# The Dangerous Cartoon Act and Backlash



## Itziko (Apr 9, 2010)

Hello all,

After being a bit of a lurker, this is my first post on Urban75 - hopefully it won't be the last!

I am a member of Backlash, an umbrella organisation providing academic, legal and campaigning resources defending freedom of sexual expression. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media.

I think that Urban 75 members should be aware of this latest legislation that came into being only a few days ago:

Dangerous Cartoons Act
From April 6th 2010, it 's illegal to possess “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”.

You can read more about it here, including links to the actual Bill. 

While Backlash are firmly opposed to the production and possession of photographic child pornography, the addition of cartoons to the remit of illegal child pornography in Chapter 2, Coroners and Justice Act 2009 once again promotes the proliferation of victimless thought crime.

Backlash is  a non-partisan organisation and we'd be very grateful if you could pass on these details onto relevant forums. We are also happy to hear your opinions, suggestions, or any queries, preferably by contacting us directly by email.

Thank you all for your interest and your help.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 9, 2010)

If one was going to put together a list of victimless thought crimes that deserve to be on the statue book, gloating over cartoon pictures of child rape would be a pretty good contender for top of the list. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that anyone deeply into this particular genre should be of interest to the police, and if the only way of legitimately tracking perverts like that is to criminalise them, well and good.

What a really, really weird single-issue cause to get into. Couldn't you get involved with a stray donkey's home or something?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 9, 2010)

I think it would be a good idea to read what this law is about, before jumping to rushed replies.

One again: 

You can read more about it here, including links to the actual Bill. Please read it, and then we can engage in some informed debate.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 9, 2010)

humm  looks  like  i'm a law breaker  then


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 9, 2010)

I read the whole thing before posting, you horrid little man.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2010)

I may be missing something, but where is the part where "images of children" is expanded past the current definition in child pornography laws i.e. images of actual children rather than images of imaginary children?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 9, 2010)

This raises an interesting point: what counts as a child? Perhaps one could argue in court that the addition of tentacles etc made it a monster rather than a child.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 9, 2010)

or  the laughable  situation    in which    when hentai  games   were shipped over seas  the  dialoug was changed  so the agesa  were older  but the  pictures were the same

an image  has  no age


----------



## Itziko (Apr 9, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I read the whole thing before posting,




No, you didn't - at least not with your grey cells engaged.



Maurice Picarda said:


> you horrid little man.


 I am not a man, I'm a woman. What makes you think that only a man could post a thread about sex? Are you Harriet Harman by any chance?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 9, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> This raises an interesting point: what counts as a child? Perhaps one could argue in court that the addition of tentacles etc made it a monster rather than a child.



Yes, it's a very important point, and one I'll come back to later. Thanks to all who took the time to follow the links and read.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 9, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> <snip> Are you Harriet Harman by any chance?



Actually, I think you might be on to something there ...


----------



## Belushi (Apr 9, 2010)

Whats this? a board invasion by NAMBLA?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 9, 2010)

actally  after reading  a bit  more  it  defines  child  as  under 18   and  it's rather  vague about  what counts as pornographic  so  half  of my more steamy love comedies  could  technically  be  counted under this


----------



## gamma globulins (Apr 9, 2010)

I think he is harriet harman, and you can indeed claim your five pounds.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 9, 2010)

Nahh Jacqui Smith


----------



## STFC (Apr 9, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> From April 6th 2010, it 's illegal to possess “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”.



Good.

Why would anyone want to possess such images, apart from the obvious?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 9, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Yes, it's a very important point, and one I'll come back to later. Thanks to all who took the time to follow the links and read.


 
No it wasn't. It was a joke, and rather a good one. Why is it that fetishists and their champions are always so humourless, and so dim?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 9, 2010)

STFC said:


> Good.
> 
> Why would anyone want to possess such images, apart from the obvious?



You never watched South Park?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 9, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Nahh Jacqui Smith


 
Jacqui Smith? How dare you! If I had my way, she'd be thrown extrajudicially into the Tower with other subversives like Shami Chakrabati and Dominic Grieve.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 9, 2010)

Ruth Kelly?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 9, 2010)

well if  i stop posting  all of a sudden  now  people  will know what has happened to me

fuck  my dakimakura  are   probably illegal  too

forget jokes about me marrying one    now  i'llk be off to jail for having them


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I may be missing something, but where is the part where "images of children" is expanded past the current definition in child pornography laws i.e. images of actual children rather than images of imaginary children?



Well I've found it myself with no great thanks to the blog post - section 65:


> (6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
> (a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
> (b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
> (7)References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person.
> (8)References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 9, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Ruth Kelly?


 
Post reported. It's possible to go too far, you know.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 9, 2010)

Wasn't someone done for having a pornographic simpsons cartoon? The poor defendant had to argue that no, he didn't really want to make love to Bart Simpson! I can't remember if he went down or not


----------



## Itziko (Apr 9, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I may be missing something, but where is the part where "images of children" is expanded past the current definition in child pornography laws i.e. images of actual children rather than images of imaginary children?



Hi Fridgemagnet. The law is concerned with "non-photographic images of children." You can download the pdf here: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/pdf/consultation-non-photographic-response.pdf (I hope the link works).


----------



## Superdupastupor (Apr 9, 2010)

The law is a complete logic fail: what of there is a cartoon which clearly looks like child rape but is merely the rape of a shape shifter that has assumed the form of a child?

That sort of thing is it


----------



## Itziko (Apr 9, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Wasn't someone done for having a pornographic simpsons cartoon? The poor defendant had to argue that no, he didn't really want to make love to Bart Simpson! I can't remember if he went down or not



Yes, it was someone in Iowa. I was goign to go out (grrr...), and I meant to post the link tomorrow. It was in the US,  because that same law was passed there, before our very own glorious leaders thought it was a good idea to copy.

I'ill be back, and thanks in the meantime for the debate and for your questions.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Hi Fridgemagnet. The law is concerned with "non-photographic images of children." You can download the pdf here: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/pdf/consultation-non-photographic-response.pdf (I hope the link works).



yah, except that actually isn't about the law at all, it's about a _consultation_

I found the relevant paragraph in the legislation, but the blog post you linked to is being dishonest claiming that that is "The full pdf concerning the law".


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 9, 2010)

this  is  just  compleatly  nuts

i mean i could kinda  understand  if  this  was   specifically targeting lolicon   (even though personally i have no problem with lolicon)  but   going  with  a  law that   covers  any image that could  be considered under 18  pretty much makes  my  entire  collection of   ero  stuff illegal


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Wasn't someone done for having a pornographic simpsons cartoon? The poor defendant had to argue that no, he didn't really want to make love to Bart Simpson! I can't remember if he went down or not



People have been done for sending pornographic images of _themselves_. (In the US, this is, but it could theoretically happen here iirc.)


----------



## Itziko (Apr 9, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> yah, except that actually isn't about the law at all, it's about a _consultation_
> 
> I found the relevant paragraph in the legislation, but the blog post you linked to is being dishonest claiming that that is "The full pdf concerning the law".



Hi again FridgeMagnet,

as a member of Backlash, I'm very interested to know more about that. I'm not trying to be dishonest nor of misleading people. If you can reply in a private message, I'll be very grateful for your help and guidance regarding that "full pdf concerning the law". Thanks.


----------



## STFC (Apr 9, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> You never watched South Park?



Yes, I've seen it. I don't remember seeing an episode featuring visual depictions of child sexual abuse though, unless you count Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, which would be ridiculous.

Do you think this is aimed at criminalising the viewers of South Park then?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 9, 2010)

STFC said:


> Yes, I've seen it. I don't remember seeing an episode featuring visual depictions of child sexual abuse though, unless you count Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, which would be ridiculous.
> 
> Do you think this is aimed at criminalising the viewers of South Park then?



Might not be aimed at it, but it sounds like it would ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Hi again FridgeMagnet,
> 
> as a member of Backlash, I'm very interested to know more about that. I'm not trying to be dishonest nor of misleading people. If you can reply in a private message, I'll be very grateful for your help and guidance regarding that "full pdf concerning the law". Thanks.



There's not much point in PMing it as other people might have an opinion, really, but instead of


> The full pdf concerning the law is available here: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/pdf/consultation-non-photographic-response.pdf
> 
> The Dangerous Cartoons clauses are found in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2, also see explanatory notes.


I would say something more like


> The consultation document that produced the law is available here: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/pdf/consultation-non-photographic-response.pdf
> 
> The Dangerous Cartoons clauses are found in http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2, also see explanatory notes. Clauses regarding the change of definition of child images are here - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g65


----------



## 8ball (Apr 9, 2010)

This doesn't go anywhere near far enough - what about textual descriptions of child rape?  Or symbolic representation?  Anyone found using the phrase 'child rape' should surely be pre-emptively killed (humanely, obv), and anyone using the words 'child' and 'rape' within a few hundred words of each other in a piece of text is surely playing some kind of underhanded subliminal paedo-game.

<shoots self in face upon re-reading own post>


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 9, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Wasn't someone done for having a pornographic simpsons cartoon? The poor defendant had to argue that no, he didn't really want to make love to Bart Simpson! I can't remember if he went down or not



IIRC, that was in Oz, and I think he did end up doing bird.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 9, 2010)

Lisa's only 8. 

urban, home of cartoon-paedo-smut


----------



## salem (Apr 10, 2010)

I think it's an interesting point. On one hand I'm generally against introducing a law for the sake of it as there is always going to be 'collateral damage' when it's inevitably employed in the real world (e.g legitimate photographers being stopped going about their business on the by police brandishing the terrorist card). Is there actually a problem to address and can it be solved using existing law?

However, with both paint and CGI it's possible to produce some amazingly photo-realistic effects. Take this 'photo' for example.






Not a real kid (that was from a quick google, but I have seen other photos that good which were 100% CGI). I'd be very uncomfortable with that kind of imagery being used to make up what is effectively child porn. In fact anything intending to be of child abuse is obviously in bad taste. However the 2012 logo could be interpreted that way too.

And what about the huge 'barely legal' porn industry where pigtails, lollypops, uniforms and otherwise childlike iconography is employed to get the same result. There is a very blurred line there.

Not quite sure what my opinions are on this yet actually 

* I make this post having taken the OP's original post at face value and without digging into what their actual prerogative is. Question to the OP, what other issues has your organisation campaigned for? Is sexual freedom (in terms of what you've actually campaigned for) extend beyond the portrayal of children or has the organisation been set up recently with this mainly in mind?


----------



## Theda (Apr 10, 2010)

Backlash was created in 2005 to collate evidence for an informed debate on censorship and to oppose criminalisation of ownership of material just because the Home Office finds it abhorrent.

It supports the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media. Initially it was set up to contest the Extreme Pornography law before it came into being as it criminalises consenting adults, engaging in consenting and LEGAL activities, and owning images of these consenting adults engaging in consentual activities.

Backlash provides legal advice and defend those caught up in these new laws, raise awareness about why the laws are wrong, won’t work, and have unintended consequences.

Members include:

Feminists against Censorship, formed in 1989 by a group of long-time feminist academics and campaigners who wished to fight censorship from a feminist perspective.

International Union of Sex Workers, the organisation for sex workers’ civil, legal and workers rights. 
Ofwatch was set up to represent the viewers of adult entertainment on television in the UK and to fight for justice and common sense in how such entertainment is regulated.

SM Dykes Manchester runs events and supports women in Manchester and the surrounding area as they explore their interests in the world of BDSM and discuss issues facing SM Dykes, as do SM Dykes London and South East in their area.

The Campaign Against Censorship was re-launched in 1983 to promote freedom of expression in all its forms and to fight restrictions on that freedom and its exercise.

The Libertarian Alliance is a non-partisan group fighting statism in all its forms and working for the creation of a truly free society.

The Sexual Freedom Coalition was formed in 1996 to press the Home Office, governments, police for the sexual freedom of consenting adults.

The Society for Individual Freedom

The Spanner Trust, set up after the Spanner arrests in 1990, exists to defend the rights of sadomasochists of all sexual orientations and specifically to reverse the UK court ruling which made some SM activities illegal even though all parties consent.

Unfettered, a not for profit group formed in 2004 to run educational and entertainment events in the UK to further the cause of BDSM & Fetish and to promote tolerance and understanding within the community and wider society.

The Dangerous Cartoons clauses in the Coroners and Justice Bill 2009 were created to fill a gap in the child protection acts, however as the only children who will be protected by this clause will be fictional ones, it is a moot point.

No children are harmed in the making of hentai, manga, anime.

The only people who will be victimised by this law are previously law abiding citizens who own comics and cartoons.

It is now illegal to look at spoofed imaged of Lisa Simpson or Bart engaging in mocked up sexual activities and to have on on your computer or in it's cache. If found, will result in the individual being placed on the Sex Offenders Register, and likely to be subject to a custodial sentence.

Alan Moore, creator of V for Vendetta and the Watchmen, graphic novel The Lost Girls will most certainly come under this law.

Finding such images distasteful is not the same as the images themselves causing danger. 

I for one, hate the idea that an individual would use the 'defence' "A picture/video game//film made me do it!" .

Adults are responsible for their own actions, one would hope. 

Both the extreme pornography and the dangerous cartoons laws are entirely non evidence based laws. There IS NO EVIDENCE that viewing or owning fictionalised, drawn, or acted media leads to violent activities, makes people dangerous or a risk to society, or turns them into paedophiles or perverts.

In the US, in 2009 Christopher Handley faced a maximum of 15 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a three-year term of supervised release unless he plead guilty to possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children and received 6 months in prison. He had manga and hentai comic books. There was no evidence what so ever of child pornography or a history of criminal activity or paedophilia.

Bear this in mind - he had not touched, harmed, thought about, abused, solicited, groomed, been anywhere near children. He had a collection of comics. That is all. 

And that's what we're probably looking at in the UK now this ridiculous law has been passed.


----------



## Theda (Apr 10, 2010)

@Maurice - your use of the word 'gloating' is interesting. Does that mean that you know intimately a person's interests, motivations, feelings etc for looking at such pictures?

Of course you don't.

It's completely unreasonable to assume that because an individual ADULT interested in hentai or anime should be of interest to the police. In fact, why should they be of interest to the police?

We are talking about adults looking at drawings.

It may interest you to know that in the UK the most common piece of 'literature' found in the possession of convicted paedophiles is ....

The Mothercare catalogue.

This is an issue about adults and drawings NOT child protection.




Maurice Picarda said:


> If one was going to put together a list of victimless thought crimes that deserve to be on the statue book, gloating over cartoon pictures of child rape would be a pretty good contender for top of the list. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that anyone deeply into this particular genre should be of interest to the police, and if the only way of legitimately tracking perverts like that is to criminalise them, well and good.
> 
> What a really, really weird single-issue cause to get into. Couldn't you get involved with a stray donkey's home or something?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 10, 2010)

Theda said:


> The Libertarian Alliance is a non-partisan group fighting statism in all its forms and working for the creation of a truly free society.



it was going so well until then


----------



## Itziko (Apr 10, 2010)

salem said:


> I think it's an interesting point. On one hand I'm generally against introducing a law for the sake of it as there is always going to be 'collateral damage' when it's inevitably employed in the real world (e.g legitimate photographers being stopped going about their business on the by police brandishing the terrorist card). Is there actually a problem to address and can it be solved using existing law?



if the issue is child abuse, there are already laws in place to deal with it. I'd like to know how banning the possession of non-photographic images is going to stop real children being abused. ah yes, I know: those images will give people ideas!!! you look at Anime and you turn into a paedo. Daily Mail logic at its best!





salem said:


> And what about the huge 'barely legal' porn industry where pigtails, lollypops, uniforms and otherwise childlike iconography is employed to get the same result. There is a very blurred line there.
> 
> Not quite sure what my opinions are on this yet actually



Well, imagine being done for having sex with your girlfreind wearing ponytails, or you wearing a school uniform. I suppose someone, somehwere, could argue that you were in fact fantasising about having sex with an underage girl, or of being an underage boy yourself. Thought crime, anyone?

There is such a thing as Age Play, where people enjoy regressing to an ideal image of childhood, and engaging sexually with other adults, pretending to be children, toddlers, babies... Daddy/little girl and Mummy/Auntie/little boy play (and their same sex equivalents). They are very popular fantasies, not unknown probably to U35 members. It doesn't mean that these people would like to have sex with children, only that they enjoy having sex pretending to be children, with its tropes and conventions. 



salem said:


> * I make this post having taken the OP's original post at face value and without digging into what their actual prerogative is. Question to the OP, what other issues has your organisation campaigned for? Is sexual freedom (in terms of what you've actually campaigned for) extend beyond the portrayal of children or has the organisation been set up recently with this mainly in mind?



Theda replied to that question on a previous post. Theda is also a Backlash member.

For me, one very important point that we've been forgetting is that this law, and to a great extent its older sibling, The Dangerous Pictures Act of 2009, uses an emotive language that could be translated as the good old "think of the children!!!! of the Daily Mail, to mask an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting children, but with criminalising consenting adults engaging in sexual activities on the basis that their CONSENSUAL sexual preferences are disgusting. It's not about what people DO, but about what they THINK. Anyone who compares a hentai fan to a paedophile, or someone who engages in S/M as a partner abuser, is using the same logic as the Mail. Remember that being gay was a disgusting and abhorrent crime until not so long ago, and that slurrs of paedophilia were also aimed at gays to justify prejudice.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 10, 2010)

Theda said:


> It may interest you to know that in the UK the most common piece of 'literature' found in the possession of convicted paedophiles is ....
> 
> The Mothercare catalogue.



Giving people ideas! Ban that filth I say! Ho-hum!

I believe that the piece of literature most mentioned by serial killers as an "inspiration" is the Bible. No need to get into that one, I think...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 10, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Theda replied to that question on a previous post. Theda is also a Backlash member.
> 
> .


 
Or, perhaps, a sock puppet? I think most people here probably have Voltaire instincts about you lot - they may find you creepy, but they have a prior and over-riding commitment to freedom of thought. But please, don't assume that your odd tastes make you quirky and engaging.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 10, 2010)

You forgot to add "man" to "sock puppet".

Maurice, the only creepy person here is you and your tin foil hat. And please don't assume that you have the monopoly over "freedom of thought". Your thoughts don't seem very free to me, more like sadly, and predictably, paranoid, intolerant and prejudiced towards what you don' understand. And anything you don't understand or like is, apparently, "creepy".


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 10, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> And anything you don't understand or like is, apparently, "creepy".


 
No, just cartoons about non-consensual child sex. Okay, bored with you now. But I very much hope that you don't stay.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 10, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> No, just cartoons about non-consensual child sex. Okay, bored with you now. But I very much hope that you don't stay.



Nobody has ever mentioned non-consensual child sex, stop making things up. 

I am staying, I'm sorry to inform you that you can't send me to the gas chamber just because you don't agree with my ideas.

And no, you aren't bored with me, you'll come back.


----------



## Theda (Apr 10, 2010)

@maurice - non consentual child sex does not exist.

Children can NOT consent. 

Yet again, I repeat - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN.




Maurice Picarda said:


> No, just cartoons about non-consensual child sex. Okay, bored with you now. But I very much hope that you don't stay.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Are you Harriet Harman by any chance?





Oh, it's a trolling _team_!

How wonderful.


----------



## dylans (Apr 10, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> No, just cartoons about non-consensual child sex. Okay, bored with you now. But I very much hope that you don't stay.



As far as I can see (and I have only casually read the links) this is about censorship not child abuse. 

You can find someone's possession of tasteless or gross cartoon images offensive. You can dislike the person for possessing them. You can question that persons tastes or morality. 

That is all fine. I do too. 

But when you then move to censor literature or artwork (drawings, writing, created images etc) on the basis of that distate, you are on a very slippery slope to legislating against ideas or thought or creativity. And that I find very dangerous. Because if the law protects those whose ideas I find distasteful then it protects us all.

I'm in favour of laws against child pornography not because I find those images offensive and disgusting (although of course I do) but because they are made by hurting a child. They are a crime with a victim. I am against laws forbidding the construction of cartoons depicting such abuse because there is no victim. I still find those images disturbing and offensive but see no reason why they should be forbidden when there is no victim. Offence or disgust is not the basis for legislation.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 10, 2010)

Yes dylans, that's exactly what it is. The 'think of the children" is just a smoke screen to disctract you (bur clearly not *you*, thanks goodness), from the reality of this legislation. A dangerous smoke screen that will no doubt bring votes and perhaps, even more draconian censorship laws in the future.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Yes dylans, that's exactly what it is. The 'think of the children" is just a smoke screen to disctract you (bur clearly not *you*, thanks goodness), from the reality of this legislation. A dangerous smoke screen that will no doubt bring votes and perhaps, even more draconian censorship laws in the future.



As I was defending GTA IV recently which includes the option to run over pedestrians and murder a prostitute I guess I'd have to support what it is your campaign is doing.

But it is a little bit weird, don't you think?


----------



## dylans (Apr 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> As I was defending GTA IV recently which includes the option to run over pedestrians and murder a prostitute I guess I'd have to support what it is your campaign is doing.
> 
> But it is a little bit weird, don't you think?



This is about defending artistic freedom. What's weird about that?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> This is about defending artistic freedom. What's weird about that?





Child porn depicted through 'artistic' imagery is weird. Period.


----------



## dylans (Apr 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Child porn depicted through 'artistic' imagery is weird. Period.



But this is bigger than that isn't it. As you rightly said, It's about whether artistic images should be censored on the basis of people finding them offensive, immoral or "weird." 

First they come for the Lisa Simpson with donkey cartoon, next it's your right to run over a prostitute on GTA that is stopped.

I suspect that the "child porn" stuff is a red herring to allow this kind of authoritarian legislation to get through easier


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 10, 2010)

We should bring back Soviet Realism style censors.


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Child porn depicted through 'artistic' imagery is weird. Period.



