|
On April 20 2010 11:56 micronesia wrote:
This thread got me reading on wikipedia a bit about the laws regarding computer generated child pornography. Apparently, it's illegal to posses images/videos of virtual children engaging in sexual activities? I thought it was only illegal if it is meant to depict a specific real child or if it actually has real children in it (as opposed to hand-drawn fictitious characters).
How exactly does banning that 'protect' children? Is my preliminary analysis wrong? I'm not so much defending fictitious child pornography as I am trying to find where a reasonable place to draw the line is.
Having depictions of fictitious characters is illegal too. The whole idea behind it is that it encourages the industry that actually does go out and victimize people by showing that there is a market for it. The thing with child pornography is that it's one of those things that pretty much everyone is against and wants to stay as far away from as possible and no sensible law maker is actually going to put his neck on the line to argue as to where exactly the boundary should be because he would be accused of being a pedophile no matter how reasonable his argument may be. Of course every law should be sensible, but in this case, I think the general public just accepts that this is something where we don't want people to be able to knit pick and walk the fine line between legal and illegal. For better or worse, that's just how it is and probably how it will stay.
On the topic, I seem to recall a case I read about a while back where some guy had to plead to a 10 year prison sentence for his manga collection because it was technically child porn and his lawyer said once the jury saw the images there would be no way they'd understand anyway. Apparently these weren't some hardcore child porn comics either, but rather just a collection of ecchi japanese manga with their typical childish characters...
|
you guys can always try Mangatoshkan or something like that...it had waaay more manga's than MangaFox or OneManga had.
|
On April 20 2010 11:34 mOnion wrote:
OKAY
So I definitely thought this said
MeganFox Naked
|
On April 20 2010 11:32 QuickStriker wrote:
Onemanga > Mangafox. Nuff said...
But if onemanga goes out like boom bang pow, I'll cry.... for real... that's something you don't see everyday which is how important it is to my life.
most of my friends use onemanga
OM > mangafox imo
and wtf child p0rn mangas o.O
On April 20 2010 12:17 OmgIRok wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 11:34 mOnion wrote:
OKAY
So I definitely thought this said
MeganFox Naked
|
On April 20 2010 11:34 mOnion wrote:
OKAY
So I definitely thought this said
MeganFox Naked
So did I. Wtf?
|
They are just drawings ...
where do you draw the line, would stick figures be illegal?
|
On April 20 2010 12:06 HeartOfTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 11:56 micronesia wrote:
This thread got me reading on wikipedia a bit about the laws regarding computer generated child pornography. Apparently, it's illegal to posses images/videos of virtual children engaging in sexual activities? I thought it was only illegal if it is meant to depict a specific real child or if it actually has real children in it (as opposed to hand-drawn fictitious characters).
How exactly does banning that 'protect' children? Is my preliminary analysis wrong? I'm not so much defending fictitious child pornography as I am trying to find where a reasonable place to draw the line is. Having depictions of fictitious characters is illegal too. The whole idea behind it is that it encourages the industry that actually does go out and victimize people by showing that there is a market for it. The thing with child pornography is that it's one of those things that pretty much everyone is against and wants to stay as far away from as possible and no sensible law maker is actually going to put his neck on the line to argue as to where exactly the boundary should be because he would be accused of being a pedophile no matter how reasonable his argument may be. Of course every law should be sensible, but in this case, I think the general public just accepts that this is something where we don't want people to be able to knit pick and walk the fine line between legal and illegal. For better or worse, that's just how it is and probably how it will stay. On the topic, I seem to recall a case I read about a while back where some guy had to plead to a 10 year prison sentence for his manga collection because it was technically child porn and his lawyer said once the jury saw the images there would be no way they'd understand anyway. Apparently these weren't some hardcore child porn comics either, but rather just a collection of ecchi japanese manga with their typical childish characters...
There's two recent (last 5-6 years, anyway) cases similar to that in the US.
The one you're probably thinking of is Christopher Handley's case. As I understand it, it's not so much that it's classified as child porn, and the charges weren't child porn charges, but obscenity charges. Granted the end result is the same, but since he was charged on obscenity and not child porn, I think that makes the whole issue a bit murky. Also, a list of titles he was prosecuted for was posted, and it was some hardcore loli; not ecchi. He plead guilty and got 6 months.
I still think the entire thing is bullshit. Of course I'm against child porn, but no even if lolicon can be quite perverse, it's still drawings on paper that don't hurt a person. Whereas the production of child porn harms the children used to produce it, and people seeking it out only encourages more production. There's no evidence that looking at loli leads to viewing real child porn. But you're right, I'm sure. Very few would be willing to defend it (or risk their freedom) and thus while it may not be downright illegal, it's probably safer to avoid it.
