Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Fury on August 17, 2009, 05:51:39 am
-
A friend at work found months old news article about someone getting busted over having child porn in the form of cartoons. We had a lightweight debate whether it really is child porn or not. What are your thoughts about it? I'm sure many of you are also familiar with the word "hentai", do you think it classifies as child porn should it feature clearly underage characters even though it's just images or animation?
I'm really split about it. I think there is a fine line and some people just may cross it for the worse, but unlike real child porn, most of the internet population has seen cartoon porn or hentai in a form or another.
-
Hentai is a terribly annoying grey area. A lot of artists draw characters that are definitely of age in an extremely childlike fashion (which pisses me off no end), and a lot people draw what are probably underaged characters much too developed. (Just to make it worse there are series where the characters have grown up over the course of it so you can't really be sure what you're dealing with.)
Hentai can obviously be of purely gratitious child content when you start talking about small flat-chested girls (then again, I could name anime with small flat-chested girls who are in fact centuries or millenia old; Vita from Nanoha comes to mind, so do we go with how the character looks or what?), but it's the ones who were drawn in a style that suggests they're young with a C-cup where things become...annoying.
-
A friend at work found months old news article about someone getting busted over having child porn in the form of cartoons. We had a lightweight debate whether it really is child porn or not. What are your thoughts about it? I'm sure many of you are also familiar with the word "hentai", do you think it classifies as child porn should it feature clearly underage characters even though it's just images or animation?
I'm really split about it. I think there is a fine line and some people just may cross it for the worse, but unlike real child porn, most of the internet population has seen cartoon porn or hentai in a form or another.
What does it matter whether we call such cartoons "child porn" or not? It doesn't, since either way it wouldn't change anything about how they should be treated.
-
Ah crap, a zealot.
-
It comes down to whether we want to protect the children exploited in this media, or punish those who enjoy looking at it. That's a crucial distinction. When you nick someone for possessing, distributing, or god forbid producing it, the primary action being taken is the protection of individuals that are being exploited in horrible, horrible ways. They're taking advantage of people who can't defend themselves, and as such anyone involved needs to get charged to the full extent of the law ASAP.
However, I don't think that drawings, renderings, and soforth created entirely from the mind and not involving, endangering, or exploiting actual human beings should result in an equal condemnation. Punishing an individual for looking at drawings does not protect anyone beyond a theoretical implication that future abuse may occur on behalf of the offender.
I'm just going to cut through all the bull**** and say that I think that drawings, intellectual property, should not be treated - in effect be afforded the same rights - as the human beings in actual images. A drawing is not a human being, and therefore does not need to be protected. As such, even if the image is of utterly vulgar, horrible content, there is no need for protection. The issue becomes moot, and shifts to mere punishment of the viewer. When you punish someone for having pictures, how can you draw the line between artificial images and simply thinking about it? Where can the line be drawn between acting to protect children, and honest-to-god thought-policing?
Urgh, it's a hard issue to argue about. And hentai is a very murky issue, evidenced by the whole blowup over the RapeLay game.
-
I'm just going to cut through all the bull**** and say that I think that drawings, intellectual property, should not be treated - in effect be afforded the same rights - as the human beings in actual images. A drawing is not a human being, and therefore does not need to be protected. As such, even if the image is of utterly vulgar, horrible content, there is no need for protection. The issue becomes moot, and shifts to mere punishment of the viewer. When you punish someone for having pictures, how can you draw the line between artificial images and simply thinking about it? Where can the line be drawn between acting to protect children, and honest-to-god thought-policing?
Good points, good points.
However, what you think of CGI movie that looks really realistic, almost indistinguishable from real movie? You would have very real-like child abuse video done 100% with CGI which does not endanger or abuse any real human being.
-
However, what you think of CGI movie that looks really realistic, almost indistinguishable from real movie? You would have very real-like child abuse video done 100% with CGI which does not endanger or abuse any real human being.
A very good question.
With this, you start getting into really fuzzy areas we're only just starting to encounter. It's the same thing that will inevitably arise with artificial intelligences and life-like robots. Do we afford the rights of a human being to an entity that is indistinguishable from one, but is nonetheless not human? In your example, it's a comparatively simpler issue given that it's entirely simulated and there is no underlying intelligence or reality to it, only perceived reality, but it's still an amazingly complicated issue.
