EPTThey probably just couldn't find real evidence and decided to prosecute based on the simpsons pictures because so many resources had gone into hunting him down. The judge's ruling is strange though. The pictures must have been very bad indeed.
Man Fined for having Simpsons Pornography - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
stenole
Norway868 Posts
They probably just couldn't find real evidence and decided to prosecute based on the simpsons pictures because so many resources had gone into hunting him down. The judge's ruling is strange though. The pictures must have been very bad indeed. | ||
|
suidfhiufh
53 Posts
On December 11 2008 18:44 stenole wrote: Something to consider is how was he caught. Because you don't get fined just for having a photography on your computer. You need to actually do something that gets the police on your tail, such as actually accessing real child pornography, distributing child pornography, seeking out and making sextalk to children in chatrooms etc. The police actually need a reason to raid your home and take your computer. They probably just couldn't find real evidence and decided to prosecute based on the simpsons pictures because so many resources had gone into hunting him down. The judge's ruling is strange though. The pictures must have been very bad indeed. i dont think so i think the most likely senario is that he printed them off as a joke to show his work buddies (simpsons porn commonly circulates schools etc, since its pretty funny) and some asshat took offense (or was just a brainwashed person) and reported him and imo since the judge DID rule that its child pornography (possession and distribution), he got off very lightly | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
stupid judge | ||
|
poilord
Germany3252 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 11 2008 18:22 -orb- wrote: wow that's dumb o.O imo let the paedophiles look at cartoon child porn... it's not hurting any children and it lets them relieve their pent up horniness towards kids. win/win no? I thought the reason against child porn was that those kids aren't at the age of consent and can't be making that kind of decision themselves... whereas a cartoon doesn't have that problem. The one problem with this is that I would assume pictures like this are a 'gateway' to 'harder stuff'. Just like marijuana is gateway to heroine. Only like 1 in 20 marijuana smokers might go onto heroine eventually; but if you are saying like imagine only one in 20 paedophiles go from looking at pictures like that all the way to kidnapping and abusing real children; it kinda makes sense to cut the root off at the stem. Though I'm like half way between the two. Right now, I'm standing on the guys side for this one, but I can see where the law is coming from. But I can't agree with the judge, the characters are NOT people and no one was harmed. | ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
 old habits die hard eh? | ||
KwarK
United States43271 Posts
On December 11 2008 19:39 zobz wrote: You are speaking defenses of cartoon child porn based on one thing which it does not have in common with real child porn, that it wasn't made at the abuse of real children. However that argument alone assumes that that is the only thing wrong with real child porn. It's immoral to fantasize about immoral acts, even if no actual harm is being done. There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you. It might be a miracle of psychotherapy to actually remove lingering desires from a pedophile's system, our subconcious inclinations might be beyond our control to the point of being poor basis for judgement of character. As long as someone finds entertainment in imagining what it would be like if an immoral act took place though, i doubt that they take the immorallity of the act very seriously. Whether it should be illegal is a different matter, but there's definately something wrong with the man, in my opinion, if he is actually jerking off to bart and lisa. Morality is purely subjective. It's a sexual preference. A deviant one, but there are all sorts of deviant fetishes out there. As with any other preference, if it's consensual and in private then that's fair enough. In the case of pedophilia it cannot be consensual because a child cannot consent and therefore it has to remain fantasy. But what you're suggesting is thought police purging people with immoral thoughts. As for the "something wrong with your moral integrity", never had a rape fantasy? | ||
|
Conquest101
United States1395 Posts
On December 11 2008 19:39 zobz wrote: You are speaking defenses of cartoon child porn based on one thing which it does not have in common with real child porn, that it wasn't made at the abuse of real children. However that argument alone assumes that that is the only thing wrong with real child porn. It's immoral to fantasize about immoral acts, even if no actual harm is being done. There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you. It might be a miracle of psychotherapy to actually remove lingering desires from a pedophile's system, our subconcious inclinations might be beyond our control to the point of being poor basis for judgement of character. As long as someone finds entertainment in imagining what it would be like if an immoral act took place though, i doubt that they take the immorallity of the act very seriously. Whether it should be illegal is a different matter, but there's definately something wrong with the man, in my opinion, if he is actually jerking off to bart and lisa. I like watching movies where lots of people get killed. Action entertains me. I like my movies bloody too. I enjoy the Saw series. Clearly I have no moral integrity and I don't take murder and death seriously. + Show Spoiler + just in case: sarcasm!!!! I do agree that Simpson's porn is weird, but we don't even know if he WAS getting off too it. He could have just had at as a joke or some shit and got screwed over by some asshole. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On December 11 2008 19:39 zobz wrote: There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you. No, moral integrity is only in question when choice is involved. ps. might as well just leave kwark to this one. | ||
|
Dametri
United States726 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