AFAIK its not just about 'child' porn. If I were to get sexually aroused by a photo that I legally took of a legal act with my legal and consenting girlfriend I can now expect a spell in chokey


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 10, 2010)

my fave anti-censorship line man 'I'm not aroused by this photo, why are you trying to ban it, you are the one with the hard on and a guilty feeling'

*watch as person implodes*


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> But this is bigger than that isn't it. As you rightly said, It's about whether artistic images should be censored on the basis of people finding them offensive, immoral or "weird."
> 
> First they come for the Lisa Simpson with donkey cartoon, next it's your right to run over a prostitute on GTA that is stopped.
> 
> I suspect that the "child porn" stuff is a red herring to allow this kind of authoritarian legislation to get through easier



I said I agreed with the campaign. I just added that I thought cartoon child porn to be a bit weird but each to their own.


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> my fave anti-censorship line man 'I'm not aroused by this photo, why are you trying to ban it, you are the one with the hard on and a guilty feeling'
> 
> *watch as person implodes*



Was it you who came up with the quote "hard-on of righteousness straining in their pants" ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 10, 2010)

yes. To my shame.


----------



## Theda (Apr 10, 2010)

Mooncat said:


> Was it you who came up with the quote "hard-on of righteousness straining in their pants" ?



I'm sooo stealing that.


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> yes. To my shame.



Don't - I said it to my nan in an argument about capital punishment and she shut the fuck up.


----------



## dylans (Apr 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I said I agreed with the campaign. I just added that I thought cartoon child porn to be a bit weird but each to their own.



Well that I agree with. 
It is by defending that which we find distasteful that we defend all free expression. 

I am reminded of the "people versus Larry Flint". Where Flint says "freedom of expression defends all of you. Because if it defends me, then you are safe, because i'm the worst".


----------



## Itziko (Apr 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> As I was defending GTA IV recently which includes the option to run over pedestrians and murder a prostitute I guess I'd have to support what it is your campaign is doing.
> 
> But it is a little bit weird, don't you think?



I suppose that other people's turn-ons can seem weird when they don't turn *you* on.

As for GTA, I haven't played it in years, but I think they were all for equality and they encouraged kids, sorry, users, to kill all sorts of people, of all genders, ages, backgrounds... so no beef with them, my inner rad feminist can't call them sexist pigs. Ho-hum!

Back to the OP, thank you all for your replies. I know that it was my first post on U75 and I chose, rather naively, to make my first apperance with a controversial subject, so got all sorts of responses: from the understandable suspicion, to the tin foil brigade and the accusations of bieng a troll and even better, a man. I've never been called the latter in a forum, so cheers to the person who popped my cherry 

Now I'll go back to the other forums and discuss baking vegan cakes, music, growing your own vegetables and indoor climbing. I'm a Renasaince man - erm, woman, me!


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 12, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> I suppose that other people's turn-ons can seem weird when they don't turn *you* on.



So animated child porn turns you on? 



> As for GTA, I haven't played it in years



This game doesn't turn me on btw. I just don't think it's responsible for the breakdown of society.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 12, 2010)

actually you need to worry about all of urban

we once ran a sexiest cartoon character poll  and the winner  was ayanami rei  

who would  be  considered a no no  by this law


----------



## Itziko (Apr 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So animated child porn turns you on?



No, it doesn't since you are asking. I don't support child porn in any way or form, nor does Backlash (we said that earlier). Our position is clear, I think: we are aware that there is a lot of work, specially in the world of anime and graphic novels, that could fall foul of this legislation. Have a look at Hentai website, or google up Alan Moore's classic graphic novel "The Lost Girls", and judge by yourself as to whether that's disgusting paedo fodder or art, entertainment, or something else.



Citizen66 said:


> This game doesn't turn me on btw. I just don't think it's responsible for the breakdown of society.



Neither do I. I also don't think that the people who buy it should be of interest to the police as suspect serial killers. If that were the case, it wouldn't be the success it is (there aren't so many serial killers to make it a blockbuster). Just as I don't think that people who collect Anime are potential paedos, even though japanese cartoons can be disturbing at times for our Western sensibilities, with its hypersexualized pre-teen characters.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 12, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> actually you need to worry about all of urban
> 
> we once ran a sexiest cartoon character poll  and the winner  was ayanami rei
> 
> who would  be  considered a no no  by this law



Well, hello Ms Ayanami.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 12, 2010)

don't link to that  pedo filth  you  pervert


actually i'm  getting  a rei  and an asuka  dakimakura soon    there is no hope for me

i'm going to have to move...


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 12, 2010)

My opinion: these are drawings, ffs.  How can you ban a drawing?  Why would you even try? 

It is not possible for a cartoon to be 'dangerous' and this is just stupid.


----------



## dylans (Apr 12, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> My opinion: these are drawings, ffs.  How can you ban a drawing?  Why would you even try?
> 
> It is not possible for a cartoon to be 'dangerous' and this is just stupid.



This. in a nutshell. ITS JUST A FUCKING DRAWING


----------



## Theda (Apr 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So animated child porn turns you on?



Erm - where did she say that?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 12, 2010)

Theda said:


> Erm - where did she say that?



Oh, I forgot there was a side-kick.

She said:



Itziko_Supersta said:


> I suppose that other people's turn-ons can seem weird when they don't turn *you* on.



...and nobody had mentioned them in a sexual context until that point, just an artistic one.

But anyway, she managed to answer for herself.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh, I forgot there was a side-kick.
> 
> She said:
> 
> ...



I started this thread precisely because a law has been passed that has decided to put cartoons in a sexual context. The whole issue is about it, nothing else, and indeed, nothing to do with kiddie porn. I thought, by your earlier replies that you understood that well. You don;t strike me as a "will somebody think of the children?!?!" type Mail reader, judging by other posts of yours on other threads.

This is all very McCarthyan, some people here insist on seeing paedos everywhere. Citizen66, change that word, paedo, for "communist", and you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 12, 2010)

how would you even legislate it to stop people saying. "I'm the artist and she's 18. It's all make believe anyway...


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 12, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> This is all very McCarthyan, some people here insist on seeing paedos everywhere. Citizen66, change that word, paedo, for "communist", and you'll see what I'm talking about.





So you are trolling then?

Because being arrested for holding communist views is just the same as being arrested for raping kids? 

To which you'll retort "looking at illustrated pictures of kids being shagged is not raping kids" and you'd be right. But I wouldn't trust anyone that did to babysit my niece.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 12, 2010)

Lo Siento. said:


> how would you even legislate it to stop people saying. "I'm the artist and she's 18. It's all make believe anyway...



Exactly, it's all make believe. Lines and colours on a piece of paper that we give different cultural meanings. I'm sure courtrooms will be wasting public money over the age old "yes, but is it art/porn?" debate


----------



## Itziko (Apr 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So you are trolling then?
> 
> Because being arrested for holding communist views is just the same as being arrested for raping kids?
> 
> To which you'll retort "looking at illustrated pictures of kids being shagged is not raping kids" and you'd be right. But I wouldn't trust anyone that did to babysit my niece.



I have never mentioned pictures (I assume you are referring to non-pictorial representation of) "of kids being shagged". I have mentioned cartoons, many of them, as others better informed than you have already pointed at, widely available in shops and over the net. Have a look at what I'm referring to. You sound like those people who say "I don't have anything against gays, as long as they don't t make passes at me".

ETA: No, I"m not trolling, That seems to be more your and Maurice Picardia's thing.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 12, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> I have never mentioned pictures (I assume you are referring to non-pictorial representation of) "of kids being shagged".



Did you miss the word 'illustrated' in my post?



> I have mentioned cartoons, many of them, as others better informed than you have already pointed at, widely available in shops and over the net. Have a look at what I'm referring to.



In your opening post you said specifically:



Itziko_Supersta said:


> From April 6th 2010, it 's illegal to possess “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”.



I have no intention of looking at child sexual abuse in any form. I recognise there is a difference between illustrations and the real thing but I have no interest in looking at either.



> You sound like those people who say "I don't have anything against gays, as long as they don't t make passes at me".



 grow up.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Did you miss the word 'illustrated' in my post?



I did. My apologies for that.



Citizen66 said:


> I have no intention of looking at child sexual abuse in any form. I recognise there is a difference between illustrations and the real thing but I have no interest in looking at either.



Fair enough, but these works are available on Amazon. You are wary of looking at them because in they could make you commit a crime (a crime without victims, btw), and yet, they are in the shops, and without any doubt, in many people's bookshelves.



Citizen66 said:


> grow up.



*Sighs*


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Fair enough, but these works are available on Amazon. You are wary of looking at them because in they could make you commit a crime (a crime without victims, btw), and yet, they are in the shops, and without any doubt, in many people's bookshelves.



I don't doubt it. But where should a line, if any, be drawn (pardon the pun).

It's a subject that I know very little about, as you're keen to point out. I'm aware that some Manga has a sexual element to it around sexualising youth and to me they're just cartoons. No problem there. But what about art that has been blatantly copied from photographs? How would the law deal with that? Because the artist could just turn around and claim that it came from his or her imagination. And that could open a gateway for the the legal distribution of child porn through the back door (desperately needed better words for that!)

Not wanting to sound daily mail here, devil's advocate and all that. But some art is copied from reality and can look very realistic...







Real or imagined?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't doubt it. But where should a line, if any, be drawn (pardon the pun).
> 
> It's a subject that I know very little about, as you're keen to point out. I'm aware that some Manga has a sexual element to it around sexualising youth and to me they're just cartoons. No problem there. But what about art that has been blatantly copied from photographs? How would the law deal with that? Because the artist could just turn around and claim that it came from his or her imagination. And that could open a gateway for the the legal distribution of child porn through the back door (desperately needed better words for that!)
> 
> ...



Yup, we have discussed that at BL: some art can be very realistic, and where do you draw lines (pun? what pun?)... we can only speculate right now. The only possible answer at the moment is that, given the stupidity of the whole legislation, and the vague language used in it, only when real cases go to court, shall we know. My suspicion is that loads of public money are going to be spent on juries and judges debating "yes, but is it ART?"*, and having been to art college myself, I find the idea wildly funny in theory, but in reality, not so much. 

*The image of juries debating whether an image is pornographic or not is also funny in a Carry On kinda way, but again, in reality, it's a very different thing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Doing more thinking about this.......... ie what are the reasonable limits on freedom in a free society?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Yup, we have discussed that at BL: some art can be very realistic, and where do you draw lines (pun? what pun?)... we can only speculate right now. The only possible answer at the moment is that, given the stupidity of the whole legislation, and the vague language used in it, only when real cases go to court, shall we know. My suspicion is that loads of public money are going to be spent on juries and judges debating "yes, but is it ART?"*, and having been to art college myself, I find the idea wildly funny in theory, but in reality, not so much.
> 
> *The image of juries debating whether an image is pornographic or not is also funny in a Carry On kinda way, but again, in reality, it's a very different thing.



You've completely circumvented the point point I was making...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

I can't get past my belief in the fundamental importance of free speech in a free society. Most people find sexual depictions involving minors to be abhorrent, but unless a crime is committed or involved in the creation of the image, then the image remains nothing beyond an expression of the thought of the maker. Criminalizing thought, or the depiction of that thought, standing alone, is.....the creation of thought crime. It's the state beginning the process of deciding what we may or may not think, via legislation and criminal sanction.

There are people out there who would round up people who look like me and exterminate them. Needless to say, their thoughts are abhorrent to me. I would not criminalize their right to think those thoughts, nor to depict them. 

The freedom at stake is too precious, and the allowance of trammeling upon that freedom in one area, can be construed by those of such mindset, as acquiescence or even agreement by us to even further encroachment in other areas as well.

With freedoms like speech, we keep the law out beyond the extremities, because if we're lax, one day we wake up and find that the law is now standing beside where we live.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

I think we're seeing the fallout from the legal consequences of 911. The abrogation of various civil rights needn't be listed here yet again.

Two difficulties: the rolling-back of fundamental rights ended up being used not just to catch mad bombers, but against gangsters, dealers, criminals of all sorts.

And: The administration of laws becomes easier if there are fewer procedural hurdles to overcome, and I think that those who make and enforce laws, can become comfortable with that state of affairs. I think our lawmakers and enforcers, are becoming more and more comfortable.


----------



## The Groke (Apr 13, 2010)

I am sort of surprised at the shortness of shrift given to the OP and her sidekick.

It is pretty obvious (and has been stated several times) that the issue here is not one of championing "artists impressions" of child abuse - sexual or otherwise - but the wider issues that this sort of nebulous and ill-thought out legislation potentially introduces.

Given the Urbanites usual stance against censorship and the vitriol shown to those Daily Wailers that see Paedos hiding behind every wall and under every child's bed it seems odd that a lot of people on this thread are instantly jumping on the "well you must be a pedo if you are against this bill" wagon.

Nothing to hide nothing to fear eh?


----------



## The Groke (Apr 13, 2010)

I presume then this law will make owning a copy of Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbies' "Lost Girls" illegal and have the authors put on the sex offenders reg?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

> I don't doubt it. But where should a line, if any, be drawn (pardon the pun)



You can draw the line, like all matters of taste, without legislation. You can dislike the image. You can detest the creator of that image. You can argue that people shouldn't buy that image. You can demonstrate your distaste for that image but that doesn't follow that you should legislate against that image. Because it is a matter of taste and it is impossible to legislate on matters of taste.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

The Groke said:


> I am sort of surprised at the shortness of shrift given to the OP and her sidekick.
> 
> It is pretty obvious (and has been stated several times) that the issue here is not one of championing "artists impressions" of child abuse - sexual or otherwise - but the wider issues that this sort of nebulous and ill-thought out legislation potentially introduces.
> 
> ...



I stated earlier that I agree with their campaign but in the absence of an opposing argument where's the debate?


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> What a really, really weird single-issue cause to get into. Couldn't you get involved with a stray donkey's home or something?





> Why is it that fetishists and their champions are always so humourless, and so dim?


No Maurice, opposing laws that assert "your meaning is what we decide it to be, neither more nor less" is not at at all to embrace _a really, really weird single-issue cause_.

It is to assert that lowlife with really, really weird authoritarian fetishes do not get a free pass to criminalise others.  We already have laws against harming children.  We don't need laws to suppress discussion of how children may be harmed.

To confuse talking about, or depicting crimes, with actual crimes, is dangerous and foolish.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> You can draw the line, like all matters of taste, without legislation. You can dislike the image. You can detest the creator of that image. You can argue that people shouldn't buy that image. You can demonstrate your distaste for that image but that doesn't follow that you should legislate against that image. Because it is a matter of taste and it is impossible to legislate on matters of taste.



You've also completely side-stepped my point. 

Two questions.

1) is the child in the illustration I linked to real or imagined?

2) would another illustration showing him performing a sexual act with an adult be acceptable if illustrated?


----------



## fogbat (Apr 13, 2010)

> non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse



Is it limited just to figurative illustrations?

I think I may be able to create an illegal flow-chart


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You've also completely side-stepped my point.
> 
> Two questions.
> 
> ...


One answer: has a real child been abused?

This stuff is not difficult, not to those who can tell reality from fantasy


----------



## fogbat (Apr 13, 2010)

How about if it was a photorealistic drawing, but drawn from real-life child models?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Is it limited just to figurative illustrations?
> 
> I think I may be able to create an illegal flow-chart



This is the point I'm trying to make. Saying all art is just imagination is disingenuous as a lot of art is based on live or photographed subjects.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 13, 2010)

then the act of using child models is the abuse rather than the image.
ffs 
 its not about fucking nonces trying to get round being caught with child porn.
 although thats the laudable intent of the bill I guess.

Its the fact that this bill can be used to go after any cartoon that somebody decides they don't like
 They came for shippy and his pillows and I did not speak out cause frankly he's a weirdo
  does'nt really cut if I'm afraid


----------



## The Groke (Apr 13, 2010)

What about a cartoon/comic depicting one scene - integral to the story - of child abuse?

Not in a salacious way, not even showing any genital nudity, but a depiction meant to shock or disturb in the context of the narrative?


----------



## fogbat (Apr 13, 2010)

likesfish said:


> *then the act of using child models is the abuse rather than the image.*
> ffs
> its not about fucking nonces trying to get round being caught with child porn.
> although thats the laudable intent of the bill I guess.
> ...



Yep, I think that's the difference.

Doug Stanhope asked why it's illegal to possess images of this crime, while you'd consider possession of images of any other crime nonsensical.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

likesfish said:


> then the act of using child models is the abuse rather than the image.
> ffs



So why is viewing photographed child porn illegal if the crime itself is only commited by the photographer?


----------



## The Groke (Apr 13, 2010)

What about this?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

The Groke said:


> What about this?



I don't think anyone would argue that live models were used in that image.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 13, 2010)

Yeah, the kid was blatantly already dead. Look at the eyes.


----------



## The Groke (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think anyone would argue that live models were used in that image.




But the new law  - taken to extremis obv. - could potentially be invoked on that image no?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> As far as I can see (and I have only casually read the links) this is about censorship not child abuse.
> 
> You can find someone's possession of tasteless or gross cartoon images offensive. You can dislike the person for possessing them. You can question that persons tastes or morality.
> 
> ...



Exactly this. Thanks for saving me some typing 

C66 - I can't see the point you're trying to make either. Who is the victim in the creation of non-photographic porn? Why should it be a crime? Or are you suggesting that the existence of such images would increase the incidence of child abuse?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Exactly this. Thanks for saving me some typing
> 
> C66 - I can't see the point you're trying to make either. Who is the victim in the creation of non-photographic porn? Why should it be a crime? Or are you suggesting that the existence of such images would increase the incidence of child abuse?



The op was arguing that legislating against illustrative art is punishing a victimless crime. I was countering this by suggesting an illustration of a child being sexually abused isn't a victimless crime if it is depicting an actual child being sexually abused. 

And who would know? I'm still waiting for anyone to speculate on whether the image I hotlinked is a real child or not. I know the answer btw.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Exactly this. Thanks for saving me some typing
> 
> C66 - I can't see the point you're trying to make either. Who is the victim in the creation of non-photographic porn? Why should it be a crime? Or are you suggesting that the existence of such images would increase the incidence of child abuse?


I also agree with dylans.

I *think* that the point that C66 is trying to make, however, is that there is a very fine line between setting up a real incidence of abuse and photographing it and setting up a real incidence of abuse and drawing it.  Or even photographing it and then drawing it.  Particularly these days, where there are computer aids to make the drawing incredibly realistic.

It's not the act of photography that is problematic, it's the creation of the scene.  So there is no inherent reason why photographing a real scene should be illegal whilst drawing the same real scene is not.  There is an inconsistency there.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The op was arguing that legislating against illustrative art is punishing a victimless crime. I was countering this by suggesting an illustration of a child being sexually abused isn't a victimless crime if it is depicting an actual child being sexually abused.
> 
> And who would know? I'm still waiting for anyone to speculate on whether the image I hotlinked is a real child or not. I know the answer btw.



i think i see your argument.  if child pornographers to take photos with real childeren being abused, and then commission those very realistic paintings, like the one you linked to - could they not just distribute the paintings - and in that case is it ok and legal to own a collection of those paintings?


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 13, 2010)

> A man has been warned he faces a custodial sentence after pleading guilty to possession of what prosecutors described as "extreme porn" at Mold Crown Court last week





> The first charge centred on an allegation that he had in his possession a clip featuring human-animal sex. This was dropped after the prosecution discovered that the animal in question – a tiger – was actually a CGI-generated spoof, modelled loosely on Tony the Tiger of Frosties fame, and that the tiger finished off his sex act by turning to camera and saying "That beats doing adverts for a living".





> According to court reports, neither police nor prosecution listened to the soundtrack before the case reached court and the voiceover became an issue.





> According to Holland, this was sent to him as a joke - he viewed it just once, but made the mistake of not getting round to deleting it.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/22/six_second_clip/






If that gets the 'Hard-on of righteousness*' straining at your pants then this could be next thing you look at:






I'm looking at you Shippo-chan here (but not in a sexual way obviously) 


* copyright DotCommunist


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Both kabbes and spangles are following my train of thought. Sorry if I'm wording it badly.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You've also completely side-stepped my point.
> 
> Two questions.
> 
> ...



I don't know if the illustration is real but supposing  the child is real and that child is used in the creation of a sexually explicit illustration then that is a crime. There is clearly a victim who has been abused in the creation of that image. 

The crime is not in the illustration per say but in the manner in which that image was created. the illustration would be criminal in light of the manner in which it was made. It isn't a fictional image. It is an image of real abuse with a real victim. 

Now if the hypothetical sexually explicit image is purely fictional and a creation of someone's imagination then no, no crime has been committed and the images should be considered  distasteful but not criminal. 

In the same way that if a piece of written literature depicted child abuse it would be fictional literature. Literature of poor taste perhaps (but not always, Lolita comes to mind) but not something that should be subject to legislation.

However if a work of literature was non fiction. ie it was an account of real abuse then the crime would be in the creation of that literature ie the abuse itself would make the work criminal. 

The key is whether there is a victim or not. That is the whole point. The fictional literary or artistic portrayal of tasteless subjects cannot be subject to legislation because it's artistic value is purely subjective.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 13, 2010)

I see it now.

There is a clear inconsistency. If you take a photograph of child abuse, or make a realistic painting of child abuse, there is exactly as much abuse and exactly as much representation of that abuse in each case. Currently, one of these representations is illegal, the other is not. The debate should really be "how can this inconsistency be harmonised?"

If we agree that photographic child porn is illegal, then the same logic must apply to graphical child porn that has real-world origins. But if we can't determine the origins (as would be the obvious courtroom defence), then we must ban possession of _all_ graphical child porn, regardless of origin. The only alternative, that I can see, is to legalise possession of photographic and graphical child porn, keeping only the _production _of such material illegal.