If I had to come down on one side or the other, I'm going to have to say that it's too risky to start equating simulations - even extremely realistic simulations - the same rights as a living human being. Ultimately, if there is no harm being done, then no punishment is warranted. It's brutal, and it's unsightly, but it's the best way of doing things.
-
That's not even remotely practical. Maybe I'm in slightly closer touch with the 3D community than you; maybe I'm more aware of it what it takes to do that; the simple truth is that while 3D has made great strides, lifelike such as that is still far from possible. Sure, Revenge of the Fallen had awesome CGI and all (which took mass render farms of zombified high-end machines each rendering a single frame years, and actually burned some of them out), but we don't even have a reliable texturing method that will simulate human skin accurately yet. (If you don't believe me, look over at Renderosity and Renderotica.) Men, whether drawing or acting, remain superior to machines for the forseeable future. The question is moot.
-
The question is not moot because we're discussing theoretics and ethics here. Also, Final Fantasy Spirits Within and Final Fantasy Advent Children are close enough CGI-wise for having the discussion now rather than in five years.
-
That's not even remotely practical. Maybe I'm in slightly closer touch with the 3D community than you; maybe I'm more aware of it what it takes to do that; the simple truth is that while 3D has made great strides, lifelike such as that is still far from possible. Sure, Revenge of the Fallen had awesome CGI and all (which took mass render farms of zombified high-end machines each rendering a single frame years, and actually burned some of them out), but we don't even have a reliable texturing method that will simulate human skin accurately yet. (If you don't believe me, look over at Renderosity and Renderotica.) Men, whether drawing or acting, remain superior to machines for the forseeable future. The question is moot.
True, but it's a reasonable extrapolation. At some point in the near future, the technology will exist to produce entirely lifelike simulations without involving living actors in any way. With that in mind, it's a fair point to argue the possibility and the ramifications of such a technology.
-
The question is not moot because we're discussing theoretics and ethics here. Also, Final Fantasy Spirits Within and Final Fantasy Advent Children are close enough CGI-wise for having the discussion now rather than in five years.
Fine, then it's moot in another way, the one Mefustae pointed out: it is without actual human involvement. :P Five years is also extremely optimistic. Try twenty.
-
Except that Mefustae went one step further.
Suppose you do have an AI that passes the Turing Test and is basically a perfect AI human child. What is really the difference between someone abusing that and abusing a human child?
-
Good God robo pedophiles, like the world wasn't messed up enough. :P If the AI is truly sentient with emotions and feelings then at the very least it should be covered by similar laws as we place on pets (ASPCA laws and enforcement are surprisingly tough). Bare minimum.
-
Suppose you do have an AI that passes the Turing Test and is basically a perfect AI human child. What is really the difference between someone abusing that and abusing a human child?
There isn't one. Of course that assumes a lot of things about how AIs would work... :P
-
A friend at work found months old news article about someone getting busted over having child porn in the form of cartoons. We had a lightweight debate whether it really is child porn or not. What are your thoughts about it? I'm sure many of you are also familiar with the word "hentai", do you think it classifies as child porn should it feature clearly underage characters even though it's just images or animation?
Child porn in the form of cartoons = Loli
At least, that's how I look at it. :nervous:
-
Suppose you do have an AI that passes the Turing Test and is basically a perfect AI human child. What is really the difference between someone abusing that and abusing a human child?
I think this argument is complex enough that we don't need to pull in "what-ifs" for situations that are decades in the future, if ever.
-
Suppose you do have an AI that passes the Turing Test and is basically a perfect AI human child. What is really the difference between someone abusing that and abusing a human child?
That will never happen. At least I don't believe it ever will.
Debating over things that odn't exist, havent happened, or we don't have full knowledge/understanding is not likely to bring any fruit.
-
This is the second thread in as many days with That Phrase in the title. Can we PLEASE rename it? Some of us don't like those page titles in our browser's history, or being funneled through our ISP.
Thank you. See that it doesn't happen again.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI thinks that even talking about child porn is somehow contributing to the sexual abuse of children.
-
Thread retitled. Better?
-
Cartoon child porn isn't child porn. It's a frakking cartoon, jesus christ.
Don't be like that dick who tried to get The Sims akilled or something because pedophiles could get rid of the nudity censor and look at barbie doll -skinned children sims.
How about we don't worry about the folks who aren't abusing children and go deal with the folks who are?
