? ****... I watched that... I'm a perv.

I thought you're a woman? Everyone knows women can't be pervs

But yeah in regards to that, the OP said he was convicted as a child molestor. And while I do feel great pity for what happened, the Simpsons was a bit different.

They're never really "life like".

hatrickpatrick

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But yeah in regards to that, the OP was convicted as a child molestor.

I most certainly was not, you little bollocks! :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I thought you're a woman? Everyone knows women can't be pervs

Yeah, I get that a lot.

But yeah in regards to that, the OP was convicted as a child molestor. And while I do feel great pity for what happened, the Simpsons was a bit different.

They're never really "life like".

I agree, but your average guard/jugde, i fear, might not see the difference.

Tombi!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I most certainly was not, you little bollocks! :pac:

Well now the secret is out! GET THE PITCHFORKS!

I'll edit it now

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Yeah, I get that a lot.

I agree, but your average guard/jugde, i fear, might not see the difference.

I know but in fairness, they still obey the law. I mean I get that if he did look up child porn or something but the cartoons are (or were?) considered actual child porn I think. So I'm not sure. I guess it's really the law being an ass.

Musiconomist

Millicent wrote: »

Which was my point. If something is learned, it can be unlearned. Just as someone can learn addictive or destructive behaviours, so too can they learn dangerous sexual fetishes. That doesn't mean that paedophilia is ingrained and impossible to treat or change.

Just to clarify, are you saying that an adult could "learn" to find a child attractive, under particular circumstances?

I dont think you're understanding me, nor I you. I dont think unlearning is a possibility, in any sense. I dont really know what that means.

I didnt say this behavior was learned. I said that there appears to be a link between being abused and perpetrating abuse, though this doesnt explain why paedophilic preferences develope.

You dont choose what turns you on, nor can you "turn off" a turn-on.

Tombi!

Musiconomist wrote: »

Just to clarify, are you saying that an adult could "learn" to find a child attractive, under particular circumstances?

I dont think you're understanding me, nor I you. I dont think unlearning is a possibility, in any sense. I dont really know what that means.

I didnt say this behavior was learned. I said that there appears to be a link between being abused and perpetrating abuse, though this doesnt explain why paedophilic preferences develope.

You dont choose what turns you on, nor can you "turn off" a turn-on.

I thought Milly's point was that generally speaking, sexual relations with children isn't normal and so is techincally learned, somehow. At least not in most societies it's not "normal"
Of course you can "learn" that having sex with children is normal. But you can unlearn it also.

I'm not sure what your problem is. If you learn that the reaction to being told "hello, good day to you" is punching someone in the face, then you can unlearn it.
I don't think most men (let's just go with men for sake of ease of explaining) see young girls as "sexy". Most men would get turned on by two things: fetishes and then bluntly, sexual contact.

Obviously if a child is touching you in a sexual manner it'll arouse you, there's no denying that. Sexual contact is still sexual contact. But that doesn't mean you can't learn it as "wrong" that a small child is touching me sexually.

Millicent

Musiconomist wrote: »

Just to clarify, are you saying that an adult could "learn" to find a child attractive, under particular circumstances?

I dont think you're understanding me, nor I you. I dont think unlearning is a possibility, in any sense. I dont really know what that means.

I didnt say this behavior was learned. I said that there appears to be a link between being abused and perpetrating abuse, though this doesnt explain why paedophilic preferences develope.

You dont choose what turns you on, nor can you "turn off" a turn-on.

No, I don't think you can learn as an adult to find children attractive. That is learned much earlier in life, usually in the paedophile's own childhood.

There was a good article from the Guardian further back in the thread. It has a paedophile explaining how he "learned" his proclivity for children.

Here it is.

Our sexuality is a complex thing. For abusers who were abused as children, those abusers have learned to associate their sexuality with childhood and children.

And to a certain extent, you can turn off what turns you on. There are counselling and other methods to deal with many types of paraphilias, fetishes etc. This article describes treatment for a number of them (page 11-14, though not for paedophilia) so may be interesting to you.

opti0nal

Sala wrote: »

How is it child pornography if it is animations? The moral issues aside, if you drew a picture would that count?

The law prohibits any depiction of this kind. This is different to the law in the US where only images of actual children are illegal.

So, most of this kind of stuff is hosted in the US without any problem and I guess they send the details of Irish customers to the cops here.

If you were to draw such a picture, you would be guilty of production and liable to 10 years jail.

Any detailed description of such an image is also illegal.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

opti0nal wrote: »

Any detailed description of such an image is also illegal.

But... wouldn't a detailed description be included in the book of evidence?

thebman

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.

Lol half the Internet is illegal so.

As is that Britney Spears video from years ago where she was dressed as a school girl.