Neither solution makes me comfortable.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> This is the point I'm trying to make. Saying all art is just imagination is disingenuous as a lot of art is based on live or photographed subjects.



What requires a good imagination, however, is to see the image that you posted as pornographic, or created with the sole purpose of titillation.

I didn't sidestep your argument (not deliberately at least). I tried to answer to my best knowledge: it's the courts that are going to be deciding whether an image is pornographic, created with that in mind, and/or if the person who owns them, did wank wildly while looking at it or not.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The op was arguing that legislating against illustrative art is punishing a victimless crime. I was countering this by suggesting an illustration of a child being sexually abused isn't a victimless crime if it is depicting an actual child being sexually abused.
> 
> And who would know? I'm still waiting for anyone to speculate on whether the image I hotlinked is a real child or not. I know the answer btw.



Then the real crime should be the one and only priority: the abuse that went on, and not the images produced. Would anyone here feel safer for their kids in the knowledge that the law is going to focus on the image, even if it represents an actual crime, and not on the abuse itself?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Then the real crime should be the one and only priority: the abuse that went on, and not the images produced. Would anyone here feel safer for their kids in the knowledge that the law is going to focus on the image, even if it represents an actual crime, and not on the abuse itself?


But as Crispy summarised neatly, you can make the same argument for photography.

It's isn't the just the production of the photograph that is illegal, it is also the photograph itself.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> But as Crispy summarised neatly, you can make the same argument for photography.
> 
> It's isn't the just the production of the photograph that is illegal, it is also the photograph itself.



Not just the photograph (no problems with that), but the POSSESSION of said photograph. And by possession, I'm referring to something as flimsy and tenuous as downloading it, perhaps after having it sent by someone else to your mobile or in an email. Even if you only opened it and thought "eurgh, disgusting", you could still get arrested for that.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Not just the photograph (no problems with that), but the POSSESSION of said photograph. And by possession, I'm referring to something as flimsy and tenuous as downloading it, perhaps after having it sent by someone else to your mobile or in an email. Even if you only opened it and thought "eurgh, disgusting", you could still get arrested for that.


You could do, yes.  You'd be extraordinarily unlikely to, though.  The CPS aren't interested in prosecuting everybody that gets emailed some spam.

If somebody possesses a folder of illegal photographs on their hard drive, however, they can be arrested.  And rightly so!


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

The Groke said:


> What about a cartoon/comic depicting one scene - integral to the story - of child abuse?
> 
> Not in a salacious way, not even showing any genital nudity, but a depiction meant to shock or disturb in the context of the narrative?



And that's another one. The legislation, if you read it (links elsewhere, earlier on this thread), is concerned with non-photographic images that were created with the intention of arouse sexually. I already mentioned the strong possibility of courts and juries wasting time and money debating whether a given image was crated with the purpose of being sexually stimulating or not: "Yes your Honour, but is it pr0n?"


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> But as Crispy summarised neatly, you can make the same argument for photography.
> 
> It's isn't the just the production of the photograph that is illegal, it is also the photograph itself.



In the case of a  photographic or illustrative image of real abuse made through abuse then it is for the courts to show that this is the case. 
Say I possess a drawing of child sex. The prosecution claim that image was a real life depiction of actual abuse. I claim it is a figment of my imagination. The court must prove my guilt, as in all criminal prosecutions. It is for them to show that the image was produced by actually abusing a child (or an adult for that matter as in the fictional account of rape for example) If they can't then they have no case and the image must be permitted. 

Away from child abuse for a moment. Imagine a fictional movie representation of rape in a movie like "irreversible." Now I don't know if anyone has seen that movie but fucking hell. It contains a 20 minute graphic rape scene, perhaps the most graphic realistic such scene ever shown on cinema. It is fiction. ie it was created without a victim. Now if the courts decided to prosecute they would have to show that actual rape occured. If it did then of course a crime has been committed. IF (as is the case of course) the portrayal of rape is fiction, then no crime has been committed.

This  is the case in cinema all the time. Remember so called "snuff" movies.? There is general agreement that no such commercial snuff movies actually exist nevertheless there have been attempts to prosecute movies on the basis of the claim that they were actual snuff. The movie "cannibal holocaust" by Ruggero Deodato, although fiction was, for a long time, considered to be an actual snuff movie. It was siezed by magistrates and Deodato prosecuted.



> After premiering in Italy, the film was seized by a local magistrate, and Deodato was arrested on obscenity charges. He was later accused of making a snuff film due to rumors which claimed that certain actors were killed on camera. *Although Deodato was later cleared of these charges, the film was banned in Italy, the UK, Australia, and several other countries due to its graphic depiction of gore, sexual violence, and the inclusion of six genuine animal deaths*. Many nations have since revoked the ban, yet the film is still barred in several countries.



What is interesting about this movie is that despite showing the movie was fiction the movie was still banned in several countries on the basis of its realistic but _entirely fictional_ depiction of murder. 

Now back to our point. Given that the movie was fiction was it correct to prosecute. Well, yes in the sense that it was thought a crime was committed. Following Deodato's acquital however, the courts were wrong to ban the movie because it had been proved to be fiction.
Now I can see this being the case for fictional photoshopped images of child abuse. If this kind of realistic image is found the prosecution have to prove it is real or that it's creation involved a criminal offence. If it is not then it is not criminal and must be permitted. The "Indecency or otherwise of the image is irrelevant to its criminal status


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So why is viewing photographed child porn illegal if the crime itself is only commited by the photographer?


Because the continually repeated use of an image of a person in an abusive and degrading context is itself abusive.

The rich and famous already demand control over how their likeness is used and reproduced.  But in the future, everyone will need to be able to assert copyright over images of themselves.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

> If you take a photograph of child abuse, or make a realistic painting of child abuse, there is exactly as much abuse and exactly as much representation of that abuse in each case.


I don't think this is true.  A photograph of a crime scene is evidence of a crime having been committed.  That a talented graphic artist could render a convincing mock-up is not evidence of any crime.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

It isn't possible to knock-up a convincing and yet fake photograph?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I don't think this is true.  A photograph of a crime scene is evidence of a crime having been committed.  That a talented graphic artist could render a convincing mock-up is not evidence of any crime.


We're splitting hairs here 

A painter, present to witness abuse, painting that abuse
A photographer, present to witness abuse, photographing that abuse

Not sure there's any substantial difference


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 13, 2010)

Mooncat said:


> I'm looking at you Shippo-chan here (but not in a sexual way obviously)



to be honest i am   shitting myself  a little

part of me  is  saying  that the whole thing  is  ridiculous  and there is no way   i'm going to  be sent  down  for  owning an ero dakimakura or twenty


but then i read some of the posts on this thread  and  worry


----------



## Crispy (Apr 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> It isn't possible to knock-up a convincing and yet fake photograph?



More specifically, a photomontage could quite easily be made.

I see Jonti's point here. Disregarding the child issue for a second, if someone manipulated a photograph of yourself into an image of yourself being eg. raped, what is the nature, if any, of the crime being committed?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Oh, I have enormous sympathy for Jonti's point.  I am philsophically opposed to censorship as a point of principle, meaning that I have enormous problems with the concept of this law before it is even articulated.

But the fact is that it isn't as simple as saying, "The only crime is in the creation of the scene."  That doesn't hold for photography, so there is no inherent reason why it should hold for other representations of the scene.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I see it now.
> 
> There is a clear inconsistency. If you take a photograph of child abuse, or make a realistic painting of child abuse, there is exactly as much abuse and exactly as much representation of that abuse in each case. Currently, one of these representations is illegal, the other is not. The debate should really be "how can this inconsistency be harmonised?"
> 
> ...



Yep, cheers for this. My argument summarised eloquently.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

> Crispy
> if we can't determine the origins (as would be the obvious courtroom defence), then we must ban possession of all graphical child porn, regardless of origin.




Sorry but this is on its head. If you can't determine the origins then there is no case for prosecution. It is for the courts to prove guilt not the other way around. In other words. If I have a photoshopped image of child abuse and I claim the image to be entirely fictional then it is up to the court to show that it was obtained through abuse. If they can't then the image is not criminal


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> More specifically, a photomontage could quite easily be made.
> 
> I see Jonti's point here. Disregarding the child issue for a second, if someone *manipulated a photograph of yourself into an image of yourself being eg. raped, what is the nature, if any, of the crime being committed?*



Copyright infringement.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

There's a subcontext to the debate, which is that coerced images of child porn are a large and ongoing problem.  

But children themselves commonly have digital cameras, in mobile phones for example. I'd guess there is likely such a glut of self-produced child porn already that the criminal purveyors and community predators alike have little market for their wares.

The panic is not about noncery as such, but more about child sexuality, and our attitudes to it.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

There was a hoohah a while ago about a bloke who'd described a scene of multiple child rape very graphically but which he claimed was all fantasy. And then there were these children who came forward in Thailand and reported a very similar attack but it couldn't be proved.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Sorry but this is on its head. If you can't determine the origins then there is no case for prosecution. It is for the courts to prove guilt not the other way around. In other words. If I have a photoshopped image of child abuse and I claim the image to be entirely fictional then it is up to the court to show that it was obtained through abuse. If they can't then the image is not criminal


Then what is to prevent this defence being used for photographic porn, given the ability of photoshop to manipulate and combine real-world images?

I could (whilst holding my vomit down) create a completely convincing montage of adult porn and someone's photos of their kids naked. It would be impossible for a court to determine the origin of the image to a satisfactory degree, would it not?

It's a murky murky area of debate, this. Many arguments are 'on their head' precisely because the chain of reasoning is fagile and has to be pulled from both ends to test it.


----------



## The Groke (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> But children themselves commonly have digital cameras, in mobile phones for example. I'd guess there is likely such a glut of self-produced child porn already that the criminal purveyors and community predators alike have little market for their wares.



Well yeah - there was that outrageous case in the States, where a (IIRC) 15 year old boy and girl texted each other naked pictures of themselves and were subsequently prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register...


----------



## The Groke (Apr 13, 2010)

The only simple solution to all of this is to ban anyone under the age of consent.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

The Groke said:


> Well yeah - there was that outrageous case in the States, where a (IIRC) 15 year old boy and girl texted each other naked pictures of themselves and were subsequently prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register...


Yes: and in this country, a young married man who has a nude picture of his young wife in his possession would similarly be guilty of an offence under UK child pornography legislation.

Things are getting dangerous for those folks who marry at age 16 or so.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Then what is to prevent this defence being used for photographic porn, given the ability of photoshop to manipulate and combine real-world images?
> 
> I could (whilst holding my vomit down) create a completely convincing montage of adult porn and someone's photos of their kids naked. It would be impossible for a court to determine the origin of the image to a satisfactory degree, would it not?
> 
> It's a murky murky area of debate, this. Many arguments are 'on their head' precisely because the chain of reasoning is fragile and has to be pulled from both ends to test it.


But there is no need for a court to determine the origin of suchlike images at all.

Just allow that the people depicted have an automatic copyright over their facial image etc (in much the same way that one already has automatic copyright over one's own expressive speech).  That gives the putative abused a legal recourse, without giving the courts an impossible job.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 13, 2010)

I could present to you two images: One a genuine, unaltered photograph of child abuse, and another completely fabricated from seperate sources. You could be totally unable to tell the difference (given a good enough job on the montage)


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Then what is to prevent this defence being used for photographic porn, given the ability of photoshop to manipulate and combine real-world images?
> 
> I could (whilst holding my vomit down) create a completely convincing montage of adult porn and someone's photos of their kids naked. *It would be impossible for a court to determine the origin of the image to a satisfactory degree, would it not?*
> 
> It's a murky murky area of debate, this. Many arguments are 'on their head' precisely because the chain of reasoning is fagile and has to be pulled from both ends to test it.



I don't think it would be impossible.I don't believe it is technically impossible to tell if a photograph has been altered.  But in this case, like all criminal cases. It is for the prosecution to provided evidence of a crime. Not for the defendant to prove his innocence. 

To say that it is impossible for the prosecution to prove origins is akin to saying that it is impossible for the courts to prove an offence. As in all criminal cases, if it is impossible for the courts to prove a crime has been committed then, to all intents and purposes a crime hasn't. 

Clearly possession of an unaltered photograph of abuse is itself evidence of a crime. There is little defence I can think of for such possession. Perhaps a journalist in a war hiding in the bushes filming rape by soldiers or something. In which case that would be his defence. But by and large I think there is no real defence against possessiing photographic images of abuse. 

But created images is another matter. The defence in those cases is that they are fictional and it is for the courts to show they are not.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I could present to you two images: One a genuine, unaltered photograph of child abuse, and another completely fabricated from seperate sources. You could be totally unable to tell the difference (given a good enough job on the montage)


Yes, accepting that, I'd call it _the problem of the perfect counterfeit._

The usual effect of perfect counterfeiting, is to destroy the value of the genuine article.  And that seems to me a Good Thing in the context of this discussion.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 13, 2010)

you can tie a consenting partner up whip and shag them senseless thats legal. make a tpe of your activities still legal. show it too anyone else your going down.
 if your both under 18 when you do this burn nonces

shippy don't worry they may come for you but Dylan redefined has a disturbing REI Ayanami fetish and access to automatic weapons


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

likesfish said:


> you can tie a consenting partner up whip and shag them senseless thats legal. make a tpe of your activities still legal.* show it too anyone else your going down.*



No, showing pictures of consenting adults engaging in BDSM activities isn't illegal. What is illegal is images defined as "extreme" by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (copy a resume): 

*An “extreme image” is an image which—

(b)is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(7)An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a)an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c)an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.
*

The whole Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill can be read here: Possession of extreme pornographic images.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

People seem to be losing sight of the argument here. Possession of child pornography is a crime. If the old bill found a load of sexually explicit montages on your hard drive involving children it would be you who has the explaining to do, not them.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 13, 2010)

it's also a question of where to draw the line

i find the idea  of banning photorealistic images  understandable  (if a little  legaly/moraly dubious  for some of the reasons pointed out in this thead) however  i find  the idea of  banning  lolicon manga  unacceptable

however  this law  doesn't really  seem  to  distinguish between the two


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

The law doesn't. But neither does the campaign.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The law doesn't. But neither does the campaign.



That's because both the photo-realistic, (but non-photographic) images, and stylized ones (like manga), are still a fantasy, a representation, a fruit of the imagination and not a real act. to ban the possession of such images is to criminalise thought.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> That's because both the photo-realistic, (but non-photographic) images, and stylized ones (like manga), are still a fantasy, a representation, a fruit of the imagination and not a real act. to ban the possession of such images is to criminalise thought.



You're completely ignoring the tests to that theory, aren't you?

Was the image I posted based on a thought or a real pose btw?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You're completely ignoring the tests to that theory, aren't you?
> 
> Was the image I posted based on a thought or a real pose btw?



That's not a pornographic picture and to my knowledge (I may be missing some joke here), it wasn't even showing a sexual act. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You're completely ignoring the tests to that theory, aren't you?
> 
> Was the image I posted based on a thought or a real pose btw?



It's not really reasonable to base the test on whether  that image is real or not based on viewing it on an internet forum. People here have neither the expertise or the technical equipment necessary to test that.

Which brings me to a question that genuinely puzzles me. Is it actually possible to create a fictional image that not only appears indistinguishable from a real image to the naked eye but impossible to distinguish by technical means? 

In other words is it always possible to tell if an image is pixel doctored or photoshopped as opposed to an original undoctored image?

I don't mean over an internet forum. I mean by trained technical experts with the necessary equipment? 
I think it is possible but I'm not entirely sure.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 13, 2010)

likesfish said:


> shippy don't worry they may come for you but Dylan redefined has a disturbing REI Ayanami fetish and access to automatic weapons



First they came for the manga...  but we had fucking tooled up....


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

just came across this from the States. 

http://www.examiner.com/x-13184-Sac...09m10d22-Twins-20-jailed-for-child-porn-manga


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> just came across this from the States.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/x-13184-Sac...09m10d22-Twins-20-jailed-for-child-porn-manga



Thank you for the link, I wasn't aware of that case.

The whole case is typical:

"Every one of these images involves the victimization of children," said Crown attorney Craig Botterill. *"The victimization wouldn’t happen in the first place if there weren’t people there to look at this material."*

Eh? You create a victim by looking at an image? 

>>> He described his client as being in a "non-deviant" homosexual relationship and said he had only a secondary interest in young children.

Yes, but had he abused any real, living, breathing children? No? So where's the actual harm then?

>>> A forensic psychiatric report on Cory Hammond that was read in court indicated he had a strong sexual response to pubescent boys.

And is that a crime too? To be *suspected* of being attracted to underage boys according to a psychiatric report? Did he act on those impulses? and if not, why putting him on the child offenders register? 

>>> Afterward, they will be on probation for 18 months and must take a sex offender treatment program. Their names will be listed with the national sex offender registry and they will have to provide a DNA sample to police.
They are also forbidden to be anywhere near children or where children might be.

Fucking hell.

>>> "This is a crime that victimizes young people around the world," Judge Tax said. "It creates a market which then re-victimizes the most vulnerable in society.

It victimizes two socially inept young men who live behind a computer screen, and who felt too awkward and sexually ashamed to stand up and say: "I haven't harmed anybody, I haven't victimized anyone. Where is the victim, other than myself and my partner?"

>>> "The images can only be regarded as disgusting and perverse."

Ah ok, I understand now. I don't like it, ban it.

Very sad state of affairs.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

examiner.com said:
			
		

> Twin brothers were sentenced in provincial court Wednesday to three months in jail for possessing child pornography.
> 
> Most of the images downloaded onto home computers by David Scott Hammond and James Cory Hammond, 20, of New Glasgow were drawn in the Japanese style known as anime or manga.
> 
> ...


What crown attorney Craig Botterill is saying here, is that looking at sexully explict cartoons drawn in the Japanese style known as anime or manga always and inevitably involves the victimisation of children.

I'd call that a straightforward in-your-face lie. And I'd say to Craig that a man in his position really ought to be able to tell the difference between perjury and honest representation before a court 




			
				Judge Tax said:
			
		

> This is a crime that victimizes young people around the world. It creates a market which then re-victimizes the most vulnerable in society.
> 
> The images can only be regarded as disgusting and perverse.


Well, does it? Was any evidence given to the court that a person who draws obscene manga really does victimise young people around the world? Was any evidence given to the court that just looking at obscene manga victimizes the most vulnerable in society? Or is Judge Tax talking out of his arse when he babbles such inanities?  

Tough one, or what? 

But of course his attitude does not depend on such obvious nonsense. What he means is such images must be wrong, the images can only be regarded as disgusting and perverse, and for that reason alone their possession must be punished.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 13, 2010)

manga  in ur sociaty, corrupting ur morals


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> I don't mean over an internet forum. I mean by trained technical experts with the necessary equipment?
> I think it is possible but I'm not entirely sure.



The police have technology that can regress an image back to (or near) its original form which is how they managed to identify a child abuser who had turned his head into a swirl. Not too sure how that would carry over into montages (ie - how much of an image's cropped elements will carry through as hidden information into any newly created image, id any).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507675/Swirly-face-paedophile-faces-court-shackles.html

The argument we were having though was why do you see an illustration as a thought where as the law could see it as more akin to a photograph. Btw, the image I posted earlier is of a real existing child.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> manga  in ur sociaty, corrupting ur morals



And anyone who's ever felt slightly tumescent while looking at manga, should be put on the sex offender's register immediately. They are policing you in your street, in your bedroom, and now in your head too.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

> why do you see an illustration as a thought where as the law could see it as more akin to a photograph


One answer would be:-  the law is an ass, worshipped by assholes.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The argument we were having though was why do you see an illustration as a thought where as the law could see it as more akin to a photograph. Btw, the image I posted earlier is of a real existing child.



But are we referring of images of representations of actual crimes? If so, it;s the crime that should be investigated., not the representation of the image. Whether it's a very realistic representation, or a pencil sketch, it's unimportant. It's still only an image. The image itself is not the crime, to criminalize it is shooting the messenger.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> But are we referring of images of representations of actual crimes? If so, it;s the crime that should be investigated., not the representation of the image.



So photographic child pornography is ok by you? Because if not, what's the difference between that and an illustration?

Both depict actual child sexual abuse (if the source material happened). Neither are from the imagination so are not a 'thought'. 

This is what I can't get my head around. The fact you refuse to accept that.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

A detail from Bronzino's An Allegory with Venus and Cupid c1540-50, hung in the National Gallery, London. Photograph: Bridgeman Art Library.

Look at this. It's disgusting. I mean, what is that kid doing to that womans breast. Looks pretty dodgy to me. The museum director should be put on the sex offenders list!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/nov/01/art-child-porn-old-masters


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So photographic child pornography is ok by you? Because if not, what's the difference between that and an illustration?
> 
> Both depict actual child sexual abuse (if the source material happened). Neither are from the imagination so are not a 'thought'.
> 
> This is what I can't get my head around. The fact you refuse to accept that.



Photographic child pornography is not ok because it's evidence of an actual crime. I go by the convention that children cannot consent to sexual acts. But the photo itself it's not the crime, nor possessing it ONLY is evidence that somebody is a paedo. You could also say that possessing a penis makes a man a rapist (potentially at least). A reproduction of that photo is evidence to the existence of a photo that is in turn evidence of a crime. I've no idea how a judge or a jury would see that. As I said earlier, it's going to be a long discussion about whether it's porn or not, which in theory should be of no importance, compared to the real crime photographed.

This case may also be of interest: Pete Townshend of The Who accused of looking at child porn. 

May I remind you once again, patient readers, that the legislation is not to ban child porn, which is in itself banned, but about the possession of cartoons? 