-
There is something besides just writing the code or developing the computing power required for a true AI. It would have to be "raised" as a human child would be. It would have to be taught morality and ethics, simple concepts that we take for granted would have to be explained in great detail. It won't be flick a switch and whamo, super AI mega mode SKYNET. AIs will take at least as long as a human child to be made ready to interact with general humanity and will require specialized personnel to train them that will behave not unlike parents.
-
Initially at first, however the bottleneck there is with data transmission rates. Humans can only teach so much so fast. If an AI really thinks so much faster and smarter than a human, then an AI would be able to raise a fellow AI quicker and easier than a human could. Depending on the level of interaction between AI, we could have anything from direct memory transfer to bit-encoded fiber-optic transmissions of words. An AI could use binary and a direct connection to transfer data far faster than a human talking to an AI could. However, even if AI end up raising AI, I believe interactions with humans would be part of the curriculum to get a human's view on things, and to avoid fostering potentially hostile divisions between synthetic and organic intelligences.
-
First, I'd like to give a shout-out to the Bureau. Hey guys! :P
Second, CP laws aren't made for protecting children, they're made for punishing people who (as viewed by most modern societies) have a disturbing fetish.
-
That's what it is used for, certainly, but no, that wasn't the intent, the law does not exist to make moral judgements, it exists to protect the public, regardless of age, from harm.
-
That's why I restrict myself to legitamite porn sites.
-
Second, CP laws aren't made for protecting children, they're made for punishing people who (as viewed by most modern societies) have a disturbing fetish.
Please tell me you don't think distribution of actual CP isn't harmful to children.
-
That's what it is used for, certainly, but no, that wasn't the intent, the law does not exist to make moral judgements, it exists to protect the public, regardless of age, from harm.
Which brings us full circle to the animation aspect. How does an animated version harm a child?
Note (for those inferring something): I do find it disturbing, but that's beside the point that I'm trying to make.
----------------------------
Second, CP laws aren't made for protecting children, they're made for punishing people who (as viewed by most modern societies) have a disturbing fetish.
Please tell me you don't think distribution of actual CP isn't harmful to children.
Nice freaking use of a double-negative, there. :no:
Actual CP (live-action [forgive the term], that is) is obviously harmful to children. However, I'm speaking about the laws regarding CP, not CP itself.
-
Just making sure that you weren't saying what I thought you might be saying before I tore you a new one over it. :P
-
I think we can all agree that actual live-action kiddie porn is harmful to children. If you think otherwise, GTFO.
Now, with that out of the way, we can all safely debate whether or not animated kiddie porn is harmful to children, and whether or not CP laws should apply to it.
-
I think CP laws exist to stop people from exploiting children. If it's just a cartoon...then nobody was harmed.
-
Well, believe it or not, some people think that just possessing (real) child porn isn't harmful to children, if the person isn't producing any.
-
But by trying to possess it, it makes a demand, which people will fill. No demand, no kiddie porn. Basic economics.
-
Well, believe it or not, some people think that just possessing (real) child porn isn't harmful to children, if the person isn't producing any.
Technically they're correct. However they probably paid for it somehow since it's not exactly floating around free, so they're contributing to the problem.
-
I think CP laws exist to stop people from exploiting children. If it's just a cartoon...then nobody was harmed.
And yet, if you have animated CP (or something that looks remotely like it) in your possesion, you'll still get sent to a maximum security facility, where your new lifelong pedo-label will follow you. And that won't end well. :/
-
Thread retitled. Better?
I gott agree with G-man there, two threads in a week is abit much.
However the debate intrigues me, firstly if you use said images for jollies and (the next point is integral to my point of view) you're an adult. That's wrong, whereas teenagers can't really help it. Grown ups whould know better.
Unless it's interweb lol-talk of course.
-
I can't recall ever hearing about that actually happening, bloodeagle, at least not in the US. And I do mean having ONLY animated CP, and none real.
