|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Manga / Anime is Child Porn |
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 06-03-09 02:04pm - 5681 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Manga / Anime is Child Porn x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:08pm | |
|
||
| 06-03-09 05:05pm - 5681 days | #2 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Hum...glad I like looking at real women! People seriously need to find something better to do. There are far more serious problems than people looking at cartoon porn. I say unless it is purposely made obvious that the cartoon character is a child than it is up to interpretation. What do they say about a 30 year old woman that looks like she is 12 posing nude? Unless they try to convince the viewer she is underage there should be no issue. Obviously if she holds up a sign that says she is 12 or in the 4th grade or something along those lines there should be consequences. Even a school girl outfit and a little book bag should not be enough to call it fictitious child porn, after all those outfit are wildly available and there is college after all. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 06-03-09 06:18pm - 5680 days | #3 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I read somewhere that a guy has been convicted or at least added to the pedophile database because he had Simpson porn cartoons on his computer. That is making a mockery of the legal system. The only thing these kinds of judgements do is dilute or perverse the law. After a while the law simply no longer works because of this. I'm sorry but I don't think that a guy who has a Bart & Lisa sex based cartoon is the same thing as a guy who has pictures or videos of guys having sex with children. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-03-09 06:42pm - 5680 days | #4 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Didn't we have a guy in BC who challenged the ruling that written kiddie porn was illegal, pat? I think a higher court agreed with him because no harm was done to any actual persons but that particular ruling might have been reversed as well in the meantime. | |
|
||
| 06-03-09 08:40pm - 5680 days | #5 | |
|
GCode (0)
Active User  Posts: 386 Registered: Feb 23, '09 Location: USA |
Interesting case (while I don't know details) you mention that he was no pedophile or had no child porn containing actual humans. While obviously, this is 'artwork' made by an artist in Japan because it is anime style porn (could be somewhere else, I'm just assuming), this stuff is actually quite hard to find amongst the greater majority of anime/manga fans. So, this guy had to go to greater lengths to get this stuff which clearly makes him a bit 'hentai' or perverted to begin with. While I'll keep my lips closed about the perverted comment :), this guy obviously needs to take a step back and realize what he is 'collecting'. Of course, it is not 'real' child porn (as you stated, Wittyguy), the fact that he is interested in this stuff is a bit unusual in terms of what is obviously could be getting him sexually aroused. Do I believe that this is a stepping stone for him to attempt to eventually get in to the 'real' stuff, maybe not or maybe so. Obviously, I'm not talking directly about this man anymore but people in general now, however, I see that it could be considered as a gateway towards eventually getting in to the 'real' stuff. Now, we all know that not everyone can be lumped in to a category in general and this man could really just loved the artist's work and wanted this stuff for that while others may want this stuff because it's a 'safe' way to (in lack of better terms) satisfy their lolicon (child-love) fantasies. But, I think that the 2003 protect act is very well intentioned, I don't know what this guy got (did he get 5 years in jail?). Obviously, with all laws and cases, the decision should be looked at case to case but I do know that certain bias is already in place when it comes to child pornography. But, this has to be looked at seriously and with some revisement when it comes to a definition of child pornography as depicted in cartoons (especially in anime/manga). The artwork of most anime/manga attempts to depict the girls as Moe (meaning cute) which usually translates to very innocent and naive type personalities (like a young girl), therefore, attempt to be cute in a young girl way (hope that makes sense). It can be hard to distinguish in a way, but after looking at some anime porn in my day, I think it can be quite clear when the artists wants the character to be seen as underage. It's usually not like the "she could be 15,16,17, or even 18!" look but obviously in the preteen range with the artwork. Personally, do I think one deserves jail time? My answer is no. No matter what perverted shit the person may have, it is artwork drawn by an artist. While the depictions are questionable and should be deemed illegal, an actual human being was not hurt in the artist's approach to a questionable piece of work. I think proper counseling would be a better approach before sending someone off to jail for this stuff to determine where this 'fetish' might lead down the road. It's a hard topic to fully grasp and just cut in to a quick law that just states: all child porn artwork is illegal and you automatically deserve jail time is just too simple of a statement or sentence. Of course, 'real' life depictions of child porn involving a real underage model in any form can easily be put in to a simple category of sentencing, but the artwork stuff should be case by case. Honestly, going in to this realm and creating 'artwork' of that nature is questionable by not only the audience but the artist him/her self. How far can an artist go before the creation borderlines as being entertainment but becomes over the line and the entertainent value goes down the drain? This should be looked at just as deeply as the audience who is viewing the work itself. Anyways, I've typed enough for now and hope it all makes sense to some because my mind was jumping around everywhere trying to write on this topic :) Sexted From My iPad Edited on Jun 03, 2009, 08:44pm | |
|
||
| 06-03-09 11:35pm - 5680 days | #6 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Won't they have to extend this to any drawing or cartoon that depicts something illegal? Say drawings of certain types of firearms, or how about a car that isn't street legal? Pat362 mentioned "The Simpsons," and I believe there are a number of episodes in which Bart drinks alcohol and smokes cigars; shouldn't these been banned from broadcast or sold on DVD since these are depicting illegal activity, specifically activity involving a minor? "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-04-09 01:29am - 5680 days | #7 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User  Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
The US Supreme Court ruled that drawn images can not constitute porn, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. | |
|
||
| 06-04-09 05:08am - 5680 days | #8 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
"...or if the material is deemed to be obscene." I hate these gray-area laws. Anything can be obscene to somebody. Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors: United States (Wikipedia) "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 06-04-09 12:23pm - 5680 days | #9 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:08pm | |
|
||
| 06-04-09 05:12pm - 5680 days | #10 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
Something I think that is unusual about this case, unless I missed something or the details were left out, is that the cops obviously seized his computer and searched his house, and they did not find any real CP. You would think that a guy with these tendencies would have been able to find 1 or 2 pics somewhere on the web. Maybe this was his first time getting into something like this??? I wish prosecutors could have used a little discretion if he was into the art only, as that crime doesn't have a victim. I realize that's probably not a factor for the crime at hand. | |
|
||
| 06-04-09 06:52pm - 5679 days | #11 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I found this web page about the man who was found guilty of owning child pornography. He's Australian. I assume that this has not happened in Canada or the US. I do think that if it ever did then we would be going down a slipery legal road. www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767142-29277,00.html Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-04-09 08:33pm - 5679 days | #12 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
The Supreme Court struck it down, and rightfully so. Imagine going to prison for possessing a cartoon! http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/s....virtual.child.porn/ BTW, the Court opined that under that ridiculous law, Romeo And Juliet would be considered "Child Porn" and anyone possessing it would be sent to a federal prison! http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3159871&page=1 Edited on Jun 04, 2009, 08:44pm | |
|
||
| 06-04-09 08:49pm - 5679 days | #13 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:08pm | |
|
||
| 06-05-09 12:47am - 5679 days | #14 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
I gave you that link from 2007. When the Supreme Court rules on something, it's the final word. There is no such thing as virtual "child porn". "They're talking about "virtual child porn," the computer depiction of adults having sex with children. It has found a home at places like the popular Second Life game, which is available online. Many child advocates see it as the most troubling manifestation of child sex abuse that's come along in years. And they blame a 2002 court ruling that tossed out a law that made it illegal." The court ruled that any law that forbids "virtual child porn" is an infringement upon the 1st amendment. That makes any attempt to make that a law null and void. In other words, it's not possible to make that law. Edited on Jun 05, 2009, 12:54am | |
|
||
| 06-05-09 12:33pm - 5679 days | #15 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:08pm | |
|
||
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