I'm not avoiding a reply C66, I'm struggling, like so many people, to find coherence and common sense behind this legislation.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So photographic child pornography is ok by you? Because if not, what's the difference between that and an illustration?
> 
> Both depict actual child sexual abuse (if the source material happened). Neither are from the imagination so are not a 'thought'.
> 
> This is what I can't get my head around. The fact you refuse to accept that.



simple ones a photo of a crime and usually comes into pocession of the nonce by paying for it so either supporting criminals who do it for cash or other nonces or is traded amongst other nonces.

illustrations arn't. I am not  aware of any nonce artists out there who draw or paint picutres of actual abuse 
 manga artists you may not like but they use something called the imagination.
 otherwise japan would be littered with monsters giant robots and combat foxgirl maids  (shippy goes off into a dream)
 pixels don't have rights or any intelligence next stop we will be doing gamers for committing breaches of the yellow card in modern warfare 2


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Logic fail.  The existence of one form of image does not preclude the existence of a different type of image.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So photographic child pornography is ok by you? Because if not, what's the difference between that and an illustration?
> 
> Both depict actual child sexual abuse (if the source material happened). Neither are from the imagination so are not a 'thought'.
> 
> This is what I can't get my head around. The fact you refuse to accept that.



I get what you're saying. That the photographer/illustrator is colluding with the crime itself by becoming a (passive) participant.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> I get what you're saying. That the photographer/illustrator is colluding with the crime itself by becoming a (passive) participant.



So if you witnessed a bank robbey or a mugging and took pictures with your camera phone, either as a journo to sell them, or maybe to show them as evidence, is also abetting to the crime?


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> So if you witnessed a bank robbey or a mugging and took pictures with your camera phone, either as a journo to sell them, or maybe to show them as evidence, is also abetting to the crime?



You're unlikely to (a) be a chance/random witness to child pornography; and (b) do nothing to actively try and stop it.

The examples you give aren't comparable.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> So if you witnessed a bank robbey or a mugging and took pictures with your camera phone, either as a journo to sell them, or maybe to show them as evidence, is also abetting to the crime?



Yeah, because you normally walk down the street and, upon seeing a kid being raped in broad daylight, start sketching and photographing the incident.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

likesfish said:


> I am not  aware of any nonce artists out there who draw or paint picutres of actual abuse



So therefore they don't/can't exist?

I'm testing the logic of *all illustrated images of children being sexually abused are from the imagination and therefore shouldn't be illegal*. 

You don't see where that could lead? Fucking naive if you can't.

People could take photographs (illegal) and then turn them into highly detailed illustrations (legal). And sell them for profit perfectly legally.

And this campaign supports that.

I agree that manga shouldn't be illegal though. Those characters are invented.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah, because you normally walk down the street and, upon seeing a kid being raped in broad daylight, start sketching and photographing the incident.



C66, save your facepalms 

No, you don't, we all know that. I was pointing at cesare's strange logic, that seemed to imply that taking photographs or making illustrations of a crime were a way of taking part in the crime depicted. I completely agree that it'd be very hard for the person who photographed child abuse to persuade anyone, including me, that he/she wasn't an accomplice or a direct perpetrator. 

The other theoretical example, of the illustrator sitting at his desk sketching child abuse that is taking part in front of him, sounds far too contrived, but I know that the world is a strange place, and anything is possible. The problem with illustration, as supposed to photography, is that it would be unlikely that any court or jury would take it as seriously as evidence or proof, as they would a photograph. If I'm wrong, please somebody show me how many pencil sketches, or even oil paints, have been shown in court as pictorial evidence of a crime committed.

Photography, although we all agree that it can be altered and doctored  by anyone with a regular knowledge of Photoshop, hasn't yet lost is credibility as proof and evidence of a crime. However, the discussion of "does photography represent reality and the truth?" is another favourite at art colleges, along "yes but is it art?" Take it from an art post-graduate.

It would be very hard to convince a jury, and myself, and anyone reading this I'm sure, that the person who took the photographs while an act of child abuse was being performed, is not directly involved with the crime and facilitating it. But an illustration of a photo of said crime is a very different thing. I can easily imagine an upcoming artist showing a set of large format paintings reproducing existing photographs of real life child abuse, maybe found  on the net, in an attempt to attract publicity and to win the Turner Prize. Bad taste? Yes. Stupidity? Totally. But is he a paedo for painting those works in the first place? No. Paedos are people who engage in sexual acts with children. And helping a criminal commit their crimes is a crime too.

Phew, it feels as if I've already written a chapter for a book on this thread.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> C66, save your facepalms



So it's OK for you to use them, but not him? 



Itziko_Supersta said:


> No, you don't, we all know that. I was pointing at cesare's strange logic, that seemed to imply that taking photographs or making illustrations of a crime were a way of taking part in the crime depicted. I completely agree that it'd be very hard for the person who photographed child abuse to persuade anyone, including me, that he/she wasn't an accomplice or a direct perpetrator.



Then it wasn't strange logic was it? You "pointed" or rather, facepalmed, at it by using examples that C66 and myself simultaneously pointed out the flaws to.

And now you're accepting that it would be hard for a photographer to persuade anyone that they weren't colluding.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> It would be very hard to convince a jury, and myself, and anyone reading this I'm sure, that the person who took the photographs while an act of child abuse was being performed, is not directly involved with the crime and facilitating it. But an illustration of a photo of said crime is a very different thing.



So you clearly don't share the view that possessing photographed child pornography is a crime (like the law does). Because to turn a photographic image of child sexual abuse into an illustration you don't need to witness the abuse. But you would have to possess the photograph, which is illegal.

And I agree that it should be illegal too as <drum roll> it isn't a victimless crime.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So photographic child pornography is ok by you? Because if not, what's the difference between that and an illustration?
> 
> Both depict actual child sexual abuse (if the source material happened). Neither are from the imagination so are not a 'thought'.
> 
> This is what I can't get my head around. The fact you refuse to accept that.


I do not accept that the definitions of "child sexual abuse" enshrined in UK law are accurate or adequate. Truth is, they are not fit-for-purpose and that is a major problem.

The misleading definitions exaggerate the danger, and promote ineffective responses, bordering on the hysterical. We see this same pattern in many areas of sexual legislation, in drugs legislation, and in the anti-terror antics of our political masters.

This is what I can't get my head around. The fact so many people refuse to accept that they are being jerked around by suchlike fuckries.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> I do not accept that the definitions of "child sexual abuse" enshrined in UK law are accurate or adequate. Truth is, they are not fit-for-purpose and that is a major problem.



Perhaps you've never actually met anyone who has been sexually abused so downplay its existence?


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Perhaps you should just fuck the fuck off with your offensive and hysterical imagination?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So therefore they don't/can't exist?
> 
> I'm testing the logic of *all illustrated images of children being sexually abused are from the imagination and therefore shouldn't be illegal*.
> 
> ...



But that isn't what is actually happening though is it? If such a case arises then the courts can deal with it accordingly. It would be up to the prosecution to show that the illustration was a representation of  actual abuse. 

What IS happening is this absurdity where people are being sent to jail for having joke cartoons of the Simpsons. 

From Australia. Man convicted for Simpsons porn. It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.


> McEwan appealed the decision arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people as they "plainly and deliberately" departed from the human form.... But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings *did not mean that they could not be considered people.*


http://blogs.computerworld.com/simpsons_porn

Now that is the most fucking stupid thing I have ever heard. Talk about absurd. They can not be considered people? They are yellow with four fingers and purple hair for fucks sakes. ! THEY ARE CARTOONS

As the writer sarcastically points out, if the simpsons can be considered "real people. Given that they were "born" in 1987, doesn't that make them 23 years old?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Perhaps you should just fuck the fuck off with your offensive and hysterical imagination?



Lame retort.



dylans said:


> But that isn't what is actually happening though is it? If such a case arises then the courts can deal with it accordingly. It would be up to the prosecution to show that the illustration was a representation of  actual abuse.
> 
> What IS happening is this absurdity where people are being sent to jail for having joke cartoons of the Simpsons.
> 
> ...



Look, I agree with the general thrust of all that's being said. But if you're going to get on your soap box and fight a law then surely it's better to explore all the possible implications of what it is you're saying?

I think it's ridiculous to ban manga and simpsons porn. But I followed the whole argument through in my head and took an extreme position relating to the claim that all illustrations of this nature are from the imagination and therefore it would be a thought crime. I gave a circumstance where that wouldn't be the case and the argument you're giving back is "oh, that wouldn't happen".

How do you know it wouldn't? And if it did, the defence in court would be "it is from the imagination". Crispy wrote a very good post summarising all of that train of thought.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I gave a circumstance where that wouldn't be the case and the argument you're giving back is "oh, that wouldn't happen".



Where was that said, either by myself or by anyone else? I'm losing track of my own argument, but thanks for the logic wrestling (and is the idea of male/female wrestling pr0n?).

All we can do for sure is refer to how the law has been used so far in real cases, wait for new ones, and take them individually, one by one. Backlash defends the right to create, participate in, and possess, representation of sexual acts of any kind conducted by consenting adults. Whenever a case comes to us that involves either children or animals*, we refuse it as something not within our remit. There are laws in place to deal with those activities.

*As an aside, you'd be all surprised at the amount of bestiality pr0n out there.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Where was that said, either by myself or by anyone else?



dylans was saying that: 

"but that isn't what is actually happening, is it?". 

It helps if you respond to my posts directed at you rather than side-stepping them and answering the ones directed at other people.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> No Maurice, opposing laws that assert "your meaning is what we decide it to be, neither more nor less" is not at at all to embrace _a really, really weird single-issue cause_.
> 
> It is to assert that lowlife with really, really weird authoritarian fetishes do not get a free pass to criminalise others.  We already have laws against harming children.  We don't need laws to suppress discussion of how children may be harmed.
> 
> To confuse talking about, or depicting crimes, with actual crimes, is dangerous and foolish.



Bingo


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> 1) is the child in the illustration I linked to real or imagined?



The illustration is an illustration. It is not a child.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The illustration is an illustration. It is not a child.



He is a child though. He's related to my mate (who did the illustration).


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Bingo



Do you think you might want to read all that has been said before you start your carpet bombing?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I think it's ridiculous to ban manga and simpsons porn. But I followed the whole argument through in my head and took an extreme position relating to the claim that all illustrations of this nature are from the imagination and therefore it would be a thought crime. I gave a circumstance where that wouldn't be the case and the argument you're giving back is "oh, that wouldn't happen".



With respect I haven't said that at all. What I have said is that, as in all criminal prosecutions, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the possessor of such illustrations was actively involved in actual real child abuse. ie he sat there sketching while abuse took place. In such a scenario, which I guess could happen, the person who produced such images would be guilty of facilitating child abuse. 
This however is a far cry from the reality of prosecutions which are nothing more than prosecuting imagination.

Now lets follow this through a little. If producing cartoon or illustrative representations of child abuse is an offence in and of itself. Which is the case in the US and Aus and will be here, then why stop there. Why not prosecute illustrations of murder. If a cartoon of Lisa Simpson doing unspeakable things to Bart can be considered the same as real sexual abuse then why not a cartoon of someone being killed?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

fogbat said:


> How about if it was a photorealistic drawing, but drawn from real-life child models?



If a crime is involved in the making of the drawing, then imo the maker becomes a criminal. Thus, sketching a child at the beach wouldn't fall foul of the law, but taking a child into a room and disrobing it in order to make a drawing would arguably come under the concept of sexual interference.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Lame retort.
> ...


It was a restrained retort to a very unpleasant smear from yourself.  

Readers will wonder why you feel the need to stoop to such low jibes.

I have not "downplayed the existence of sexual abuse"; and whether I or anyone I know has suffered in that way has no bearing on the arguments I'm making.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you think you might want to read all that has been said before you start your carpet bombing?





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If a crime is involved in the making of the drawing, then imo the maker becomes a criminal. Thus, sketching a child at the beach wouldn't fall foul of the law, but taking a child into a room and disrobing it in order to make a drawing would arguably come under the concept of sexual interference.



So that's a "no" then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think anyone would argue that live models were used in that image.



Given my artistic abilities, any rendition I made of two people doing anything at all, sexual or nonsexual, would resemble something like that.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> dylans was saying that:
> 
> "but that isn't what is actually happening, is it?".
> 
> It helps if you respond to my posts directed at you rather than side-stepping them and answering the ones directed at other people.



Yes and it isn't what is actually happening. Show me a case where an illustrator has been convicted of actually taking part in child abuse. That doesn't mean it can't ever happen. The world is a strange place. What IS actually happening is people are being prosecuted for possession of cartoons and that is blatantly stupid and unjust


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> With respect I haven't said that at all. What I have said is that, as in all criminal prosecutions, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the possessor of such illustrations was actively involved in actual real child abuse.



This isn't true. As the law stands I don't believe it's illegal to possess illustrations of child sex abuse. But it's illegal to possess photographs of it. We were exploring why one was allowed and not the other. 

I'm not going to debate the rest of your post as I agree with your point.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> dylans was saying that:
> 
> "but that isn't what is actually happening, is it?".
> 
> It helps if you respond to my posts directed at you rather than side-stepping them and answering the ones directed at other people.



Your theoretical cases are interesting as theory, but why worrying about that, when there are actual court cases and convictions to discuss? As I said earlier, more than once I think, all we can do is take each case individually, and consider it as part Backlash remit, or not. I am not involved in activism to defend child porn, nor is the organization that I support.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Yes and it isn't what is actually happening. Show me a case where an illustrator has been convicted of actually taking part in child abuse. That doesn't mean it can't ever happen. The world is a strange place



We were discussing scenarios within the context of challenging this law. Strange for you to demand evidence of it happening when it was clear that's what we were doing.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Your theoretical cases are interesting as theory, but why worrying about that, when there are actual court cases and convictions to discuss?



Because it's a discussion forum.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Given my artistic abilities, any rendition I made of two people doing anything at all, sexual or nonsexual, would resemble something like that.




Dude, will you stop commenting on shit from 4 pages ago?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> This isn't true. As the law stands I don't believe it's illegal to possess illustrations of child sex abuse.



YES, IT IS ILLEGAL since April 6th, 2010. My OP explained it very clearly when I started this thread, before it was highjacked by the "Will Somebody Think Of The Children?!?!!" brigade.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I see it now.
> 
> There is a clear inconsistency. If you take a photograph of child abuse, or make a realistic painting of child abuse, there is exactly as much abuse and exactly as much representation of that abuse in each case. Currently, one of these representations is illegal, the other is not. The debate should really be "how can this inconsistency be harmonised?"
> 
> ...



The law can be made consistent by making photographic, mechanical etc renditions illegal wherein  a pedophilic type crime was committed in the making: sexual touching, sexual interference etc.

The proof therein is an evidentiary matter. The difficulty or ease of adducing evidence is not a good reason for prohibiting an activity.

By that logic, if a criminal photographs a victim in their death throes, or in the process of being badly beaten, the photo should be illegal. It's also possible to photoshop an image to resemble those crimes of violence. Given that looking at the image alone, without other corroborating evidence, won't be sufficient to determine if the violent crime was committed, then all images of violence should be made illegal, by the logic above.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> YES, IT IS ILLEGAL since April 6th, 2010. My OP explained it very clearly when I started this thread, before it was highjacked by the "Will Somebody Think Of The Children?!?!!" brigade.



Hijacked?

I'm sorry dear, but as soon as you release your ideas into the wild you relinquish all control of it. Ok, so it's been illegal for a week. And you want to fight it on the basis that your right to guffaw at lisa simpson being done up the jacksy by a donkey is more important than stopping another avenue to sexually exploit children. 

The government are unwilling to differentiate between the two and so are you. Two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> You could do, yes.  You'd be extraordinarily unlikely to, though.  The CPS aren't interested in prosecuting everybody that gets emailed some spam.



How do you know? Sounds like that guy above found himself in court because someone sent him a clip of Tony the Tiger fucking someone.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> your right to guffaw at lisa simpson being done up the jacksy by a donkey is more important than stopping another avenue to sexually exploit children.



Because I don't believe that those images exploit any real children, nor do I believe by making them illegal is going to help fight real child abuse.



Citizen66 said:


> The government are unwilling to differentiate between the two and so are you. Two sides of the same coin.



I differentiate between real abuse and imagined abuse (see above), something this government, and no doubt the next one, and probably many others in the foreseeable future, seem incapable of.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

I think this discussion of the minutiae of the laws of evidence misses the broader and much more important point, which I tried to flesh out in the middle of your night last night,and which doesn't seem to concern anyone.




> I can't get past my belief in the fundamental importance of free speech in a free society. Most people find sexual depictions involving minors to be abhorrent, but unless a crime is committed or involved in the creation of the image, then the image remains nothing beyond an expression of the thought of the maker. Criminalizing thought, or the depiction of that thought, standing alone, is.....the creation of thought crime. It's the state beginning the process of deciding what we may or may not think, via legislation and criminal sanction.
> 
> There are people out there who would round up people who look like me and exterminate them. Needless to say, their thoughts are abhorrent to me. I would not criminalize their right to think those thoughts, nor to depict them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> He is a child though. He's related to my mate (who did the illustration).



It's a piece of paper.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Dude, will you stop commenting on shit from 4 pages ago?



Imo, you haven't satisfactorily answered the questions from four pages ago.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's a piece of paper.



No it isn't. It's an image in digital format, the same as digital photography.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> This isn't true. As the law stands I don't believe it's illegal to possess illustrations of child sex abuse. But it's illegal to possess photographs of it. We were exploring why one was allowed and not the other.



Because the law hadn't gotten around to both yet. The existence of a statute on the law books isn't proof that the underlying idea is worthy or even sound.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Imo, you haven't satisfactorily answered the questions from four pages ago.



Which ones?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm sorry dear, but as soon as you release your ideas into the wild you relinquish all control of it. Ok, so it's been illegal for a week. And you want to fight it on the basis that your right to guffaw at lisa simpson being done up the jacksy by a donkey is more important than stopping another avenue to sexually exploit children. .



Sexual exploitation remains illegal.

Making certain pieces of paper illegal does nothing to protect children.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Sexual exploitation remains illegal.
> 
> Making certain pieces of paper illegal does nothing to protect children.



So legalise possession of child pornography then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> I differentiate between real abuse and imagined abuse (see above), something this government, and no doubt the next one, and probably many others in the foreseeable future, seem incapable of.



But why not, when you live in a society where a person might run afoul of the law by taking photos in the high street?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So legalise possession of child pornography then?



If you've been following what I've been saying throughout, making images illegal wherein a pedophilic crime was committed as part of, or as an adjunct to the making of the image, is a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If you've been following what I've been saying throughout, making images illegal wherein a pedophilic crime was committed as part of, or as an adjunct to the making of the image, is a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech.



So if somebody makes an illustration of a photograph in the circumstances you've described, surely the same logic applies to that new image also; being that the crime doesn't disappear even if you're one step removed?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> No it isn't. It's an image in digital format, the same as digital photography.





> my mate (who did the illustration).







...........................


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So if somebody makes an illustration of a photograph in the circumstances you've described, surely the same logic applies to that new image also; being that the crime doesn't disappear even if you're one step removed?



Okay.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> being that the crime doesn't disappear even if you're one step removed?



And the crime doesn't disappear, nor justice is done, by criminalizing the photograph.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> ...........................



What's the difference?

Someone photographs a scene of child sexual abuse and another illustrates it to a high level.

The difference is...?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> And the crime doesn't disappear, nor justice is done, by criminalizing the photograph.



Demand drives supply. Basic rule of economics. 

Imprison those who possess indecent images of children. Demand drops so naturally so does the business of raping children for profit in the pornographic industry?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> What's the difference?
> 
> Someone photographs a scene of child sexual abuse and another illustrates it to a high level.
> 
> The difference is...?



I thought you were talking about that image from earlier. Something like a little kid with a plane above his head.

Was a crime involved in the making of that image?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Imprison those who possess indecent images of children. Demand drops so naturally so does the business of raping children for profit in the pornographic industry?



If logic follows a straight line, the sentence above looks like this.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I thought you were talking about that image from earlier. Something like a little kid with a plane above his head.
> 
> Was a crime involved in the making of that image?



No, of course not. Have you read the thread?

I was using it as an example against the notion that *all illustrations stem from the imagination* ... that one didn't.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If logic follows a straight line, the sentence above looks like this.



Because if people stop using drugs the dealers carry on dealing?

Come on dude. You're smarter than that.

I'm not saying that it would stop child sex abuse. But we're talking images. Which is the child porn *industry*.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> No, of course not. Have you read the thread?
> 
> I was using it as an example against the notion that *all illustrations stem from the imagination* ... that one didn't.





> Citizen66  Citizen66 is offline
> The North Prole
> 
> Join Date: Nov 2000
> ...



Well, my .............. was to do with the illustration of the kid, which is what we were discussing: digital image vs illustration.

Your response talks of sexual abuse either in photo or illustration. So, I figure maybe we're talking about two different images, because the sexual abuse isn't readily apparent in the image of the kid and the plane.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Well, my .............. was to do with the illustration of the kid, which is what we were discussing: digital image vs illustration.
> 
> Your response talks of sexual abuse either in photo or illustration. So, I figure maybe we're talking about two different images, because the sexual abuse isn't readily apparent in the image of the kid and the plane.



I'm not debating with you now as you have an inability to grasp anything.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Because if people stop using drugs the dealers carry on dealing?
> 
> Come on dude. You're smarter than that.
> 
> I'm not saying that it would stop child sex abuse. But we're talking images. Which is the child porn *industry*.



Pedophiles sexually abuse real, actual children irl. That concerns me and disturbs me.

Some guy sitting in a tenement jerking off to distasteful images, I might find distasteful, but I'm not concerned in the way I am about the child rapist.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not debating with you now as you have an inability to grasp anything.



You're the one who is lumping emotion and doggerel in with a smidgen of facts in an attempt to justify a restriction on a basic societal right: the right to free speech.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Pedophiles sexually abuse real, actual children irl. That concerns me and disturbs me.
> 
> Some guy sitting in a tenement jerking off to distasteful images, I might find distasteful, but I'm not concerned in the way I am about the child rapist.