-
This is actually a topic I've done a decent bit of thinking about, since I followed news postings and discussions about the Christopher Handley case on Anime News Network for quite some time. (For those unfamiliar with that particular case, these are a few (http://ogiuemaniax.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/christopher-handleys-guilty-plea-and-its-implications/) postings (http://ogiuemaniax.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/christopher-handleys-guilty-plea-and-its-implications/) that delve into it a bit, though I'm sure there's plenty of more news-ey stories about it scattered around. Interestingly enough, this case wound up having to do more with interstate commerce and obscenity than straight-up CP, as the judge in it ruled part of the PROTECT Act unconstitutional.) It's something that really does call into question the true intent of the laws prohibiting possession and distribution of CP. Like Flipside said, the theoretical intent of such laws is to rightly protect vulnerable members of society from truly horrific and awful abuse. However, the application of said laws often seems to trail into the realm of thought crimes more than anything else...and that's something I can't condone in any circumstances. You can't arrest someone for imagining something, nor can you for putting pen to paper and drawing a cartoonish representation of a human being. That's about as un-free as a society could be. Unfortunately, as in many other instances, the cries of "Think of the children!" wind up drowning out any chance of rational and intelligent debate on this particular topic. Can you even imagine the sort of public outcry a member of Congress would cause for standing up and introducing a bill preventing prosecution over cartoons of naked children? He'd be run out of office on a rail. And forget about trying to fund an unbiased scientific study on whether virtual instances of CP promote consumption of the real product, or instead provide a harmless outlet for people with pedophilic tendencies; as massively useful as such a study would be, no one wants to touch it.
From where I'm sitting, both the production and distribution/possession of actual CP should be blatantly illegal; the former for obvious reasons, and the latter because it at least indirectly promotes the former. However, when you move away from real human beings to lines on a paper, or polygons on a screen...you shouldn't be able to legislate that. If it's not actually harming another human being, the law has no business in it. Like I said, we don't really know whether such media actually serves as a healthy outlet for people who are hard-wired along pedophilic lines. Sexual attraction isn't just a target that one can re-direct via one's own willpower; I doubt most people who are considered pedophiles would ever walk down that path given the choice beforehand. If material like loli/shouta hentai helps people get their rocks off and prevents them from trying to do the same with a real child, then so much the better.
-
Cartoon child porn isn't child porn. It's a frakking cartoon, jesus christ.
Don't be like that dick who tried to get The Sims akilled or something because pedophiles could get rid of the nudity censor and look at barbie doll -skinned children sims.
How about we don't worry about the folks who aren't abusing children and go deal with the folks who are?
This.
Sexual attraction isn't just a target that one can re-direct via one's own willpower; I doubt most people who are considered pedophiles would ever walk down that path given the choice beforehand. If material like loli/shouta hentai helps people get their rocks off and prevents them from trying to do the same with a real child, then so much the better.
aaaand this.
You can't ban stuff just because it's icky. There are plenty of people out there who'd love to ban violent video games because they find them distasteful. If you want to argue that fapping to drawn children will turn you into a child rapist, then you're getting into Jack Thompson territory.
-
I hope all you 'punish the pedo' people aren't American, I know you are, but I can hope you don't have such an anti-American view of what a government is supposed to be that you think the state should destroy people who make a drawing that offends your sensibilities. where in the constitution is the government given the mandate to force any sort of cultural norm on people, oh, that's right, it says the exact opposite. the mindset that the government is supposed to force people to be better, is authoritarian, fascistic and wrong. I hope you all were at least liberals, not the 'constitutional' conservatives. if you want to have freedom you can't go about criminalizing people you don't like if they are not actually hurting anyone. being more interested in stopping other people doing things that you don't like but do not effect you than protecting your own liberty is how this country has fallen so far into this authoritarian **** hole it is now, 'think of the children' is how they get you to give up your own rights.
-
It is kind of interesting when you consider the Western worlds' reaction to the fury over the 'Mohammed Cartoons'...
-
And then there was the whole Bill 8 thing...
-
It is kind of interesting when you consider the Western worlds' reaction to the fury over the 'Mohammed Cartoons'...
And then there was the whole Bill 8 thing...
The what and the what? :confused:
-
Bill 8 was the big bill in California where over half of the state voted to ban gay marriage, simply because they could. The Mohammed cartoons were a series of derogatory cartoons about Islam, the man qho drew them got caught up in a ****storm.
-
Bill 8 was the big bill in California where over half of the state voted to ban gay marriage, simply because they could. The Mohammed cartoons were a series of derogatory cartoons about Islam, the man qho drew them got caught up in a ****storm.
With all due respect, I'm not so sure that this topic needs a second hot-button issue that has no chance of doing anything other than derailing it. :p
-
It is kind of interesting when you consider the Western worlds' reaction to the fury over the 'Mohammed Cartoons'...
kiddy porn cartoons are different, because pedophilia is very harmful to children.