On December 11 2008 19:44 Kwark wrote: When i said that whether it should be illegal or not was a different matter, i meant to make it quite clear that i wasn't advocating thought police actions. Though it might be wrong to enforce some laws because they involve taking the rights away from the many in order to control the few, and though i think it's excessive to fine or incarcerate someone for that which describes the quallity of their individual and not their behaviour, that doesn't mean that that quallity isn't a serious flaw.Morality is purely subjective. It's a sexual preference. A deviant one, but there are all sorts of deviant fetishes out there. As with any other preference, if it's consensual and in private then that's fair enough. In the case of pedophilia it cannot be consensual because a child cannot consent and therefore it has to remain fantasy. But what you're suggesting is thought police purging people with immoral thoughts. As for the "something wrong with your moral integrity", never had a rape fantasy? I've tried to answer your claim of subjective morallity in a number of ways but they all rely on pointing out inconsistancies in your beliefs, and i don't actually know what you believe. So i can't practically respond to this argument without more information. Too bad i spent like at least 20 minutes running over these arguments before i figured that out. I wouldn't mind if you pmed me. | ||
|
dream-_-
United States1857 Posts
I just threw up a little in my mouth as I was typing this. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
| ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
and nice one blackjack | ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On December 11 2008 19:28 HamerD wrote: The one problem with this is that I would assume pictures like this are a 'gateway' to 'harder stuff'. Just like marijuana is gateway to heroine. Only like 1 in 20 marijuana smokers might go onto heroine eventually; but if you are saying like imagine only one in 20 paedophiles go from looking at pictures like that all the way to kidnapping and abusing real children; it kinda makes sense to cut the root off at the stem. Though I'm like half way between the two. Right now, I'm standing on the guys side for this one, but I can see where the law is coming from. But I can't agree with the judge, the characters are NOT people and no one was harmed. You can't outlaw something that might influence a small percentage of people to do something illegal. It's a slippery slope. You outlaw marijuana simply because harder drugs are bad. Then you have to outlaw cigarettes because 5% of smokers will take up marijuana. Then you have to outlaw caffeine because 5% of caffeine users will take up smoking. Then you have to outlaw sugar....etc. And I'm pretty sure the logic is flawed anyway. If anything, I'd bet it's overall the opposite (I've heard studies saying both). For every person that rapes a child because he looked at the bart and lisa porn, I'm sure there's at least one guy who relieved his urges to do so by looking at the same thing. Are men who look at regular porn more likely to rape women because of it? Biologically, they are relieved from the sexual aspect of it by looking at the porn, and I seriously doubt looking at porn somehow influences the power aspect of rape. Back to the legal route, we'd obviously also have to outlaw video games and movies with guns, since once every five years some kid shoots up his school from playing too many fps games. It goes without saying we'd outlaw alcohol, since that would prevent all DUIs. The problem is laws are intended to protect the right of citizens, not to control the influences of activities on otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's 1984 when you do that. I'm quite happy living without too much thought crime prosecution. The only arguably just thought crime is conspiracy to commit a crime, and personally I'm against that in most cases (since you can't ever prove it 100%). | ||
|
CFDragon
United States304 Posts
Seriously, what the fuck. Incoming rant.As much as I dislike child pornography of any kind, when there aren't people under the age of consent involved in it in any way, I don't see what the fuck is wrong with it? It's not hurting anyone to draw a fucking picture of it, it is if it actually happens and is recorded, etc. Besides, couldn't you just give some bullshit reasoning behind it like, oh it's a robot that only looks like Bart, a robot that only looks like Lisa, etc. Then how are they going to arrest you? Is robot porn illegal now? [EDIT]Oh, and there's a reason why rape is usually considered a violent crime, not a sex crime in the United States. The mentality of rapists is generally about power and control, not pleasure. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On December 11 2008 23:20 CFDragon wrote: I drew a picture of two stick figures using ASCII characters in notepad, then labeled one of them as being 8 years old, does that mean I'm an evil pedophile now who deserves to be arrested? Good god, dont post it in this thread, I dont want to be charged with looking Child pornography  For anyone who supports this judges decision, its the same argument made with violence in video games just with different contex. If you believe that cartoon child porn should be illegal because it leads to real child porn, then you must also agree that violent video games should be illegal because it leads to killing people. Games like GTA have cartoon people going out into the street and killing people. Yes, some people are insane, and a very small group of people will go out into the real street and copy what they saw in an animated game, but that is not justification for making the game illegal. Also, a large assumption has been made here. That this man has hordes of cartoon child pornography on his computer and that he jacks off to it every day. What is more likely is that he found it and thought it funny, or someone sent it to him because they found it funny. This stuff circulates for the humour value. While someone might argue the punishment is light, if this guy had a career that involved children, its over. And all he might have done wrong was have someone send him an email titled "lol check these funny pictures out" The judge is way out of line with this judgement and this mans rights have been violated. | ||
| ||