Dumb.as.fuck.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You're the one who is lumping emotion and doggerel in with a smidgen of facts in an attempt to justify a restriction on a basic societal right: the right to free speech.



You've actually ignored everything I've said so what's the fucking point?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Because if people stop using drugs the dealers carry on dealing?.



I'm glad you brought that up.

In the US, they've made possession of drugs a heavy offence. The jails there are bursting at the seams with drug user/offenders.

Drugs are more readily available than ever, in better quality, and at lower prices, as a result. Most knowledgeable law enforcement types know that the 'war on drugs' is lost.

Now here you are, wanting to impose that same model, ie imprison the user, in this totally different area.

Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Does anyone disagree with:

1. Not all illustrations stem from imagination (i.e. some are copied)

2. Photographing and/or illustrating real life child rape would usually mean that the photographer/illustrator was colluding - even if passively - in that rape

?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Demand drives supply. Basic rule of economics.
> 
> Imprison those who possess indecent images of children.



You are getting all MacCarthian again. What is "possession"? If one of your mates sends you an image of child porn in an email, and you open it, that is possession. If you look at those images for "research purposes", that is possession too. To catch paedophiles, we have to find them first. And should I remind you again that a paedo is somebody who engages in sexual acts with children, not someone who merely looks at images? but accusing anyone who's been in contact with a suspect image, or even 100, of being a paedo, is pure hysteria and a witchhunt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You've actually ignored everything I've said so what's the fucking point?



No, I and a number of other people have tried to point out the flaws in your argument, via reasoned and reasonable argument. It didn't seem to be getting anywhere.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I'm glad you brought that up.
> 
> In the US, they've made possession of drugs a heavy offence. The jails there are bursting at the seams with drug user/offenders.
> 
> ...



You wanker.

Ok, make child porn legal. When it's your kid on the net I'm sure you'll be all pleased about everyone wanking off over her.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> Does anyone disagree with:
> 
> 1. Not all illustrations stem from imagination (i.e. some are copied)
> 
> ...



Post 208:



> If you've been following what I've been saying throughout, making images illegal wherein a pedophilic crime was committed as part of, or as an adjunct to the making of the image, is a reasonable restriction on the right to free speech.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You wanker.
> 
> Ok, make child porn legal. When it's your kid on the net I'm sure you'll be all pleased about everyone wanking off over her.



If someone attempts to use my children in some sort of illegal act, I want that person punished to the full extent of the law.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> And should I remind you again that a paedo is somebody who engages in sexual acts with children, not someone who merely looks at images?



You're wrong. A paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They can live full and happy lives without ever acting upon it. They're still a paedophile though as that's the definition.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If someone attempts to use my children in some sort of illegal act, I want that person punished to the full extent of the law.



But not the guy with the photos of it? I completely disagree with you btw. Downloading images of children being abused isn't a victimless crime.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You're wrong. A paedophile is somebody who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They can live full and happy lives without ever acting upon it. They're still a paedophile though as that's the definition.



But if they never go near a child in their whole lives, so what?

So you can have homosexuals who have sex with women all their lives and never touch men, murderers who never kill, thieves who never steal?


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Post 208:



Yes, I saw that post Johnny. Which is why I'm confused about why you're arguing with C66 here. 

Unless I've missed something that C66 is saying?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> But not the guy with the photos of it? I completely disagree with you btw. Downloading images of children being abused isn't a victimless crime.



I'll try again._ If a crime was involved in the making of the image,* make possession of the image illegal also.*_


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> Yes, I saw that post Johnny. Which is why I'm confused about why you're arguing with C66 here.
> 
> Unless I've missed something that C66 is saying?



He'd make the images illegal, even if there was no crime associated with the making of the image - even if the image was solely a work of imagination.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> He'd make the images illegal, even if there was no crime associated with the making of the image - even if the image was solely a work of imagination.



I don't think he was saying that. But maybe I've misunderstood. C66?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But if they never go near a child in their whole lives, so what?
> 
> So you can have homosexuals who have sex with women all their lives and never touch men, murderers who never kill, thieves who never steal?



Because "supersta" popped up to 'remind me' what a 'paedo' is. It isn't according to the dictionary definition.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> He'd make the images illegal, even if there was no crime associated with the making of the image - even if the image was solely a work of imagination.



That isn't what I'm saying.

Dude, you can argue with yourself. All of this has been discussed and now you want it all to be discussed again for your benefit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> I don't think he was saying that. But maybe I've misunderstood. C66?



I've been perfectly clear. it's not my fault he lives in another time zone, gets to the party late, so wants everyone to re-live the cutting of the cake especially for him.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I've been perfectly clear. it's not my fault he lives in another time zone, gets to the party late, so wants everyone to re-live the cutting of the cake especially for him.



You've said that because we have evidentiary problems distinguishing between images created as renditions of crimes, and images that are works of imagination, better to ban the whole lot.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> He'd make the images illegal, even if there was no crime associated with the making of the image - even if the image was solely a work of imagination.



More importantly this is what real people are actually being prosecuted for. This is not hypothetical. People are being prosecuted and jailed and put on sex offenders registers for the possession of DRAWINGS. 

This is not about child abuse. Everyone agrees that anyone involved in abusing children should be prosecuted and that includes those who collect actual real photographic images of such crimes. 
This is not the issue. The issue is the law has been subtley and (IMO) dishonestly altered to include the persecution of thought and imagination and fantasy soley on the basis of distaste. 

As JC2 so elequently put it, this is important because it is a threat to the free expression of us all. If the law defends the right of someone to guffaw at smutty images of Lisa Simpson and a donkey it also protects the future William Burroughs and Alan Moores and Vladimir Nabokov's of this world. I don't want to live in a world where the creative genius of the likes of the above are stifled or suppressed because of legislation based on taste and disgust.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

@ citizen: You might want to try and deny that now, but here it is.


> 13-04-2010, 04:23
> *Citizen66 Citizen66 *is offline
> The North Prole
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You've said that because we have evidentiary problems distinguishing between images created as renditions of crimes, and images that are works of imagination, better to ban the whole lot.



No I haven't. 

Read the thread man. Kabbes understood what i was saying, as did spangles, crispy and cesare.

Do I need to spend another two hours explaining my rationale again?

I disagreed with the one point of supersta's campaign which said:

"all illustrations come from the imagination and are therefore a thought crime"

I spent the rest of the thread challenging that notion. That is all. I agree that thoughts shouldn't be crimes but that the above statement is ridiculous (hence my earlier example illustration).

And now I'm done.  have fun.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I've been perfectly clear. it's not my fault he lives in another time zone, gets to the party late, so wants everyone to re-live the cutting of the cake especially for him.



So ... for the avoidance of doubt (lol ) ... the two propositions that I posted is what you've been arguing?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You might want to try and deny that now, but here it is.



Crispy said that and not me... 

But he was following on from my train of thought.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> So ... for the avoidance of doubt (lol ) ... the two propositions that I posted is what you've been arguing?



Yes, although I would add to point two that illustrating a photograph of an actual rape counts as that too.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Crispy said that and not me...
> .



Yes....... and then you said.........




> *My argument summarised eloquently*



I knew you'd try to wriggle away, but: there it is in black and white.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> ...
> 
> And now I'm done.  have fun.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Yes....... and then you said.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude, through the daytime I post with my mobile phone and it has *very* limited editing capabilities; so sorry I didn't edit down the *exact* bit of crispy's post that was summarising what I had said but, you know, I expected that people could deduce for themselves what I meant.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


>



I'm trying!


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You're wrong. A paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They can live full and happy lives without ever acting upon it. They're still a paedophile though as that's the definition.



An adult yes, agreed with that. But do you think they should be jailed or put on a sex offenders registers on the basis of their unfulfilled thoughts?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I've been perfectly clear. it's not my fault he lives in another time zone, gets to the party late, so wants everyone to re-live the cutting of the cake especially for him.



Intellectual dishonesty. You can't argue the side, so you do this kind of thing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Dude, through the daytime I post with my mobile phone and it has *very* limited editing capabilities; so sorry I didn't edit down the *exact* bit of crispy's post that was summarising what I had said but, you know, I expected that people could deduce for themselves what I meant.



You managed to type this on your phone:



> *My argument summarised eloquently*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes, although I would add to point two that illustrating a photograph of an actual rape counts as that too.



I agreed with you on that.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes, although I would add to point two that illustrating a photograph of an actual rape counts as that too.



I can see where you're coming from with that; on an emotional level. But the reality is that if the illustrator wasn't actually there, they played no part in the contemporaneous event. 

The effect is diluted, but it's still an effect - and feeds the demand/supply cycle.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

> But if we can't determine the origins (as would be the obvious courtroom defence), then we must ban possession of all graphical child porn, regardless of origin



Isn't the above essentially surrendering the police and prosecutions duty to do what it does. Search for evidence. The assumption that "we can't determine the origins" is saying that courts should give up attempting to follow up and prepare a case for prosecution and should simply ban all graphical illustrations deemed "porn" because it is easier. 

Also it begs the question as to who defines which illustration is considered "child porn." The courts have deemed the smutty Simpson's cartoons to be so, other courts have deemed some manga to be so. What is next? Alan Moores work? Romeo and Juliet? 

It seems to me that it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the court to say they should prosecute all such images because they "can't determine the source" They have to, it's their job. If they fail then they fail to prosecute as there is no crime demonstrated.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

I took issue with this part ... 





> If you take a photograph of child abuse, or make a realistic painting of child abuse, there is exactly as much abuse and exactly as much representation of that abuse in each case.


... whatever it intends to say, and however you read it in the context of the thread -- just take it as it stands, it's just plain wrong.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> An adult yes, agreed with that. But do you think they should be jailed or put on a sex offenders registers on the basis of their unfulfilled thoughts?



No, of course not. You came to 'remind me' what a paedophile is and I was putting you right on the definition.

That's why I've been clear throughout to say 'child abuse' rather than paedophilia as the word doesn't necessarily mean that someone who is sexually attracted to children also abuses them (although many do).


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm trying!


^  
y'certainly fookin' are!

Face it, you're hooked, but stop struggling for even a moment, and we'll be picking over your bones like a bunch of vultures. And I bet you've forgotten why we're disagreeing as well


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> t - and feeds the demand/supply cycle.



What does this mean?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You managed to type this on your phone:



But I hadn't mentioned anything regarding the last bit in previous posts which you would know had you read the thread properly so he couldn't possibly be summarising something I hadn't said... 

The thoughts at the end were his own (his job on here isn't to run around summarising people, he did have bits to add).

I haver  htc hero btw and although good, it's fiddly. But I'll obviously have to go the hassly route from now on...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Does anyone really believe that seeing an image of a child being harmed, will make people want to go and harm a child?

Does anyone really believe that those albums by Bon Jovi or whomever, makes  kids go and kill someone?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Intellectual dishonesty. You can't argue the side, so you do this kind of thing.



I've been arguing the side all fucking day!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The thoughts at the end were his own (his job on here isn't to run around summarising people, he did have bits to add).)





> *My argument summarised eloquently*



Hard to be much clearer than you are with that statement.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> I can see where you're coming from with that; on an emotional level. But the reality is that if the illustrator wasn't actually there, they played no part in the contemporaneous event.



But the illustrator may have been there. He may be the same guy who took the photograph. Sorry, I'm just imagining child porn rings here so i get your point that someone who happens upon a child porn picture and draws a picture of it is in a somewhat different position.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Hard to be much clearer than you are with that statement.



I've explained it. Now go and find where I made those comments myself earlier in the thread if you want to keep hammering away at this.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> *I see it now.*
> 
> There is a clear inconsistency. If you take a photograph of child abuse, or make a realistic painting of child abuse, there is exactly as much abuse and exactly as much representation of that abuse in each case. Currently, one of these representations is illegal, the other is not. The debate should really be "how can this inconsistency be harmonised?"



^^ This is him acknowledging my train of thought and summarising it. 



> If we agree that photographic child porn is illegal, then the same logic must apply to graphical child porn that has real-world origins. But if we can't determine the origins (as would be the obvious courtroom defence), then we must ban possession of _all_ graphical child porn, regardless of origin. The only alternative, that I can see, is to legalise possession of photographic and graphical child porn, keeping only the _production _of such material illegal.
> 
> Neither solution makes me comfortable.



^^ These are his own thoughts as he draws conclusions from it.

I can't split posts up like this on my mobile. Actually I can to a certain extent but it's a faff.

If you think the latter part was a summary of what I was saying then go and find where I said it. Simple. 

E2A: And he wasn't even saying ban it. That was one of two possible options. What I've been saying is that distinctions need to be drawn between the two which neither the government or seemingly the op want. It's all or nothing on both sides of the argument.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Does anyone really believe that seeing an image of a child being harmed, will make people want to go and harm a child?
> 
> Does anyone really believe that those albums by Bon Jovi or whomever, makes  kids go and kill someone?


That's the hidden assumption nailed a treat!

It's easy to believe, it's as easy to accept that smoking marijuana paves the way for harder drugs (ie practically anything else ).  Or that pole dancing clubs, maybe brothels, perhaps just easily available pornography, are causative factor encouraging rapes.

These days, kids use the net and share pictures with their friends.  I don't see how this is going to foster a generation of paedophiles, whatever dumb law has been written.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What does this mean?



What I meant by that, is that there is clearly a market (demand) for child rape  pornography. That demand can be supplied directly or indirectly. The direct supply to meet demand is supplied by those that perpetrate the abuse and its dissemination. Real time photos/pictures of real time abuse.

But the demand for child pornography can also be met by an indirect supply e.g. rendition and dissemination of real time abuse.

Direct or indirect supply fuels demand.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> But the illustrator may have been there. He may be the same guy who took the photograph. Sorry, I'm just imagining child porn rings here so i get your point that someone who happens upon a child porn picture and draws a picture of it is in a somewhat different position.



If the illustrator was actually there, they were colluding with the child rape taking place.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Does anyone really believe that seeing an image of a child being harmed, will make people want to go and harm a child?



No. But a child must be harmed in order for that image to exist.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> What I meant by that, is that there is clearly a market (demand) for child rape  pornography. That demand can be supplied directly or indirectly. The direct supply to meet demand is supplied by those that perpetrate the abuse and its dissemination. Real time photos/pictures of real time abuse.
> 
> But the demand for child pornography can also be met by an indirect supply e.g. rendition and dissemination of real time abuse.
> 
> Direct or indirect supply fuels demand.


That's a dramatic claim.  I doubt it's possible, even on the internet, to buy a ticket for "real time child sex" whether coerced or not.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> No. But a child must be harmed in order for that image to exist.



Not  if it's a drawing, that's the whole point.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> That's a dramatic claim.  I doubt it's possible, even on the internet, to buy a ticket for "real time child sex" whether coerced or not.



You seem to be doing an awful lot of down-playing of what is a pretty nasty underworld industry, Jonti.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Not  if it's a drawing, that's the whole point.



Dude, I'm not getting on the merry-go-round again. 

We've covered all of this.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Fuck off; you're the cunt imagining running a paedophile ring, not me.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Dude, I'm not getting on the merry-go-round again.
> 
> We've covered all of this.



Yes and deep down I think you know we are right. Pride is stopping you admitting it. Illustrations are victimless. There is no basis to prosecute the production or possession of such images except distaste.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Fuck off; you're the cunt imagining running a paedophile ring, not me.



How did you reach that fantastic conclusion from my words?



dylans said:


> Yes and deep down I think you know we are right. Pride is stopping you admitting it. Illustrations are victimless. There is no basis to prosecute the production or possession of such images except distaste.



No, we don't agree. 

lisa simpson getting but-fucked by a donkey = victimless.

a photograph of actual rape being transformed into high-res imagery to circumvent image laws for legal distribution = not victimless.

That's my stance.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> That's a dramatic claim.  I doubt it's possible, even on the internet, to buy a ticket for "real time child sex" whether coerced or not.



I'm not sure how you leaped to that from what I posted 

But, whatever *shrug*  ... are you suggesting that's there's no demand/supply going on?


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

> Sorry, I'm just imagining child porn rings here


From #266


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> From #266





If you want to play pedantry go to a pub quiz.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> I'm not sure how you leaped to that from what I posted
> 
> But, whatever *shrug*  ... are you suggesting that's there's no demand/supply going on?


No, no "whatever"; and no, I don't imagine there is no "demand/supply going on".

But you said 





> ...The direct supply to meet demand is supplied by those that perpetrate the abuse and its dissemination. Real time photos/pictures of real time abuse.
> 
> But the demand for child pornography can also be met by an indirect supply e.g. rendition and dissemination of real time abuse...


----------



## Jonti (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If you want to play pedantry go to a pub quiz.


Really not, but yeah, should've left it at "Fuck off".


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Really not, but yeah, should've left it at "Fuck off".



Dude, your faux machismo is making you look a bit of a cock.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Spit it out Jonti! What are you trying to say? That renditioners and onward disseminators should be protected rather than held to account?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> Spit it out man! What are you trying to say? That renditioners and onward disseminators should be protected rather than held to account?



Do you think that if one of those "disseminators" emailed you a batch of kiddie porn, and you looked at it, you would become a paedophile and potential child abuser?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Do you think that if one of those "disseminators" emailed you a batch of kiddie porn, and you looked at it, you would become a paedophile and potential child abuser?



Do you think that many people open unsolicited emails?


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Do you think that if one of those "disseminators" emailed you a batch of kiddie porn, and you looked at it, you would become a paedophile and potential child abuser?



If a disseminator emailed me a batch of kiddie porn, I'd go ape and do what I could to get the fucking  disseminator bang to rights.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> If a disseminator emailed me a batch of kiddie porn, I'd go ape and do what I could to get the fucking  disseminator bang to rights.



What if someone sent you a drawing of Lisa Simpson blowing a donkey? 

(although she is 23)


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

Here's an article about that case I mentioned earlier. Police were unable to establish whether the guy had actually raped and murdered a child in Cambodia because there wasn't enough evidence (cheap poor children and a poor society mean that first world predators can rape and pillage as they see fit). 

If someone had shot a video of this event and then someone else had made drawing of the freezeframes to accompany the story of how these men raped and tortured and killed a little girl, then that would be okay with the OP and his/her sidekick. Not to me, sorry and I am seriously not of the hangemup brigade but I think this is all a bit civil liberties over protection of children


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> What if someone sent you a drawing of Lisa Simpson blowing a donkey?
> 
> (although she is 23)



I probably wouldn't open that either. I'd just think they were a mindless cock and delete it.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you think that many people open unsolicited emails?



Yes. Unsolicited email doesn't mean that it comes from an unknown sender. Of course, there are other ways to send stuff: a link to a website, an image or video sent from a mobile "just for a laugh", by somebody who doesn't know about this legislation (it could be just a hentai image or video)... the latter being a case being in court at the moment, although the images were "extreme porn", nothing to do with kids, but equally illegal to possess.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

cesare said:


> I probably wouldn't open that either. I'd just think they were a mindless cock and delete it.



Exactly.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2010)

Does anyone have a reason why this stuff should be allowed rather than why it should not be banned?



> Does anyone really believe that seeing an image of a child being harmed, will make people want to go and harm a child?


Do you think porn in general has no effect on the people watching it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Does anyone have a reason why this stuff should be allowed rather than why it should not be banned?
> 
> Do you think porn in general has no effect on the people watching it?



Have you ever looked at porn?

Did it make you want to rape or otherwise violate someone?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Here's an article about that case I mentioned earlier. Police were unable to establish whether the guy had actually raped and murdered a child in Cambodia because there wasn't enough evidence (cheap poor children and a poor society mean that first world predators can rape and pillage as they see fit).
> 
> If someone had shot a video of this event and then someone else had made drawing of the freezeframes to accompany the story of how these men raped and tortured and killed a little girl, then that would be okay with the OP and his/her sidekick. Not to me, sorry and I am seriously not of the hangemup brigade but I think this is all a bit civil liberties over protection of children



Anyone care to comment?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Have you ever looked at porn?
> 
> Did it make you want to rape or otherwise violate someone?



Answer the question.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think porn in general has no effect on the people watching it?



Tell us what effect it has on you, and that is likely to be the typical, average experience for the majority of adults.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Answer the question.



Who decides what is obscene in fictional literature? You? The judge? The government?

Should William Burroughs be banned? Stephen King? Alan Moore? Marquis de Sade? Shakespeare? 

If I make an illustrated novel of Naked Lunch or IT or Romeo and Juliet or Lost girls or 120 days of sodom should I be prosecuted? 

You are entitled to find some fictional artistic literature offensive. I do, but when you attempt to ban something on the basis of distaste you must explain where you draw the line.

This is my answer to you. Fiction shouldn't be banned first because it is victimless second because it is an attack on freedom of expression. What is porn to you may be art to me. Who is to decide? You?

I don't think so.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Cause and effect can be CONSIDERABLY more complex than "I experienced input A therefore I did output B."

As a general rule, I'd go with the assumption that we are all effected by absolutely everything that we experience unless I had decent evidence to the contrary.  It would seem astonishing to me if it were any other way.  So the only real question is what is the qualitative and quantitative impact of that effect?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Anyone care to comment?



I saw that and frankly it isn't worthy of comment because it is a straw man. That evil bastard hurt real kids in the real world. This is a far cry from drawing a fucking cartoon.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> I saw that and frankly it isn't worthy of comment because it is a straw man. That evil bastard hurt real kids in the real world. This is a far cry from drawing a fucking cartoon.



You don't know that. He claimed that it was a fantasy. How are you going to know whether it's real or not? And I think talking about cartoons is a total red herring. The act talks about “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”. It's pretty specific. 

I really have a bit of an issue with people wanting to have the freedom to have images of women and children being raped, tortured and murdered in graphic detail. It makes me really uncomfortable.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> You don't know that. He claimed that it was a fantasy. How are you going to know whether it's real or not?