-
Pedophilia isn't harmful to children in itself. If the pedophile just goes to the park every day and sits and watches the kids play and goes home and wanks afterwards, I see no harm in that. I see that as basically on the same level as looking at kiddy porn cartoons. As long as it stays a fantasy, no one is hurt.
-
Well, believe it or not, some people think that just possessing (real) child porn isn't harmful to children, if the person isn't producing any.
Technically they're correct. However they probably paid for it somehow since it's not exactly floating around free, so they're contributing to the problem.
Actually it is available for free. Shudder. Some file-sharing networks are full of them.
The massive raids with international cooperation you hear about? Most of those are nowhere near the "organized dens of crime and exploitation" just a whole bunch of sick ****tards who molest (mostly their own! squick!) children and share their videos on the something Kazaa.
With a little technical know-how it's easy to monitor them and "busting such a massive ring of pedophiles - I mean dozens of members! it must be like a Maffia! (bull****)" looks really-really good on police officers' portfolio.
These men should be prosecuted because they cause the children harm. Though frankly usually not the physical variety most associate with the act. It's psychological 'cause they imprint the children with a very skewed view of sexuality where they must forever be the submissive and on the receiving end. However that's not all - they may view sex as a form of "love" and anyone tend believe that anyone who has sex with them is "loving them".... which may be true, but misses the whole point. Sex isn't about feeling it's act of body. What it expresses is up to the participants but these children's view is already skewed.
Two, no make it three things that piss me off about this whole deal:
1) The moral panic over pedophiles has actually put a lot of innocent people behind bars and modern witch trials were conducted with impossible charges. Read up on this here:
http://www.geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt.html
2) The above moral panic and witch-hunt has actually retarded the cause of anti-molestation and child welfare. Most of these molestations and rape is done by relatives. The child services were finally on the right track and could do some real work... except over eager agents who saw molesters everywhere, fear struck parents and eager to please authorities (whose actions against pedophiles provides really good publicity) has gone into a insane fervor and destroyed this progress.
Now we're back to stranger-danger once again, the candyman you must beware of... which mostly bull****. Yes there are a few monsters out there, but very few. The sad truth is most child molestation is domestic, done by someone who the child trusts by people who may indeed be upstanding citizens in any other aspect and they indeed "love" the children...
...which most of the time doesn't "hurt" them, but harm the child in hidden and really sinister ways.
3) What makes the issue even more murky is that children aren't the "innocent angels" the media and American (blind) stereotypes make them out to be. Even as young as 8 they already have notions of sexuality and 12 years are guaranteed to have taken the first steps on sexuality - which is natural, they are teenagers by then! So instead "pure little angels" what really happens is really young curios teenagers are co-opted into a games of "pleasure".
The pressures that try to suppress sexuality in teenagers doesn't help this at all, especially the religious pressures that equate masturbation and sexuality with sin. Along comes a cool "uncle" who not only dismisses the child's fears, but actively encourages them to go on, release their pressures. He may even smuggle them some porno... or show them how it's done. The child naturally gravitates toward the sole figure who (seemingly) supports them.
When they finally figure out what's happening they don't know what to do. It wasn't a strange man who abducted them and did painful things to them, but a known person they trust who slowly brought them into a relationship that's growing ever more strained and uncomfortable for the child. He's out of his league he doesn't know how to get out or steer it in any direction.
Finally when things come to head everyone assumes that it hurt that they were practically "beat and literally abused". They could be. There are cases like that. Those are easier to solve (which is squicky). However in a lot of cases that child also enjoyed the sex to a degree. It offered them pleasure, but the relationship itself was very straining and put them under pressures that were ever mounting.
However everyone tells them it was WRONG! They must have SUFFERED! ...what if it wasn't painful and there were parts that they enjoyed? The stereotypes of child abuse afterwards cause a different strain on the child. Their actual experiences may differ wildly from the painful and sodomizing debauchery that everyone just "KNOWS MUST HAVE HAPPENED".... and speaks and handles them with the assumption.
Pedophiles often use the above argument to validate their "relationship". They are right to a degree: the children are rarely abused in the manner that the stereotypes assume. But the whole issue is still very damaging and the situation is fright with danger from the get go as the adults ego will inevitably leave a very strong impression on the child.