The other instance I'm aware of where someone was prosecuted for loli was the Whorley (?) case. Basically, the dude was an actual pedophile, served time, was released, and viewed loli on a state computer. No evidence was found that he had real child porn, and he said he found loli as an acceptable substitute or something. He probably deserved the arrest, if for nothing but idiocy. And while this is speculation on my part, if he was in society, and loli truly kept him from viewing real child porn, I'd be perfectly fine with that.
|
On April 20 2010 12:29 ViruX wrote:
They are just drawings ...
where do you draw the line, would stick figures be illegal?
i dunno, but i recall some guy getting arrested for having simpsons porn with bart and lisa
|
ew, simpson's porn? thats just weird.
loli might really be keeping tons of pedos at bay here. do we really want them to prey on little girls irl?
|
onemanga for everything
mangastream for naruto/bleach/onepiece <-- they come out quicker, high qual, and better trans
|
On April 20 2010 12:21 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 11:34 mOnion wrote:
OKAY
So I definitely thought this said
MeganFox Naked So did I. Wtf?
Also guilty as charged :p
|
I saw meganfox nuked lol but now all i can see that title as is meganfox naked thanks thread...
|
United States24554 Posts
On April 20 2010 12:31 So no fek wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 12:06 HeartOfTofu wrote:On April 20 2010 11:56 micronesia wrote:
This thread got me reading on wikipedia a bit about the laws regarding computer generated child pornography. Apparently, it's illegal to posses images/videos of virtual children engaging in sexual activities? I thought it was only illegal if it is meant to depict a specific real child or if it actually has real children in it (as opposed to hand-drawn fictitious characters).
How exactly does banning that 'protect' children? Is my preliminary analysis wrong? I'm not so much defending fictitious child pornography as I am trying to find where a reasonable place to draw the line is. Having depictions of fictitious characters is illegal too. The whole idea behind it is that it encourages the industry that actually does go out and victimize people by showing that there is a market for it. The thing with child pornography is that it's one of those things that pretty much everyone is against and wants to stay as far away from as possible and no sensible law maker is actually going to put his neck on the line to argue as to where exactly the boundary should be because he would be accused of being a pedophile no matter how reasonable his argument may be. Of course every law should be sensible, but in this case, I think the general public just accepts that this is something where we don't want people to be able to knit pick and walk the fine line between legal and illegal. For better or worse, that's just how it is and probably how it will stay. On the topic, I seem to recall a case I read about a while back where some guy had to plead to a 10 year prison sentence for his manga collection because it was technically child porn and his lawyer said once the jury saw the images there would be no way they'd understand anyway. Apparently these weren't some hardcore child porn comics either, but rather just a collection of ecchi japanese manga with their typical childish characters... There's two recent (last 5-6 years, anyway) cases similar to that in the US. The one you're probably thinking of is Christopher Handley's case. As I understand it, it's not so much that it's classified as child porn, and the charges weren't child porn charges, but obscenity charges. Granted the end result is the same, but since he was charged on obscenity and not child porn, I think that makes the whole issue a bit murky. Also, a list of titles he was prosecuted for was posted, and it was some hardcore loli; not ecchi. He plead guilty and got 6 months. I still think the entire thing is bullshit. Of course I'm against child porn, but no even if lolicon can be quite perverse, it's still drawings on paper that don't hurt a person. Whereas the production of child porn harms the children used to produce it, and people seeking it out only encourages more production. There's no evidence that looking at loli leads to viewing real child porn. But you're right, I'm sure. Very few would be willing to defend it (or risk their freedom) and thus while it may not be downright illegal, it's probably safer to avoid it. The other instance I'm aware of where someone was prosecuted for loli was the Whorley (?) case. Basically, the dude was an actual pedophile, served time, was released, and viewed loli on a [b]state[/] computer. No evidence was found that he had real child porn, and he said he found loli as an acceptable substitute or something. He probably deserved the arrest, if for nothing but idiocy. And while this is speculation on my part, if he was in society, and loli truly kept him from viewing real child porn, I'd be perfectly fine with that.
Seems like a very poor move by lawmakers. It seems like just about anything can get passed if you can make the claim that it's meant to protect our children.
I definitely don't believe that the law is protecting children... and is illogical for the reasoning you provided.
|
On April 20 2010 11:54 KawaiiRice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 11:48 majesty.k)seRapH wrote:
so will crap like to-love-ru and sekirei be banned? or love hina? and basically all ecchi involving high schoolers? MAHOU SENSEI NEGIMA NOOOooooooooo??;;;;;;;; One of mahh faveezzz...;;;
SO GOOD! For like 80 chapters it was terrible ecchi filler but now its all action packed and stuff >:0
|
I think there needs to be a "Megan Fox Naked" thread to complement this one.
|
On April 20 2010 11:43 FrozenArbiter wrote:There are worse problems to have.
omg~ THE frozenarbiter comments on my insignificant comment~
What if now I see MeganFox Nuked? LOL
That would be quite a problem.
|
On April 20 2010 11:34 mOnion wrote:
OKAY
So I definitely thought this said
MeganFox Naked
me too... 
|
konadora must be really down right now..
|
On April 20 2010 13:22 scyper wrote:
konadora must be really down right now..
its why he hasnt posted =\
|
personally i'm not sure what is more disturbing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