It doesn't matter. He was prosecuted for hurting real children in the real world. Now I have answered you . Please pay me the respect of answering me. Who is to decide which fictional literature should be deemed child porn and banned?

He made these claims. It is the duty of the police to investigate them. If they find any truth then they prosecute. If it was a fantasy they don't. Its what cops are meant to do.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> You are entitled to find some fictional artistic literature offensive. I do, but when you attempt to ban something on the basis of distaste you must explain where you draw the line.


I draw the line at anything involving kids or anything not involving consent. The fact that they're cartoons is irrelevant to me, what they're depicting involves lack of consent and I can't see how you can get around that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Who is to decide which fictional literature should be deemed child porn and banned?



When did the conversation shift to fictional literature?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> I draw the line at anything involving kids or anything not involving consent. The fact that they're cartoons is irrelevant to me, what they're depicting involves lack of consent and I can't see how you can get around that.



Ok so lets be clear. You wish to have William Burroughs banned? 
Romeo and Juliet banned? 
!20 days of Sodom?
Lolita? 

If I produce a comic book with these stories in them should i be prosecuted?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> When did the conversation shift to fictional literature?



I asked if I was to produce a graphic novel of some of these works should I be prosecuted?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> You don't know that. He claimed that it was a fantasy. How are you going to know whether it's real or not? And I think talking about cartoons is a total red herring. The act talks about “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”. It's pretty specific.
> 
> I really have a bit of an issue with people wanting to have the freedom to have images of women and children being raped, tortured and murdered in graphic detail. It makes me really uncomfortable.



You feeling "uncomfortable is not the basis on which to ban something. I am uncomfortable reading 120 days of Sodom but I don't want to see it banned. If you are uncomfortable with that sort of fiction. Don't read it. 

You say its a red herring but people, real people have been prosecuted for possession of cartoons.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Ok so lets be clear. You wish to have William Burroughs banned?
> Romeo and Juliet banned?
> !20 days of Sodom?
> Lolita?
> ...



Are you in favour of the depiction of stories and scenes involving no consent?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> You don't know that. He claimed that it was a fantasy. How are you going to know whether it's real or not? And I think talking about cartoons is a total red herring. The act talks about “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse”. It's pretty specific.
> 
> I really have a bit of an issue with people wanting to have the freedom to have images of women and children being raped, tortured and murdered in graphic detail. It makes me really uncomfortable.



I'm not comfortable that some people enjoy images of black people looking like monkeys, or being lynched.

I wouldn't restrict their freedom to have such things for that reason, though.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you in favour of the depiction of stories and scenes involving no consent?



If they are fiction then of course. Lots of literature contains these themes. They are fiction, They are not real. What part of "fiction" do you have a problem with?



> No children were hurt in the making of this story.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Personally, I think that I can't endorse the loss of freedom of expression that banning drawings entails.

But there is no doubt in my mind that this has the potential for a serious inconsistency with the law pertaining to photographs.  And I am at a loss as to how to square that circle because I cannot, in all conscience, consider the possession of child rape photographs to be anything other than a serious crime.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> It doesn't matter. He was prosecuted for hurting real children in the real world. Now I have answered you . Please pay me the respect of answering me. Who is to decide which fictional literature should be deemed child porn and banned?
> 
> He made these claims. It is the duty of the police to investigate them. If they find any truth then they prosecute. If it was a fantasy they don't. Its what cops are meant to do.



I did answer your post 


> I saw that and frankly it isn't worthy of comment because it is a straw man. That evil bastard hurt real kids in the real world. This is a far cry from drawing a fucking cartoon.



with the response above. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'giving you the respect'. 

You're assuming a fair world where people from the first world don't have power over the third. Simply not the case. 

Who said that fictional literature should be banned? I was simply using that as an example to demonstrate that the line between 'real' and 'fictional' is pretty unclear when it comes to practising clever paedophiles. I don't want shippy prosecuted for his anime. Even though I find some of it a bit uncomfortable, I don't think that is an issue. But there is a huge difference between manga/anime and semi-photographic illustrations, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

It's a shame that we can't simply have law based on the "Don't be a dick" principle of the urban FAQ.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I'm not comfortable that some people enjoy images of black people looking like monkeys, or being lynched.
> 
> I wouldn't restrict their freedom to have such things for that reason, though.



But there is a massive difference between a fantasy image (like black people looking like monkeys) and an image which is not actually a photo of a child being sodomised and raped. There is the titillation that it might be real. And some of the people seeing the image might know that is it. That was the whole point of my linking to that article which seems a little bit difficult to understand for some people


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I did answer your post
> 
> 
> with the response above. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'giving you the respect'.
> ...



If they are fiction then the difference is only one of taste.

And no you haven't really  answered my post. Have you read 120 days of Sodom? It's pretty fierce stuff. Should it be banned? It certainly meets your standard for non consensual and child sex. 



> men who vaginally rape female children, indulge in incest and flagellation. Tales of men who indulge in sacrilegious activities are also recounted, such as a man who enjoyed having sex with nuns whilst watching Mass being performed. The female children are deflowered vaginally during the evening orgies with other elements of that month's stories - such as whipping - occasionally thrown in.
> 
> Tales are told of perverts who indulge in criminal activities, albeit stopping short of murder. They include men who sodomize girls as young as three, men who prostitute their own daughters to other perverts and watch the proceedings, and others who mutilate women by tearing off fingers or burning them with red-hot pokers. During the month, the four libertines begin having anal sex with the sixteen male and female children, and these children, and the other victims, are treated more brutally as time goes on, with regular beatings and whippings.
> 
> The final 150 anecdotes are those involving murder. They include perverts who skin children alive, disembowel pregnant women, burn alive entire families and kill newborn babies in front of their mothers. The final tale is the only one since the simple passions of November written in detail. It features the 'Hell Libertine' who masturbates whilst watching fifteen teenage girls being simultaneously tortured to death. During this month, the libertines brutally kill three of the four daughters they have between them, along with four of the female children and two of the male ones. The murder of one of the girls, 15-year-old Augustine, is described in great detail, with the tortures she is subjected to including having flesh stripped from her limbs, her vagina being mutilated and her intestines being pulled out of her sliced-open belly and burned.


Should this be banned? Should the movie be banned? If I draw a graphic novel of this should it be banned and should I be thrown in jail? 

If not why not? Seeing that people are being prosecuted for Lisa Simpson cartoons ffs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> If they are fiction then of course. Lots of literature contains these themes. They are fiction, They are not real. What part of "fiction" do you have a problem with?



I understand that they are fiction and victimless, no problem. Do you think they have any effect on the people reading them?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> If they are fiction then the difference is only one of taste.



How are photographs different then?


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> How are photographs different then?



Photographs are created through the abuse of real children. They are not fiction


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> I understand that they are fiction and victimless, no problem. Do you think they have any effect on the people reading them?



Everything has an effect on us. Do they turn us into child rapists? NO

In fact don't you think that is a pathetic excuse used by abusers to avoid responsibility for their awful actions?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> Photographs are created through the abuse of real children. They are not fiction


Is it so hard to conceive of photographs that are not created through the abuse of real children and illustrations that are created through the abuse of real children?

How about photographs which are given sufficient filters in photoshop so that they resemble illustrations instead?

I think that the line is not necessarily and not always as obvious as you are making out.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Is it so hard to conceive of photographs that are not created through the abuse of real children and illustrations that are created through the abuse of real children?
> 
> How about photographs which are given sufficient filters in photoshop so that they resemble illustrations instead?
> 
> I think that the line is not necessarily and not always as obvious as you are making out.



In such cases it is the duty of the police to investigate and, if they find that the images were produced through criminal actions, to prosecute. If they find the images to be fiction they don't.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> In such cases it is the duty of the police to investigate and, if they find that the images were produced through criminal actions, to prosecute. If they find the images to be fiction they don't.


And so we go round in circles again, because this is a different standard to which photographs are held.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Is it so hard to conceive of photographs that are not created through the abuse of real children and illustrations that are created through the abuse of real children?
> 
> How about photographs which are given sufficient filters in photoshop so that they resemble illustrations instead?
> 
> I think that the line is not necessarily and not always as obvious as you are making out.



To repeat: those are evidentiary matters, and shouldn't form the basis for the underlying law.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> In such cases it is the duty of the police to investigate and, if they find that the images were produced through criminal actions, to prosecute. If they find the images to be fiction they don't.



Oh come on. Surely you can see that it is not that easy to do.

And like I was trying to point out in that earlier post, children are dirt cheap in South East Asia. Fuck and kill a few, who cares? If you pay the local police chief a couple of hundred quid, probably no one. But hey, they're only little ill-educated brown people


----------



## kabbes (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> To repeat: those are evidentiary matters, and shouldn't form the basis for the underlying law.


You're quite possibly right, but I still am struggling with the different treatment for photographs.

Is it simply a balance of probabilities?  That photographs are more likely than not to be real was drawings are more likely than not to be imaginary?  But then who has determined those probabilities?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Oh come on. Surely you can see that it is not that easy to do.



No, it's not easy to do, but it is doable.

It's not easy to solve a murder, but they get solved.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

The prime consideration in making a law, shouldn't be how easy it will make it for the police to get a conviction.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> You're quite possibly right, but I still am struggling with the different treatment for photographs.
> 
> Is it simply a balance of probabilities?  That photographs are more likely than not to be real was drawings are more likely than not to be imaginary?  But then who has determined those probabilities?



Balance of probabilities doesn't come into it at this point. It would just be about good police work, showing that a crime was in fact committed in the making of the video.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Oh come on. Surely you can see that it is not that easy to do.
> 
> And like I was trying to point out in that earlier post, children are dirt cheap in South East Asia. Fuck and kill a few, who cares? If you pay the local police chief a couple of hundred quid, probably no one. But hey, they're only little ill-educated brown people



Investigating crime is rarely easy. Nevertheless it is the duty of the police to investigate them.

You are talking to someone who lived in Cambodia for over a decade. My son is half Khmer, please don't lecture me on South East Asia. Khnyom che nijay pisak khmai chba.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> And like I was trying to point out in that earlier post, children are dirt cheap in South East Asia. Fuck and kill a few, who cares? If you pay the local police chief a couple of hundred quid, probably no one. But hey, they're only little ill-educated brown people



Do you think there's a big market for videos showing children being killed?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 13, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Oh come on. Surely you can see that it is not that easy to do.
> 
> And like I was trying to point out in that earlier post, children are dirt cheap in South East Asia. Fuck and kill a few, who cares? If you pay the local police chief a couple of hundred quid, probably no one. But hey, they're only little ill-educated brown people



Nobody here is advocating the abuse and murder of children, even if they were green and you could buy two for the price of one. That comment smacks of mass hysteria.


----------



## dylans (Apr 13, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Do you think there's a big market for videos showing children being killed?



Oh it's huge. We used to buy em in the local market all the time. Wherever you go there are these "little uneducated brown people" throwing their kids at you to fuck and murder for a couple of hundred dollars


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Nobody here is advocating the abuse and murder of children, even if they were green and you could buy two for the price of one. That comment smacks of mass hysteria.



There should be a Godwins style law that can be envoked for when people denounce others for alleged daily mail-isms (which supersta does quite frequently).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> There should be a Godwins style law that can be envoked for when people denounce others for alleged daily mail-isms (which supersta does quite frequently).



It could be used on you for your 'think of the children!' refrain.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 14, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Nobody here is advocating the abuse and murder of children,



i dunno

ever been on a plane with a screaming baby

recipe for   infanticide


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Do you think there's a big market for videos showing children being killed?



No, it's not big. But it's there. I don't think pretending that it doesn't exist does any of us any favours.

And the responses from the rest of you don't really deserve a reply. I would rather protect children from abuse than the rights of a very small number of people who want to look at images of children being abused.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> i dunno
> 
> ever been on a plane with a screaming baby
> 
> recipe for   infanticide



Busted! But I only thought of it, Your Honour. Ah, ok, it's a thought crime then... I'm doomed!


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I would rather protect children from abuse than



Of course, nobody is saying that children shouldn't be protected. But do you really believe that banning the possession of cartoons is going to prevent that abuse? And if so, how? 

I've asked that in an earlier post, but not directly to you.


----------



## dylans (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> No, it's not big. But it's there. I don't think pretending that it doesn't exist does any of us any favours.
> 
> And the responses from the rest of you don't really deserve a reply. I would rather protect children from abuse than the rights of a very small number of people who want to look at images of children being abused.



Out of interest. Have you actually been to Cambodia and I don't mean 2 weeks sitting on a hammock in Boeng Kak lake smoking pot and watching reruns of the killing fields followed by a trip to Angkor. 

I ask because in all the time I spent there I never heard of snuff movies involving children (or anyone else for that matter) People there are poor but they are not so easily bought as  you make out. Such activity (if it exists which I doubt) would be deeply underground and dangerous and I assure you not available for " a couple of hundred dollars to the local police chief)


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Of course, nobody is saying that children shouldn't be protected. But do you really believe that banning the possession of cartoons is going to prevent that abuse? And if so, how?



Why do you keep switching to 'cartoons'.

Your campaign defends *all* illustrations of child sexual abuse. That is what has been argued the whole day and not the stupid cartoons.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Why do you keep switching to 'cartoons'.
> 
> Your campaign defends *all* illustrations of child sexual abuse. That is what has been argued the whole day and not the stupid cartoons.



The stupid cartoons are still, stupidly enough, illegal.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

No I haven't. But I don't disbelieve that article. And it's not the only one about Roger Took. 

I know people who have been offered babies for a couple of thousand dollars. Seriously. Lives are cheap in a lot of places - just having spent time there doesn't make that less the case. Do you know much about the sex industry in SE Asia? It's a huge, huge business. Gary Glitter didn't go there because it's a bit warmer you know.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> The stupid cartoons are still, stupidly enough, illegal.



Are they? Got any actual proof of that? Show me an example of what you mean, please


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> No, it's not big. But it's there. I don't think pretending that it doesn't exist does any of us any favours..



Everything is there. Your post made it sound like there are cages of brown children in SE Asia, just waiting for avaricious western child raper/murderers.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I would rather protect children from abuse .



I want to protect children from abuse also. However, I don't see how that goal is served by locking people up because they posess certain pieces of paper, and nothing more.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Are they? Got any actual proof of that? Show me an example of what you mean, please



Yes, here. It's what the OP was about.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

It's like in movies. In the old days, in westerns etc, those horses were actually being hurt. Then they passed laws that you couldn't hurt animals during filming.

Now they just use computer imagery to make it look like the animals get hurt.


Should those generated images be illegal because it's illegal to harm animals during filming?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Yes, here. It's what the OP was about.



No, that is just a link to your website. And actually I've now read the government consultation paper which explicitly states:


> The offence should criminalise nonphotographic visual images depicting the following:
> • An image which focuses excessively on a child’s genitalia
> • A person of any age performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with a child
> • An act of masturbation by, of or involving a child
> ...



That's not your average anime is it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> No, that is just a link to your website. And actually I've now read the government consultation paper which explicitly states:
> 
> 
> That's not your average anime is it?





> • An image which focuses excessively on a child’s genitalia


Is it ok to focus on them en passant?

If tentacles are present, does that cause an alteration of the focus?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I want to protect children from abuse also. However, I don't see how that goal is served by locking people up because they posess certain pieces of paper, and nothing more.



But that is an argument against prosecuting people for having photos of child abuse. Are you okay with that?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> No, that is just a link to your website.




... to a page on a website, where you can find a link to the legislation. I could have posted a link straight to the legislation, I know, but is that page a problem?




trashpony said:


> That's not your average anime is it?



Trashpony, I can't reply to that because I'm not an anime expert. But there are other people on these boards who know far more than me about that in particular, and they could answer I'm sure. The anime fans in specialized forums, where this legislation is being discussed, sound very worried. I'm sure that means something.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> But that is an argument against prosecuting people for having photos of child abuse. Are you okay with that?



For the umpteenth time, restriction of pedophilic images made during the commission of a crime, is a reasoable restriction on the right to free speech.


Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever reads anything besides their own posts.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> For the umpteenth time, restriction of pedophilic images made during the commission of a crime, is a reasoable restriction on the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever reads anything besides their own posts.



But for the umpteenth time, the former law that didn't prosecute people for images that weren't photographs as such was a very convenient work around for people like Roger Took. So where does that leave us? I would rather that some people can't have the images of children being abused that they would like to have for fear of being prosecuted to prevent those that actually do abuse children exploiting the loophole in the law. That doesn't seem such a bad trade off to me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> But for the umpteenth time, the former law that didn't prosecute people for images that weren't photographs as such was a very convenient work around for people like Roger Took. So where does that leave us? I would rather that some people can't have the images of children being abused that they would like to have for fear of being prosecuted to prevent those that actually do abuse children exploiting the loophole in the law. That doesn't seem such a bad trade off to me.



I don't know who roger took is, but I'm betting he's some sort of pedophile.

You don't make laws that apply to tens of millions of people, in order to stop the actions of a handful.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

Some kid says that listening to Bon Jovi or whomever made him kill. It probably did [because he's crazy]

Should we ban those records to ensure that it never happens again?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I don't know who roger took is, but I'm betting he's some sort of pedophile.
> 
> You don't make laws that apply to tens of millions of people, in order to stop the actions of a handful.



Are there tens of millions of people who want to have or already have pornographic illustrations of children? I doubt it


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> But for the umpteenth time, the former law that didn't prosecute people for images that weren't photographs as such was a very convenient work around for people like Roger Took.



Of course, previous legislations were an inside job to facilitate child abuse for the Poshos. Good that someone spotted those filthy paedos, even the ones who only fantasise about it. Bring back hanging, I say


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Gary Glitter didn't go there because it's a bit warmer you know.



Sorry, but...


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Of course, previous legislations were an inside job to facilitate child abuse for the Poshos. Good that someone spotted those filthy paedos, even the ones who only fantasise about it. Bring back hanging, I say



Yes that's exactly what I'm saying


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Are there tens of millions of people who want to have or already have pornographic illustrations of children? I doubt it



So there's not much worry about those tiger cages full of brown children, is there?


----------



## Jonti (Apr 14, 2010)

cesare said:


> Spit it out Jonti! What are you trying to say? That renditioners and onward disseminators should be protected rather than held to account?


Why are you being such an offensive twat over a serious issue?


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Why are you being such an offensive twat over a serious issue?



Bless  I've barely made a handful of posts, mostly conciliatory, and you're saying I'm an 'offensive twat'.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 14, 2010)

And bless you too.

But why do you suggest my position is that "renditioners and onward disseminators should be protected". 

I think that's unwarranted, and offensive -- what did you mean by that?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

What is a 'renditioner', anyway?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> For the umpteenth time, restriction of pedophilic images made during the commission of a crime, is a reasoable restriction on the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever reads anything besides their own posts.



That's hilarious considering earlier you were doing the very same thing yourself.


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2010)

So what is shippy supposed to do?  Hand himself in, burn his collection, smuggle it abroad, volunteer tio be a test case, carry on as normal with a deep underlying fear of being hung out to dry by courts, press and just about everybody in real life?  

Is there an amnesty bin at Brixton police station for that which was legal on the 5th but is now one of the very worst crimes anyone can be accused of?

come to that, what are we, the people that have read his confession to being in possession of a hoard of thoroughly illegal material, supposed to do?  Or the cops reading this.  Is it not our duty to the rest of society to turn him in as we would anyone we strongly suspected of being involved in child porn, a crime _don't be a grass_ doesn't really cover.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 14, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> That's hilarious considering earlier you were doing the very same thing yourself.


That's not my impression. 

I thought JC2 was reading the thread, and making notes as he went along.  When he caught up, he posted comments on things that hadn't been dealt with or answered, by his lights.

However you read it, this thread certainly didn't see the classic JC2 carpet bombing exercise.  I'd say JC2 takes the issues seriously and soberly.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 14, 2010)

What is notable, in this and similar threads, is how readily the self-styled "defenders" of children resort to smears and innuendo. Anyone disagreeing with their measures is likely to be smeared as a promoter of abuse.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Jonti said:


> What is notable, in this and similar threads, is how readily the self-styled "defenders" of children resort to smears and innuendo. Anyone disagreeing with their measures is likely to be smeared as a promoter of abuse.



Really? Where's that?


----------



## fogbat (Apr 14, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Some kid says that listening to Bon Jovi or whomever made him kill. It probably did [because he's crazy]
> 
> Should we ban those records to ensure that it never happens again?



In the case of Bon Jovi, most certainly, yes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2010)

Jonti said:


> That's not my impression.
> 
> I thought JC2 was reading the thread, and making notes as he went along.  When he caught up, he posted comments on things that hadn't been dealt with or answered, by his lights.
> 
> However you read it, this thread certainly didn't see the classic JC2 carpet bombing exercise.  I'd say JC2 takes the issues seriously and soberly.



And i'm sure he's appointed you as his official spokesman.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 14, 2010)

think of the children sounds fair enough.
 But unfortunatly the case of lisa simpson cartoon it may be sick is certainly tasteless but.
 lisa simpsons does'nt exsist and does'nt look anything like a real human being.
  much like most manga characters.

given that should shippy be sent to the camps?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

Jonti said:


> What is notable, in this and similar threads, is how readily the self-styled "defenders" of children resort to smears and innuendo. Anyone disagreeing with their measures is likely to be smeared as a promoter of abuse.



Oh yes, it's a subject that brings out the Inner Witchfinder General in many an otherwise sober soul.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> You feeling "uncomfortable is not the basis on which to ban something. I am uncomfortable reading 120 days of Sodom but I don't want to see it banned. If you are uncomfortable with that sort of fiction. Don't read it.
> 
> You say its a red herring but people, real people have been prosecuted for possession of cartoons.