-
1) Cartoon CP is not ****in' CP it's a frickin cartoon dammit.
2) if one watches CP he's not bad, he's sick, but he doesn't harm the children by watching it
3)...buuuut if you PRODUCE CP then you are OBVIOUSLY harmin' chilren in some way... (by ****in' them dammit)
though CP-ers should be shot on sight IMO.
watch out for dendrophiles
-
2) if one watches CP he's not bad, he's sick, but he doesn't harm the children by watching it
I'd argue that he does harm children, though, even if he's not the person producing the material. If no one went out of their way to download and/or buy CP content, then those who produce it for others' consumption would have no incentive to do so. It wouldn't do anything to stop the slimeballs who produce it merely for their own consumption, but at least it'd be a significant step in the right direction.
-
I agree with Mongoose.
-
I agree with Battuta.
-
If no one went out of their way to download and/or buy CP content, then those who produce it for others' consumption would have no incentive to do so.
This argument is contingent upon a group of people who are not themselves interested in child porn producing it. The existance of such a thing is unproveable, and frankly immaterial, to current law.
So in essence if you want to make that stick you're going to have to differentate, in a way I'm not sure is actually possible.
-
By downloading an image of child porn, aren't you basically making a copy of it? So you're making more and more child porn. Spreading the image of the abuse all over the place. Pleh.
-
By downloading an image of child porn, aren't you basically making a copy of it? So you're making more and more child porn. Spreading the image of the abuse all over the place. Pleh.
Yes, but Mongoose is posisting the existence of someone make child porn for profit, not because they like child porn, something which, legally, there is no recognized difference in.
If what he wants is to remove the for-profit people from the loop, then there has to be some legal distingushing of them so they can recieve a different punishment. The question is, how do you distingush them from someone who makes it for themselves and then shares it?
-
I don't think any of that is material to the question of whether viewing CP is bad. By viewing CP you not only create a demand for it, you implicitly condone it.
-
If no one went out of their way to download and/or buy CP content, then those who produce it for others' consumption would have no incentive to do so.
This argument is contingent upon a group of people who are not themselves interested in child porn producing it. The existance of such a thing is unproveable, and frankly immaterial, to current law.
So in essence if you want to make that stick you're going to have to differentate, in a way I'm not sure is actually possible.
Maybe I was unclear, but I wasn't trying to suggest some sort of legal differentiation between the two groups, nor that people who produce CP have no personal interest in it whatsoever. What I'm positing is that there exists a percentage of people involved in its production, maybe even the majority, who while into the material themselves would not take the massive risk of producing it if not for the greater audience demanding it. I'd think the main reason that laws against possession exist is to attempt to drive said people out of production.
-
Mongoose: Fair enough.
I don't think any of that is material to the question of whether viewing CP is bad. By viewing CP you not only create a demand for it, you implicitly condone it.
Which is in turn immaterial to thread's question of what constitutes it. :P Come now, we're already on tangents here.
-
Bear in mind that you can actually make the argument that mere possession of child porn is damaging to the child themselves. Once images of their abuse are on the internet the victim no longer knows who possesses images of their abuse. Even if their original abuser is caught and all material destroyed they don't know if some sick bastard might still have them.
Whether that argument is enough to validate a long criminal sentence is another matter but you can't say that mere possession of child porn can't be causing harm to the victim.
Oh and Kudos to Flaser for knowing what he's talking about. There's so much hysteria surrounding this issue that people tend to make the mistakes he mentioned.
-
photos of child porn Vs Hentai and other cartoon "child" porn
child porn - no arguments of it being wrong because of the harm to the childs psychological development and the conditions the child could be subjected to. on another element there is the behaviors it could encourage in the viewer.
Cartoons - I put the speech marks around the word child at the start because as with anything based on the artists imagination only the artist knows what was intend the viewer can only interpret the image, now in this being "Not Real" removes the current harm from the child but leaves the issue of behavior it could encourage and if that is a crime, is it an incitement to commit a crime? personally i think no unless there is proof to deliberately incite.
-
Are written stories about the same thing considered child porn or are they completely different?
-
Are written stories about the same thing considered child porn or are they completely different?
If its fiction then it would have to be classified with the cartoon stuff, if non fiction then in my book it gets lumped with the vids and photos
-
Thinking about this whole sexting thing, if a girl takes a picture of herself when she's say, 14, and then shows it to someone 5 years later, when she's legal, can she be charged?