Have they? I think that's unlikely, given the act only came into force on April 6th. But I'm willing to be proved wrong


----------



## dylans (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Have they? I think that's unlikely, given the act only came into force on April 6th. But I'm willing to be proved wrong



In the USA and in Australia under similar legislation, there have been convictions for possession of manga cartoons and Spoof Simpsons cartoons. They are documented on this thread. Do you have any reason to believe that the recent British legislation will be any different?


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Have they? I think that's unlikely, given the act only came into force on April 6th. But I'm willing to be proved wrong



He's referring to countries where the same law was passed before. There have been cases in the US and Australia, to date. I think somebody posted links a few pages ago?

At the moment, there are cases in court for possession of extreme porn in UK. The Extreme Pornographic Images Bill is an older legislation copied almost word by word to create the newer, Dangerous Cartoons Bill that I posted about initially. Yes, the link is to the Backlash site, I linked it so anyone can read the legislation and judge by themselves.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> In the USA and in Australia under similar legislation, there have been convictions for possession of manga cartoons and Spoof Simpsons cartoons. They are documented on this thread. Do you have any reason to believe that the recent British legislation will be any different?



Given that UK law is different from US and Australian law, yes I do.

Incidentally, the man prosecuted in Australia 





> was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer



so he's hardly your average Manga fan is he


----------



## smokedout (Apr 14, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> How did you reach that fantastic conclusion from my words?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



its very unlikely that such an image would be legal under the current law



> A computer expert has admitted altering pornographic images of women to make them look like girls.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4776123.stm


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 14, 2010)

newbie said:


> So what is shippy supposed to do?  Hand himself in, burn his collection, smuggle it abroad, volunteer tio be a test case, carry on as normal with a deep underlying fear of being hung out to dry by courts, press and just about everybody in real life?



i have  a horrible vision of me  burning  all my stuff on a funery pire   like   tim did in spaced with his starwars collection after the prequals


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> No, that is just a link to your website. And actually I've now read the government consultation paper which explicitly states:
> 
> 
> That's not your average anime is it?



given  that   child   is  under  18    you will find  that  yes indeed  a lot of porno manga could  be considered to be like that

also  as must porno manga  tend to be serialised in volumes (a mothly edition  with stories  by a large number of authors... if  the story is very popular  it  will then be  resold  in a higher quality edition  with  the compiled story)  if  you  own a volume  of  work  there  will almost certainly  be  one or two stories that involve  under 18's    and    again  a lot  of  the volumes    do also include lolicon  as  some of their  stories     therefore  even  your  more average  anime fan  who  buys  porno manga   will most likely have at least one or two  lolicon  manga


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> given  that   child   is  under  18    you will find  that  yes indeed  a lot of porno manga could  be considered to be like that
> 
> also  as must porno manga  tend to be serialised in volumes (a mothly edition  with stories  by a large number of authors... if  the story is very popular  it  will then be  resold  in a higher quality edition  with  the compiled story)  if  you  own a volume  of  work  there  will almost certainly  be  one or two stories that involve  under 18's    and    again  a lot  of  the volumes    do also include lolicon  as  some of their  stories     therefore  even  your  more average  anime fan  who  buys  porno manga   will most likely have at least one or two  lolicon  manga



I didn't realise that child meant under 18 

Thank you. That's very interesting


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 14, 2010)

also even the stuff that involves younger charactors  isn't  as twisted as it sounds  many of  the stories  use  the juxtoposition of  cute young character look  with  the lecherous nature   for  comic  effect   indeed i have  a very funny  manga  which stars  characters  from a  very famous show   who on the show  have  a subtle  romantic undertone   this   gag manga   basically turns  that up to  11 ...  it does involve underage characters  but  it would  take  quite  a push to suggest it  is any way  nefarious


ETA

actually i uploaded a (non explicit) clip  of that manga years  ago  to urban  to  show  someone  the  range  of stuff avalible    it's  still on photobucket   and  they  have   vetted  some of my other images  for being   naught   but  have  left  that one ... goes to show the  wierd nature of it all


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> also even the stuff that involves younger charactors  isn't  as twisted as it sounds  many of  the stories  use  the juxtoposition of  cute young character look  with  the lecherous nature   for  comic  effect   indeed i have  a very funny  manga  which stars  characters  from a  very famous show   who on the show  have  a subtle  romantic undertone   this   gag manga   basically turns  that up to  11 ...  it does involve underage characters  but  it would  take  quite  a push to suggest it  is any way  nefarious



I would like to think that context is taken into account. There is a massive difference IMO between that and images which are basically photographs which have been digitally altered to get round current child porn laws. I guess until we have a test case here we aren't going to know. I would like to know how many people have used the law as it stood to get away with possessing proper child porn, rather than manga etc


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 14, 2010)

i'd like to think that too

it's  why  i'm not yet  weeping and throwing my dakimakura onto a  bonfire  

however it is  very worrying   as   unfortunately  i can quite  well see  people  not  understanding.


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I guess until we have a test case here we aren't going to know.



Yes, I was trying to say that a few pages ago: we can speculate and imagine all sorts of theoretical scenarios, but given how vague the whole legislation is, we'll have to wait till test cases come up.



trashpony said:


> I would like to know how many people have used the law as it stood to get away with possessing proper child porn, rather than manga etc



I think that it's not so easy to get away with possessing child porn anyway, and most judges are going to be very draconian, understandably. My hope is that the courts focus on cases where real abuse has taken place, and on the real offenders, rather than on fantasies that remain firmly of the mind only.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Yes, I was trying to say that a few pages ago: we can speculate and imagine all sorts of theoretical scenarios, but given how vague the whole legislation is, we'll have to wait till test cases come up.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's not so easy to get away with possessing child porn anyway, and most judges are going to be very draconian, understandably. My hope is that the courts focus on cases where real abuse has taken place, and on the real offenders, rather than on fantasies that remain firmly of the mind only.



Well yes I would hope that too but there is that issue about whether something is based on a real or fantasy image which is where it all gets a bit more complicated. 







That's a photo of my kid run through an online cartoon programme. It's still a real photo though


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Well yes I would hope that too but there is that issue about whether something is based on a real or fantasy image which is where it all gets a bit more complicated.
> 
> That's a photo of my kid run through an online cartoon programme. It's still a real photo though



That's where the test cases will be of help. I suppose that each court will decide independently, and that there will be a lot more factors at play: context, the nature of the offence, the accused background, the background to the crime itself... As I've repeated several times on this thread, child porn is not within Backlash's remit. All my opinions expressed here regarding child porn are mine only, as a lay person, not as an expert.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

I agree. I wonder whether the bloke in Australia would have been prosecuted if he hadn't already been done for possessing real photos of child abuse


----------



## Itziko (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I agree. I wonder whether the bloke in Australia would have been prosecuted if he hadn't already been done for possessing real photos of child abuse



Yes, exactly.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> That's a photo of my kid run through an online cartoon programme. It's still a real photo though



That image is a perfect example of my *not all illustrations come from the imagination* stance. It has been altered using an online converter with no artistic ability or imagination required.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Given that UK law is different from US and Australian law, yes I do.



There are major similarities between laws in US, UK, Canada, and many other former commonwealth countries. It's not unheard of for courts in one country to accept the reasoning in cases from these other countries.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I would like to think that context is taken into account.



In a perfect world, it would, every time. But the people interpreting and enforcing the law won't always be perfect.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> That's a photo of my kid run through an online cartoon programme. It's still a real photo though



What is your point: that pedophiles being aroused by such images is grotesque and disgusting? No one disagrees with you about that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

Btw, posting an image of your own child personalizes the argument in a way that prevents people from arguing about it objectively, which is how arguments have to go, when you are talking about the passage of laws of general application.


----------



## dylans (Apr 14, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> That image is a perfect example of my *not all illustrations come from the imagination* stance. It has been altered using an online converter with no artistic ability or imagination required.



And your point is? If such a conversion were made to a photo of abuse then it would clearly be a crime regardless of how many pen strokes.

 How many times does it have to be said. Images produced as a result of crime should be criminal. 

And I have to agree with JC2 here. Posting photos of your own kid wrong here because it unnecessarily personalises a sensitive subject. i have a kid, I wouldn't dream of doing that. Please don't


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What is your point: that pedophiles being aroused by such images is grotesque and disgusting? No one disagrees with you about that.





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Btw, posting an image of your own child personalizes the argument in a way that prevents people from arguing about it objectively, which is how arguments have to go, when you are talking about the passage of laws of general application.



No, my point was that it is extremely quick and easy to change a photograph to an image that you could argue was a cartoon and not based on anything real. I only posted an image of him because he's the only child I have photos of. But yes, he is a real child and child porn affects real children. I wasn't trying to make it subjective although it's interesting that you interpret it that way (you of the never post a picture of yourself despite the fact that you're 1000s of miles away from most urbs)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> No, my point was that it is extremely quick and easy to change a photograph to an image that you could argue was a cartoon and not based on anything real. I only posted an image of him because he's the only child I have photos of. But yes, he is a real child and child porn affects real children. I wasn't trying to make it subjective although it's interesting that you interpret it that way (you of the never post a picture of yourself despite the fact that you're 1000s of miles away from most urbs)



You should take down that pic of your kid. Your kid looks nice and happy in his various pictures, and tbh, it turns my stomach to see his likeness in association with this thread.

It was a wrong thing to do in an attempt to win a point, imo.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 15, 2010)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You should take down that pic of your kid. Your kid looks nice and happy in his various pictures, and tbh, it turns my stomach to see his likeness in association with this thread.
> 
> It was a wrong thing to do in an attempt to win a point, imo.



Why though? Why does it turn your stomach? You're the one arguing that there's nothing wrong with non-photographic images because they're not real children. 

If it makes you feel uncomfortable because you know he's a real child then doesn't that prove the point about what a grey and difficult area this law is trying to address?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 15, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Why though? Why does it turn your stomach? You're the one arguing that there's nothing wrong with non-photographic images because they're not real children.
> 
> If it makes you feel uncomfortable because you know he's a real child then doesn't that prove the point about what a grey and difficult area this law is trying to address?



It makes me uncomfortable because I have no interest in viewing images of children in a sexual setting, or with sexual innuendo attached.

It's not about that. 

Are you trying to convince us that it's creepy? We don't need convincing. And in any event, throwing a photo of your own kid into the argument, is inappropriate, imo.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 15, 2010)

I find this creepy too. And it's not even my kid. I wouldn't outlaw the image, though.


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Why though? Why does it turn your stomach? Y*ou're the one arguing that there's nothing wrong with non-photographic images because they're not real children. *
> 
> If it makes you feel uncomfortable because you know he's a real child then doesn't that prove the point about what a grey and difficult area this law is trying to address?



Nothing criminal about them. It doesn't follow that i like or approve of them. Free speech and free expression means sometimes we have to allow images, opinions, and ideas that "turn our stomach because otherwise we have legislation based on taste not on crime and that threatens us all because your tastes are not necessarily mine.

I would like to add my voice to the call for you to please take down that picture of your kid. In the context of this thread it's inappropriate


----------



## cesare (Apr 15, 2010)

I'm not really getting the 'freedom of speech/expression' argument whilst concurrently asking trashy to take down her kid's photo


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I'm not really getting the 'freedom of speech/expression' argument whilst concurrently asking trashy to take down her kid's photo



Asking is not the same as banning. Disapproving of something doesn't mean I want to legislate against something

Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand. You can dislike something, you can disapprove of something, you can find something offensive. You can find something inappropriate. It doesn't follow that it should be illegal.

Trashpony was asked to take it down as it is inappropriate on this thread.It unnecessarily personalises a subject that is already sensitive enough.  If she does or doesn't is her call. It was a request.


----------



## cesare (Apr 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> Asking is not the same as banning. Disapproving of something doesn't mean I want to legislate against something
> 
> Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand. You can dislike something, you can disapprove of something, you can find something offensive. You can find something inappropriate. It doesn't follow that it should be illegal.
> 
> Trashpony was asked to take it down as it is inappropriate on this thread. If she does or doesn't is her call. It was a request.



It's not hard to understand at all. But it does make you look a bit foolish - trailblazers for not banning dodgy images, whilst simultaneously getting offended by a non-dodgy image of a kid.


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> It's not hard to understand at all. But it does make you look a bit foolish - trailblazers for not banning dodgy images, whilst simultaneously getting offended by a non-dodgy image of a kid.



Why? I am offended by lots of images and literature. I find lots of images inappropriate in different contexts. Sexualised pictures of kids in advertising turns my stomiach too but I don't want them banned. However if I ever found myself in a conversation with an ad agency director I would make my feelings known.



The idea that you think it is contradictory for me to call for freedom of expression and yet amazingly I am sometimes offended (or uncomfortable in this case) by some images shows a massive misunderstanding of my position. Freedom of expression doesn't mean I have to like everything that I feel should be legal. I don't. I just don't believe in legislating over taste.

As far as the photo of the kid is concerned I think posting a photoshopped pic of your own naked kid on a thread about sexual images is in bad taste and I hope the kid is pissed off about it when he grows up.


----------



## cesare (Apr 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> Why? I am offended by lots of images and literature. I find lots of images inappropriate in different contexts. Sexualised pictures of kids in advertising turns my stomiach too but I don't want them banned.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that you think it is contradictory for me to call for freedom of expression and yet amazingly I am sometimes offended (or uncomfortable in this case) by some images shows a massive misunderstanding of my position. Freedom of expression doesn't mean I have to like everything that I feel should be legal. I don't. I just don't believe in legislating over taste



Maybe my sense of humour/irony is different to yours.


----------



## cesare (Apr 15, 2010)

Aaaaanywaaay. The pic illustrates the point she was making, and it doesn't really matter if it's her own kid. She wasn't playing on that. She should leave it up if she wants to.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Aaaaanywaaay. The pic illustrates the point she was making, and it doesn't really matter if it's her own kid. She wasn't playing on that. She should leave it up if she wants to.



Innit. And actually the fact that people who are arguing for the freedom of expression are uncomfortable underlines it even more. That is exactly where the difficult area is - real kids being manipulated in photo editing programmes so they don't look real, thereby being excluded by the former child porn law. I am merely trying to show that it isn't as simple as some of you are making out - this is a hugely difficult and complicated area and a simplistic 'all cartoons of children do not harm children' view is naive in the extreme


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Aaaaanywaaay. The pic illustrates the point she was making, and it doesn't really matter if it's her own kid. She wasn't playing on that. She should leave it up if she wants to.



Of course she should and i will continue to consider it in bad taste. that's the great thing about freedom of expression, everyone wins


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Innit. And actually t*he fact that people who are arguing for the freedom of expression are uncomfortable underlines it even more.* That is exactly where the difficult area is - real kids being manipulated in photo editing programmes so they don't look real, *thereby being excluded by the former child porn law*. I am merely trying to show that it isn't as simple as some of you are making out - this is a hugely difficult and complicated area and a simplistic 'all cartoons of children do not harm children' view is naive in the extreme



GOD. how many times. An image making you uncomfortable is not the basis for legislation. Criminal activity is the basis for banning an image. Imagination is not criminal 

If real victims of abuse are used in an illustration that is a crime and should be prosecuted.

They are not excluded at all. A crime of abuse has been committed in the production of the image.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 15, 2010)

i would also say  all cartoons  that are clearly  not  manipulated images of real children      do not harm children

the only  grey area  is  images of child abuse that  are suspected of being  generated from real images


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 15, 2010)

actually  i wonder  if paedophiles  are  as dismissive  as most of the general public  about  cartoon porn


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> i would also say  all cartoons  that are clearly  not  manipulated images of real children      do not harm children
> 
> the only  grey area  is  images of child abuse that  are suspected of being  generated from real images



Yes and in cases such as these it is the duty of the police to investigate and establish whether or not that is the case


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> actually  i wonder  if paedophiles  are  as dismissive  as most of the general public  about  cartoon porn



That's a good point. I suspect a cartoon just wouldn't do it for a child abuser. The taboo of the real is probably part of the predilication.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> GOD. how many times. An image making you uncomfortable is not the basis for legislation. Criminal activity is the basis for banning an image. Imagination is not criminal
> 
> If real victims of abuse are used in an illustration that is a crime and should be prosecuted.
> 
> They are not excluded at all. A crime of abuse has been committed in the production of the image.



Did I say that an image making me uncomfortable is a good basis for legislation? No. I said that it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a crime of abuse has been committed when looking at an image which isn't a photograph. Christ, how many more times do I need to make this point?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> That's a good point. I suspect a cartoon just wouldn't do it for a child abuser. The taboo of the real is probably part of the predilication.



Given that the man in Australia who is being prosecuted for that Lisa Simpson cartoon has previously been prosecuted for possession of child abuse porn, then I suspect that may not be the case


----------



## dylans (Apr 15, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Did I say that an image making me uncomfortable is a good basis for legislation? No. I said that it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a crime of abuse has been committed when looking at an image which isn't a photograph. Christ, how many more times do I need to make this point?



and once again, it is the job of the police to investigate such cases and to find whether such as crime has been committed. The difficulty or otherwise of the task is not an argument for carte blanche banning of all such fictional images. The fact that a murder may be difficult to investigate does not relieve the police of the duty to investigate it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 15, 2010)

edit


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 15, 2010)

edit


----------



## kenny g (May 1, 2010)

newbie said:


> So what is shippy supposed to do?  Hand himself in, burn his collection,



Just erase his hard drive of what sounds like a lot of shit. 

I had a complete set of Crumb comics I downloaded.  A couple of years ago I wiped the ones which I think are suspect. Although people might argue they are "art", and the most offensive was published in the Independent a few years back,  my attitude now is that there should be no place for such imagery. However much i might respect Crumb as an artist I think some of his seventies imagery is obscene and would have no problems with it being banned.

Any artistic sacrifice that can be made that might be able to disrupt a defence for  paedo scum/ beasts is justified. A lot of this material would be used by beasts to justify their behaviour to their victims and make it appear to be the cultural norm.

The legislation seems pretty sensible to me. There are always a few things at the edge but making it illegal to posess cartoons of children being fucked, which is the kind of imagery widely available in Japanese video rental shops, is completely reasonable to me.


----------



## kenny g (May 1, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> The anime fans in specialized forums, where this legislation is being discussed, sound very worried.


 Good.


----------



## Mooncat (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Any artistic sacrifice that can be made that might be able to disrupt a defence for  paedo scum/ beasts is justified. A lot of this material would be used by beasts to justify their behaviour to their victims and make it appear to be the cultural norm.



Evidence please


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Any artistic sacrifice that can be made that might be able to disrupt a defence for  paedo scum/ beasts is justified. A lot of this material would be used by beasts to justify their behaviour to their victims and make it appear to be the cultural norm.



Did looking at those seventies Crumb comics turn you, or anyone you know, into a paedophile? And what do you think that makes you immune to them, but not others? Special powers?

Your argument is basically pro-censorship, something I'm against. I'd like to see evidence that these fictional works currently liable to be prosecuted *help* paedophiles achieve their aims, or that they sow the seeds of child abuse in people's minds.

Paedophiles don't need comic books to give them ideas. This legislation also gives them a great escape goat: "it's not me, it's that pervert, Crumb, and those eeeeevil hentai comics." No, it's you, assume your responsibility. 

There were paedophiles loooong before there were comic books. 

I have also heard the argument that these comic books could be used by paedos to "groom" children, by showing them that what the characters do in the story, they could do too. You could use Barbie & Ken for that.

Ooops, I may be turning people into paedos by giving them ideas.


----------



## fogbat (May 2, 2010)

I think the best thing to do would be to implement a National Blinding Campaign.

Let's see those paedos wank over cartoons when nobody in the country can actually see


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Did looking at those seventies Crumb comics turn you, or anyone you know, into a paedophile? And what do you think that makes you immune to them, but not others? Special powers?



I only saw them a couple of times and found them quite repugnant and disturbing. Defenders of Crumb would say that was because he is an artist subverting the idealistic 1950's American family. 

To throw the question back to you, do you think that no picture can be obscene, that no imagery can deprave or corrupt? I think that pictures do have effects on peoples behaviour and attitudes. Of course they do not operate in such a black and white way as you suggest but there are still have a causaul role in affecting attitudes and behaviour. Think of Nazi propaganda films. Of course watching a film equating Jews to rats will not turn me over night into a Jew hater but watching repeated derogatory racial images do have an effect on a culture.

Read about the radio broadcasts prior to the Rawanda slaughters which equated ethnic groups to cock-roaches. Would you say that they had no effect on their listeners?

And do you think that having widespread images of child abuse will have no effect on people who read it?
Surely, even if there is only a slight risk it is one that is not worth taking.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

fogbat said:


> I think the best thing to do would be to implement a National Blinding Campaign.
> 
> Let's see those paedos wank over cartoons when nobody in the country can actually see



Nice to know that you see the funny side.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I only saw them a couple of times and found them quite repugnant and disturbing. Defenders of Crumb would say that was because he is an artist subverting the idealistic 1950's American family.
> 
> To throw the question back to you, do you think that no picture can be obscene, that no imagery can deprave or corrupt? I think that pictures do have effects on peoples behaviour and attitudes. Of course they do not operate in such a black and white way as you suggest but there are still have a causaul role in affecting attitudes and behaviour. Think of Nazi propaganda films. Of course watching a film equating Jews to rats will not turn me over night into a Jew hater but watching repeated derogatory racial images do have an effect on a culture.
> 
> ...



To cut a long story short... Yes, I disagree with every single word you say there. My position on this issue is clear and you can find the answers to your question in my previous posts.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I only saw them a couple of times and found them quite repugnant and disturbing.



Then for you, repugnance is a valid reason to ban something?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> To cut a long story short... Yes, I disagree with every single word you say there. My position on this issue is clear and you can find the answers to your question in my previous posts.



Quite. It's proper cheeky when a subject has been done to death and then someone new appears who can't be arsed to read the thread so expects people to walk them through their position all over again.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Quite. It's proper cheeky when a subject has been done to death and then someone new appears who can't be arsed to read the thread so expects people to walk them through their position all over again.