-
And can the person she gave it to be charged?
I guess that's a thing with consent. It's an image of herself, she can show it to whomever she pleases. :\ I'm not 100%, though.
-
And can the person she gave it to be charged?
I guess that's a thing with consent. It's an image of herself, she can show it to whomever she pleases. :\ I'm not 100%, though.
I recall a 14 year old girl got charged for taking an explicit picture of herself.
-
And that's what I'm talking about.
-
that exact scenario has happened, with all the camera phones and 14 year olds getting sexed up despite the law, this is actually happening a lot and a lot of kids getting put on sex offender lists for abusing themselves.
-
As far as the law is concerned, it's trafficking in CP. There was a case (see: Snail's post) where a teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend, whom she sent a picture of herself to, were tried and found guilty (IIRC) of trafficking in CP.
As far as the law is concerned, the animated stuff is as wrong and illegal as the real thing.
I'm not sure how the law views it in works of writing, but I would think that it would be allowed. You know, because of the storm that would rain down on them for banning books.
-
that exact scenario has happened, with all the camera phones and 14 year olds getting sexed up despite the law, this is actually happening a lot and a lot of kids getting put on sex offender lists for abusing themselves.
What ever happened to the "Your body is yours only and no one can tell you what to do with it" propaganda?
-
As far as the law is concerned, it's trafficking in CP. There was a case (see: Snail's post) where a teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend, whom she sent a picture of herself to, were tried and found guilty (IIRC) of trafficking in CP.
As far as the law is concerned, the animated stuff is as wrong and illegal as the real thing.
I'm not sure how the law views it in works of writing, but I would think that it would be allowed. You know, because of the storm that would rain down on them for banning books.
actually, no, the law I believe is on the side of the pedos in this particular instance. as of this moment. though this does depend on which country you live in.
-
that exact scenario has happened, with all the camera phones and 14 year olds getting sexed up despite the law, this is actually happening a lot and a lot of kids getting put on sex offender lists for abusing themselves.
What ever happened to the "Your body is yours only and no one can tell you what to do with it" propaganda?
It's a consent issue for me. If it can be proved that she took the picture of herself without any outside coercion, then... I don't know. It's CP, but no one has been abused. If she sends the photo to her boyfriend, no coercion, same thing.
The problem is when they break up and the boyfriend starts distributing without her consent. Consent is kind of murky here, though, because it can be hard to prove. :\
-
Does the law specify how old one has to be to be able to be [sic] convicted of CP crimes?
-
Nope.
-
In that case, it should be illegal for a 14-year-old to take a sexual self-portrait...?
The consensus I've seen so far in this thread is that cartoon or simulated CP shouldn't be prosecuted the way real CP is. Given that this is not the case in our current laws, though, I'd like to see an argument supporting the current illegal status of simulated CP.
-
It's too ridiculous a stance.
-
photos of child porn Vs Hentai and other cartoon "child" porn
child porn - no arguments of it being wrong because of the harm to the childs psychological development and the conditions the child could be subjected to. on another element there is the behaviors it could encourage in the viewer.
Cartoons - I put the speech marks around the word child at the start because as with anything based on the artists imagination only the artist knows what was intend the viewer can only interpret the image, now in this being "Not Real" removes the current harm from the child but leaves the issue of behavior it could encourage and if that is a crime, is it an incitement to commit a crime? personally i think no unless there is proof to deliberately incite.
Here's a fun-fact:
EDIT: DAMN! I can't believe how far spread and hysterical this issue is. I've been surfing for 30 minutes and still couldn't find child welfare statistics that compare the various countries.
What I knew (can't confirm) is that Japan, the greatest (maybe only) producer of lolicon cartoon and animaiton has a lower rate of child-abuse than such "enlightened" countries like the liberal Australia, the pieous Italy or the bastion of hope that is the USA.
BTW: It IS ridiculous that in Most countries I could date a girl as young as 16 (14 in Hungary), but in the USA I'd be put in jail for being a pedophile and put on the sex offender list. The best part? This was done to a 17 year old kid for dating a 15 year old. Granted the age of consent in most states is also 16, but God help you if she were only 15 and you didn't know! ...and in a handful of states she has to be over 18.
I mean I'm fine with protecting children, but I don't want to ask for ID if I'm trying to hook up with a girl over a pair of drinks in the bar. Can you tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old? ...or an 18 year old? Nowadays it's not that easy since girls are well developed at an early age and put on make up and generally act hypersexualized.
-
Well, first of all, you theoretically shouldn't run into anyone younger than 21 in a bar if you're in the US.
Kids also "date" each other at ages younger than 18 too (which is obvious)... what they actually do while dating is another issue, and I think you've hit on that adequately, Flaser (the 17-year-old dating a 15-year-old situations sounds like it was blown out of proportions to me). To add to your query, though, I do not feel reverting to "Romeo and Juliet" romanticism should be an option in the modern age. Someone who's 14-16 should probably not be involved in intimate sexual activity. That IS a question of moral and social ethics, though, and adapts with the culture as a whole. "Dat's it."
I've never actually heard of cases where an individual was charged for distributing images of themselves. Granted, you should question their motives, but placing charges on those individuals seems rather "grey" in nature. I don't approve of the actions of those children, but they simultaneously are children. I'm not quite sure there's an ideal ruling for such things.
The "suggestive artwork" issue is a new one to me as well. Despite its questionable morals (and the morals of those who employ it), it is art. As far as US rulings go, that should be protected via the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. AND AS SUCH, it shouldn't be a problem. If you state that such might be an "enabler for foul acts," then I combat that with this: How many people got riled up over a book and did something (not necessarily bad) because of it? The principle is thus this: If you're sick, you're sick. If you're nuts, you're nuts. If you're that messed up to act on things such as literature, games, or in this case, animation, then you're going to cause a problem regardless. Now, that's not to say you might take in poor ethos from the smut you're viewing, but that is an issue of personal morals. If you have any decency, you probably won't find yourself using that media anyway. In conclusion, it should have no legal restrictions apart from whatever is used to regulate ratings for viewers/buyers, etc.
If you're producing or supporting the CP industry, then I have no qualms about beating you down with the book. :ma-Thaeris
-
I've never actually heard of cases where an individual was charged for distributing images of themselves. Granted, you should question their motives, but placing charges on those individuals seems rather "grey" in nature. I don't approve of the actions of those children, but they simultaneously are children. I'm not quite sure there's an ideal ruling for such things.
As far as the law is concerned, it's trafficking in CP. There was a case (see: Snail's post) where a teenage girl and her teenage boyfriend, whom she sent a picture of herself to, were tried and found guilty (IIRC) of trafficking in CP.
I'd look up the article (or the case) for you, but there's no way in Hell that I'm putting anything like that through a search engine.
The "suggestive artwork" issue is a new one to me as well. Despite its questionable morals (and the morals of those who employ it), it is art. As far as US rulings go, that should be protected via the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
There's a specific clause in a child protection act (I forget the name, it was linked to in another topic on GenDisc.) that makes such works illegal to create, sell, and/or own. I'd look it up, but there's no way in Hell that I'm putting anything like that through a search engine.
If you're producing or supporting the CP industry, then I have no qualms about beating you down with the book. :ma-Thaeris
I wasn't aware that there was an entire industry.... And (I would hope that) you're speaking metaphorically about that beating thing, right?
-
there is, it's mostly in eastern Europe, I remember reading an article about it once, they have some surprisingly sophisticated technologies and techniques. but then again the would be in jail now if they didn't.
now, in a slightly out of left field turn, I would like to postulate the following:
loli is more a cartoon fetish than pedophilia.
-
Bear in mind that you can actually make the argument that mere possession of child porn is damaging to the child themselves. Once images of their abuse are on the internet the victim no longer knows who possesses images of their abuse. Even if their original abuser is caught and all material destroyed they don't know if some sick bastard might still have them.
I don't see how someone actually possessing it has any bearing on the belief that someone possesses it; unless it's publicised.
-
The term "industry" is really basic when you get to the root of it: essentially it could be defined as an organization on any level or magnitude producing a product. I also was unaware of the scale of the CP operation if the case Bobboau presents is true. Now, that truly is disturbing...
Thank you for noting the existance of such a clause in the legal framework, BloodEagle (pertaining to artwork). Again, I can't condone the production of such garbage, but in concept there is a problem with such a ruling in the sense that it enables the government to disregard elements of the First Amendment (with regards to the US). That wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened, but it really is treading in dangerous regions
-Thaeris