I'll put the kettle on while he reads (won't hold my breath, though). Tea and biscuits, vicar?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Then for you, repugnance is a valid reason to ban something?


 No, that doesn't follow, and is not the case.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Did looking at those seventies Crumb comics turn you, or anyone you know, into a paedophile? And what do you think that makes you immune to them, but not others? Special powers?
> 
> Your argument is basically pro-censorship, something I'm against. I'd like to see evidence that these fictional works currently liable to be prosecuted *help* paedophiles achieve their aims, or that they sow the seeds of child abuse in people's minds.
> 
> ...



If you are so sure that you have answered every point in your posts, I fail to see why you felt the need to come back.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No, that doesn't follow, and is not the case.



It's how you described that work we were referring to. So, what would be, in your opinion, the reason for banning or censoring it?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> It's how you described that work we were referring to. So, what would be, in your opinion, the reason for banning or censoring it?


For the reasons stated:

1. Images  have a causal role in affecting attitudes and behaviour. 

To draw an analogy, think of Nazi propaganda films.   Repeated derogatory racial images do have an effect on a culture. 

Read about the radio broadcasts prior to the Rawanda slaughters which equated ethnic groups to cock-roaches. 


2. Images of child abuse will have an effect on some  people who view them.
Surely, even if there is only a slight risk it is one that is not worth taking.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> For the reasons stated:
> 
> 1. Images  have a causal role in affecting attitudes and behaviour.
> 
> ...




Does this extend to computer games and artistic depiction of war and death? There's a very big can of worms waiting to be opened here.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> For the reasons stated:
> 
> 1. Images  have a causal role in affecting attitudes and behaviour.



Surveys, studies, research has been conducted, but there is absolutely no proof that it's the case. None. Being as it is a popular argument , lots of energy, money and brainpower has been invested in trying to find a link between images/books/movies and violence (sexual or otherwise). 



kenny g said:


> To draw an analogy, think of Nazi propaganda films.   Repeated derogatory racial images do have an effect on a culture.



Are you saying that the historicla, social and cultural milieu taht gave birth to it in the first place, what was going on in the country at the time, had no importance? That it was all because Leni Riefenstahl filmed some hawt Aryan porn and people thought it was a good ide to get rid of those dirty, dark, ugly Jews? Woah, that is revisionism.



kenny g said:


> Read about the radio broadcasts prior to the Rawanda slaughters which equated ethnic groups to cock-roaches.



Read to my reply to Nazism and Antisemitism. It's the same thing: nothing happens in a vacuum. 



kenny g said:


> 2. Images of child abuse will have an effect on *some  people* who view them.
> Surely, even if there is only a slight risk it is one that is not worth taking.



Can you please explain what you mean by "some people"? (My bold, btw).


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Does this extend to computer games and artistic depiction of war and death? There's a very big can of worms waiting to be opened here.




Yes, but a line needs to be drawn. Pictures of children being fucked is mine.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Yes, but a line needs to be drawn. Pictures of children being fucked is mine.



Describe *pictures*: photographs of actual, real abuse; fictional representations; or to both - and why?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Are you saying that the historicla, social and cultural milieu taht gave birth to it in the first place, what was going on in the country at the time, had no importance?
> 
> 
> .



No, I am not. That would be mad.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Describe *pictures*: photographs of actual, real abuse; fictional representations; or to both - and why?



Images, and for the same reasons as outlined. I believe images have a causal effect.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Can you please explain what you mean by "some people"? (My bold, btw).



Not everyone.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Not everyone.



So you are saying that some people will be influenced negatively by some pictures, but others won't? What, in your opinion, makes some people vulnerable to them while others are immune to them?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Surveys, studies, research has been conducted, but there is absolutely no proof that it's the case. *None*. Being as it is a popular argument , lots of energy, money and brainpower has been invested in trying to find a link between images/books/movies and violence (sexual or otherwise).


 my bold.

Really? 


http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...+children&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> So you are saying that some people will be influenced negatively by some pictures, but others won't? What, in your opinion, makes some people vulnerable to them while others are immune to them?



I am not sure that is particularly relevant. If some people are vulnerable to the images then due to the real danger that the images present they should not be legal.

This kind of judgement call is about a balance and to be honest  someone having to delete their mangas or me deleting some Crumb cartoons is a price worth paying.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

If there were, that would have been on the papers very long ago, because it's a very popular argument that politicians and radical feminists, among others, would love to use to create more laws to protect those two innocent victims of the human race: women and children (very much one and the same, for them).

As a scholar, I have attended conferences on porn, sexuality, gender studies, alternative sexualities... organized by several Universities, and there isn't, to date, any research that proofs that images, movies, or fiction, creates paedophiles, murderers or rapists. 

Seriously, the current government, and the next one, would LOVE to wave that kind of research results on our faces. It would, for one, justify both the Extreme Porn Law and the Dangerous Cartoons Act.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> *As a scholar*,
> .



Don't pull rank on me. Just because you may happen to have a post  in academia doesn't make you a scholar.



> I have attended conferences on porn, sexuality, gender studies, alternative sexualities... organized by several Universities,



OK, you have been to Universities, and conferences. You MUST be an expert. 



> and there isn't, to date, any research that proofs that images, movies, or fiction, creates paedophiles, murderers or rapists.



There wouldn't be, because we are not talking about proof of creation but of re-enforcement and encouragement. There is a big difference. 

I notice you do not appear interested in the precautionary principle.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> There wouldn't be, because we are not talking about proof of creation but of re-enforcement and encouragement. There is a big difference.



Yes, but you haven't mention that till now. I assume that you are referring to people who are already dangerous or affected, like existing paedos, murderers and people with very serious mental illnesses? in that case, let me remind you that The Bible is the work most often cited by serial killers to justify their actions. In other words: somebody who's already dangerous can be "inspired" to take action by almost anything. If those works we are referring to disappeared from the face of the earth, violence, sexual abuse and murder still wouldn't. To ban or censor something because maybe somebody already dangerous may chance up on it, and get ideas that were in his/her mind anyway, is ridiculous.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 2, 2010)

wow i didn't  know a copy of imouto jiru could be quite so evil


how about banning every one over the age of 25 from buying consoles and haribo    that'll help


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> To ban or censor something because maybe somebody already dangerous may chance up on it, and get ideas that were in his/her mind anyway, is ridiculous.



It isn't ridiculous  if the thing banned has very little merit. I don't think you can say that a paedo's mind is completely formed in static prior to any cultural influence. Things don't work like that. There is nurture and nature.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 2, 2010)

to call for the ban on sales is  one  thing   (which  i  has  some sympathy for)

but   what do you think of the idea of  punishing   the owner of   such material  in the  same  way  as   someone  who has real child pornography

surly  you  see  that  is unjust


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> wow i didn't  know a copy of imouto jiru could be quite so evil
> 
> 
> how about banning every one over the age of 25 from buying consoles and haribo    that'll help



Even in Japan adult Anime fans are thought a bit weird. 

It's interesting that you choose to make a ridiculous suggestion rather than respond sensibly. How about deleting images of children being fucked? Where would the harm be in that. Or are you going to keep your "collection" as a stand for free speech?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> to call for the ban on sales is  one  thing   (which  i  has  some sympathy for)
> 
> but   what do you think of the idea of  punishing   the owner of   such material  in the  same  way  as   someone  who has real child pornography
> 
> surly  you  see  that  is unjust



 I think it is perfectly justified. I can see nothing wrong with owners of such material erasing it. If they choose to not do so then it is quite appropriate for them to processed judicially. The relevant sentence would be proportionate to the severity of the images. Personally, I would not want someone to be allowed to be a teacher, for example, who had images, cartoon or otherwise, of the nature of that banned.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 2, 2010)

i have responded sensibly  before    but  by  now  i think all the sensible  things  have been  said in this  thread    and i don't really need to reiterate them

and  i'd  have  quite some  trouble  working  out    which of my images  is  over  18  and  which aren't

also  which  are considered  acceptable  and  which aren't

this  is  before  we  even  get  to  the  point  in which  that    a cartoon of a crime isn't a crime  and shouldn't  be  punished  as such

owning  batman comics  doesn't  make  you a vigilante   nor  should  you be punished as one...


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> It isn't ridiculous  if the thing banned has very little merit.



Ah, I misunderstood you earlier: it's art criticism you are talking about


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Ah, I misunderstood you earlier: it's art criticism you are talking about



What makes you think I am talking about art?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Shippou-Chan said:


> and  i'd  have  quite some  trouble  working  out    which of my images  is  over  18  and  which aren't
> 
> .



If in doubt, cut it out.



> also  which  are considered  acceptable  and  which aren't
> 
> .


 How about restraint and penetration being a no, no? Maybe include nudity as a no, no too. 



> this  is  before  we  even  get  to  the  point  in which  that    a cartoon of a crime isn't a crime  and shouldn't  be  punished  as such


 But now it is. The cartoon is a crime. I can't really see the problem for you. Any laws has its grey areas, but you have to admit there is a lot of this crap that is not that grey at all, is it?


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> What makes you think I am talking about art?



Please refer to the quote in my previous post: you agree on banning works that are of little merit. So artistic merit,I assume? In that case, you are suggesting censoring work in terms of "danger" and its (little) artistic merit. Unless I misunderstood your words.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> The cartoon is a crime.


What is the crime? Representing something you find abhorrent? SO then do you think that murders on television are real crimes? And don't tell me that they are different things, because they are not: whether it represents child abuse, or a TV drama represents a grisly murder, they are both the same things: representations, fictions, fantasies. and fantasies and representations aren't crimes, only simulacra.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 2, 2010)

well first of all if it's nudity of  anyone  whocould be considered  18  thats  pritty much unworkable  and  would make  vast tracts  of   anime    illigal... it  would  also  actually  make  the  simpsons  movie   child pornography   as   bart  gets his meat  and two veg out

i admittedly  will probably   be deleting  some of  the  stuff i find  distasteful   but  downloaded  just  to see what was going on    for instance i got   the  game  rapulay  as  it  was in the  news    but  never  got round to playing it   so  that will be binned

however i will defend  anyones  right   not  to be  persecuted  for owning a copy

there are many laws  i disagree with   including  drug  laws   many on this site  think so too   just look in the drugs forum   

i don't  thinkthat just because   something  is a law  makes  it  right  or just


----------



## Citizen66 (May 2, 2010)

What about Irreversible? There's a nine minute rape scene acted out by real people so that must be worse than illustrated crimes. Do we ban films too, kenny?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> What about Irreversible? There's a nine minute rape scene acted out by real people so that must be worse than illustrated crimes. Do we ban films too, kenny?



Unless I am wrong Irreversible is not regarding children. People keep trying to broaden the category. Saying that images  of children being fucked etc should be banned does not mean that the Bible should be banned FFS. There is a category difference.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Unless I am wrong Irreversible is not regarding children.



So it's ok to encourage rape?


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> SO then do you think that murders on television are real crimes?



Er no. That would be mad.

 Do I think that images of children as defined by the legislation will be crimes, yes. Why? Because the legislation makes them a crime.

Are they morally reprehensible, yes. Why? Because they are potentially harmful and have very little merit.

Does merit mean purely artistic merit? No, it is taken as a whole, including moral and artistic. Am I justifying censorship? Yes, when it comes to censoring pictures such as the ones legislated against, I believe that censorship can be justified as the images are potentially harmful to those viewing them and have very little merit. 

It is hardly rocket science, and any amount of bleating about the difficulty of identifying an octopus from a potential nineteen year old is just an attempt to  avoid grasping the fact that a lot of this is on the paedo material spectrum.


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So it's ok to encourage rape?



No. I don't know enough about the film. Films are cut and censored all the time though.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Unless I am wrong Irreversible is not regarding children. People keep trying to broaden the category. Saying that images  of children being fucked etc should be banned does not mean that the Bible should be banned FFS. *There is a category difference*.



Can you please explain that? (my bold).


----------



## Citizen66 (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Do I think that images of children as defined by the legislation will be crimes, yes. Why? Because tIt is hardly rocket science, and any amount of bleating about the difficulty of identifying an octopus from a potential nineteen year old is just an attempt to  avoid grasping the fact that a lot of this is on the paedo material spectrum.



Paedos probably watch the nine o-clock news as well. Ban it!


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Er no. That would be mad.
> 
> Do I think that images of children as defined by the legislation will be crimes, yes. Why? Because the legislation makes them a crime.
> 
> ...



Fine, I still disagree with that and my reasons are explained all over this long thread, I'm not going to repeat myself.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 2, 2010)

Tried finding a youtube clip and got Rick rolled...


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Can you please explain that? (my bold).



Apologies, I was meaning that they are  a completely different kind of entity and  you can't meaningfully equate the two. http://tinyurl.com/category-difference


----------



## kenny g (May 2, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Paedos probably watch the nine o-clock news as well. Ban it!



now, you are being silly.


----------



## Itziko (May 2, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Even in Japan adult Anime fans are thought a bit weird.



But is being perceived by others as *weird* reason enough to suspect them of being dangerous criminals, and to search or probe them? I am weird sexually, there is no doubt about that, even though only adults are involved.


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> But is being perceived by others as *weird* reason enough to suspect them of being dangerous criminals, and to search or probe them? .


 No it isn't. But having images of children being fucked is. 

And by the way, can you explain this:





			
				Itziko_Supersta said:
			
		

> What I found distracting, if anything, wasn't the "shocking violence', but the eye candy. *I would deploy unnecessary force to kidnap that ginger boy, too. Yumm, Itziko pr0n *


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=10604214#post10604214

My bold.


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> No it isn't. But having images of children being fucked is.
> 
> And by the way, can you explain this:
> 
> ...



I'm into BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, domination, submission & Sado-Masochism). I've posted about it elsewhere. I find force, role play and power exchange among consensual adults very stimulating. I told you earlier that I'm sexually weird in the eyes of some people.


----------



## smokedout (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Er no. That would be mad.
> 
> Do I think that images of children as defined by the legislation will be crimes, yes. Why? Because the legislation makes them a crime.
> 
> .



how do you establish in law the age of a cartoon character?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> I'm into BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, domination, submission & Sado-Masochism). I've posted about it elsewhere. I find force, role play and power exchange among consensual adults very stimulating. I told you earlier that I'm sexually weird in the eyes of some people.



I think he's interpretting the word 'boy' as the word 'child'.


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I think he's interpretting the word 'boy' as the word 'child'.



Reallt? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks the boy in the video looks over 18.

It will be the paediatricians next...


----------



## Citizen66 (May 3, 2010)

I haven't watched the video. That's all I can see from his post that he's taken umbridge with. But I've heard loads of women refer to their bloke as "the boy". It doesn't mean they are dating a five year old.


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> I'm into BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, domination, submission & Sado-Masochism). I've posted about it elsewhere. I find force, role play and power exchange among consensual adults very stimulating. I told you earlier that I'm sexually weird in the eyes of some people.



All sounds same old. By the way, how old would you say the boy you would like to kidnap is? Is it this one?


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> But I've heard loads of women refer to their bloke as "the boy". It doesn't mean they are dating a five year old.



I call my men "boys" and yeah, so do my friends. No bloke ever says says "I met a really hot woman on saturday", they say "I met a really hot girl" Are we all closet paedos? Yikes!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 3, 2010)




----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

Do you think that Blur are glorifying child sex in ?


----------



## smokedout (May 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I think he's interpretting the word 'boy' as the word 'child'.



the boy in question has a beard


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> All sounds same old. By the way, how old would you say the boy you would like to kidnap is? Is it this one?



No, I was referring to the one who seems to be the lead character. I thought that was obvious to anyone whose braincells haven't been poisoned by tabloid paranoia (clearly not you). Are you going to call the Paedofinder General Hotline and have me shopped? 

And while we are here, do you think that video should be banned?

And one more thing: if I was into having sex with children, do you really, really, I mean, REALLY think I'd come to an internet forum to tell the world?


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

smokedout said:


> the boy in question has a beard



So once a beard grows a child is fair game?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 3, 2010)

smokedout said:


> the boy in question has a beard



Kenny G recently:


----------



## smokedout (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> So once a beard grows a child is fair game?



so you're now arguing about whether someone is 18 or not based on a photo

I'll ask you again then, how do you establish in law the age of a cartoon character when its clearly a grey area at times even using photographs?

as you have just demonstrated


----------



## Citizen66 (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> So once a beard grows a child is fair game?



You're becoming more Brass Eye by each post.


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> And one more thing: if I was into having sex with children, do you really, really, I mean, REALLY think I'd come to an internet forum to tell the world?



Look at Tom O'Carrol and associates, look at NAMBLA. The history of advocates of the rights to possess such images of children is not exactly great.


----------



## fogbat (May 3, 2010)

Three pages of decent trolling. Too sensitive a topic to have any mass outrage value, though.


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so you're now arguing about whether someone is 18 or not based on a photo
> 
> I'll ask you again then, how do you establish in law the age of a cartoon character when its clearly a grey area at times even using photographs?
> 
> as you have just demonstrated



if they are wearing a school uniform, as I expect plenty of shippo's images are, it  might be a clue.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> if they are wearing a school uniform, as I expect plenty of shippo's images are, it  might be a clue.



How do you ascertain that it's a school uniform? Which school do they attend?


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Look at Tom O'Carrol and associates, look at NAMBLA. *The history of advocates of the rights to possess such images* of children is not exactly great.



Yes, I'm defending the right to possess cartoon (non-photographic) images of any kind of sex or sexuality under the sun. That's what my original thread was about until people like you went all hysterical. However, you were suggesting that I was gloating about having sex with a child who appears in a video. By doing a clumsy 2 + 2 = 89.


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> How do you ascertain that it's a school uniform? Which school do they attend?



In Japan there is a pretty much universal school uniform for under 16's.


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> if they are wearing a school uniform, as I expect plenty of shippo's images are, it  might be a clue.



So if you wear a school uniform to spice up your sex life, as so many people do, does it make your partner a paedo?


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Yes, I'm defending the right to possess cartoon (non-photographic) images of any kind of sex or sexuality under the sun. That's what my original thread was about until *people like you* went all hysterical. However, you were suggesting that I was gloating about having sex with a child who appears in a video. By doing a clumsy 2 + 2 = 89.



What are "people like me"? That sounds very stereotypical and prejudiced. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am like anything. Unless you want to assume that anyone who is a free thinker has to want to defend the right to possess images of children being abused.


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> So if you wear a school uniform to spice up your sex life, as so many people do, does it make your partner a paedo?



I wouldn't want my children looked after by someone who gets their kicks from having sex with people dressed up as children. No.


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> What are "people like me"? That sounds very stereotypical and prejudiced. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I am like anything. Unless you want to assume that anyone who is a free thinker has to want to defend the right to possess images of children being abused.





"People like you" (in this case, kenny g in this thread): people who read the word "child" and start seeing paedos everywhere. "Linch the paediatricians!" type of tabloid-blinded hysteria. Your opinions here are far from free-thnking. Unless you believe that the Daily Mail advocates free thinking. Because your posts follow their discourse to the last word.


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

So anybody who has ever attended the hugely popular (and legal) School Disco, with its ethos and dress code, is struck off your list of potential babysitters? That will be a problem next time you want to go out.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> So anybody who has ever attended the hugely popular (and legal) School Disco, with its ethos and dress code, is struck off your list of potential babysitters? That will be a problem next time you want to go out.



I was wondering about the application form.

Name:_________________

DOB:__________________

Experience:___________________

Sexual fetishes? Y?N ____

Negative fantasies:_________________


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> "People like you" (in this case, kenny g in this thread): people who read the word "child" and start seeing paedos everywhere. "Linch the paediatricians!" type of tabloid-blinded hysteria. Your opinions here are far from free-thnking. Unless you believe that the Daily Mail advocates free thinking. Because your posts follow their discourse to the last word.



I don't read the Daily Mail you small minded bigot. Just because I disagree with you you want to put me in a little box and dismiss me. Well, as they say, scratch and sniff. For a "scholar" you really aren't up to much are you?


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I don't read the Daily Mail you small minded bigot. Just because I disagree with you you want to put me in a little box and dismiss me. Well, as they say, scratch and sniff. For a "scholar" you really aren't up to much are you?



Your argument is so convincing and well thought, that all you can do to support it is insult me


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Your argument is so convincing and well thought, that all you can do to support it is insult me



Your attempt to argue about "borderline" cases is a side issue. Your position is that all cartoons should be legal, including, presumably the most severe forms of torture, abduction, cannibalism etc. involving the youngest of children. 

Call me what you will, including a daily mail reader, but your position speaks for itself.


----------



## Itziko (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Your attempt to argue about "borderline" cases is a side issue. Your position is that all cartoons should be legal, including, presumably the most severe forms of torture, abduction, cannibalism etc. involving the youngest of children.



Yes.



kenny g said:


> Call me what you will, including a daily mail reader, but your position speaks for itself.



As does yours. 

Byeeee.


----------



## kenny g (May 3, 2010)

Itziko_Supersta said:


> Fine, I still disagree with that and my reasons are explained all over this long thread, I'm not going to repeat myself.





Itziko_Supersta said:


> To cut a long story short... Yes, I disagree with every single word you say there. My position on this issue is clear and you can find the answers to your question in my previous posts.





Itziko_Supersta said:


> Byeeee.



I thought you said you had said everything you were going to say 3 pages back?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> I thought you said you had said everything you were going to say 3 pages back?



Is this a long winded way of asking her on a date?


----------



## smokedout (May 3, 2010)

kenny g said:


> Your attempt to argue about "borderline" cases is a side issue.



no, it's not, it's fundamental, because when you start to ask where people draw the line they say stupid things like any cartoon of a person wearing a school uniform and having some form of sex should be illegal

its vague, its silly and its bad law


----------

