The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn 933
BenFenner writes "Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"
Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Informative)
The act defines a "child" as a "person":
(2) the term âchildâ(TM) means a person who has not attained
the age of 18 years and isâ"
ââ(A) under the perpetratorâ(TM)s care or control; or
ââ(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
Plus as some cartoons are over the age over 18 like the Simpsons for example. They're 20 years old as a point of fact.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus as some cartoons are over the age over 18 like the Simpsons for example. They're 20 years old as a point of fact.
So I can legally masturbate furiously to a video of a 10-year old being having sex with her father that was filmed eight years ago? Awesome! No seriously, there might be a logical fallacy in what you said.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus as some cartoons are over the age over 18 like the Simpsons for example. They're 20 years old as a point of fact.
So I can legally masturbate furiously to a video of a 10-year old being having sex with her father that was filmed eight years ago? Awesome! No seriously, there might be a logical fallacy in what you said.
Is there any significance to your choosing "10" and "8" (perhaps because 10 + 8 = 18?) in your example? I suspect what the OP was getting at is that the cartoon has been around for 20 years (Acccording to Wikipedia, the Simpsons started on December 17th, 1989 -- so actually it's 19 years).
I'm confident (but haven't checked) that Maggie appeared in the very first Simpsons episode. Therefore, Maggie was conceived on or before December 17th, 1989, making her at least 19 years old. She happens to portray a 2 year old in the fictional world presented by the show, but she herself is 19.
Personally, I find the notion of "treating cartoon people as real people" to be literally ridiculous (i.e. enticing ridicule), but if the lawmakers choose to go down this path, then I think a logically and legally consistent conclusion would be to treat Maggie as a 19-year old playing a 2 year old character on TV, just as most actors playing teenagers on TV sitcoms are much older than the characters they play as.
This would put Maggie into the the crosshair of a different law (not sure where the law has jurisdiction, is it still the US?) which says that even if everyone involved is an adult, if they are portraying children, then it's still illegal. IMHO, this latter law should definitely be abolished, because often there is not enough evidence within the fiction itself to say with absolute legal certainty whether a given story is portraying children or not, and thus there is too much subjectivity.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is -- and should be IMO -- illegal to portray children having sex.
Please forgive my abysmally poor artistic skills.
This is a fictional depiction of a 16 year old boy lying down:
-
This is a fictional depiction of a 16 year old girl lying down:
-
This is a fictional depiction of a 16 year old boy lying down on top of a 16 year old girl, having sex:
=
If you think I have committed an actual criminal act and that you have some right to pull out a gun and and attempt to imprison me with deadly force then you are dangerous and deluded, and I well defend myself with equally deadly force. And if you think you have some right pull out a gun and kill or imprison someone else for drawing fiction just because they have better art skills than me, then you are just as dangerous and deluded.
You're no better than the Taliban-types that claim it is a criminal act to draw fictional images of Mohammad, and presume they have some fucked-up right to murder or imprison people for drawings, or to run around blowing up random building and random innocent people just because some drawing offends them. Some people have this fucked up notion that they have some right to use force, injure, imprison, or even kill anyone who offends them. Ooooo... a picture of a woman without a veil on her face.... that's porn... pull out a gun and imprison the pornographer.... and shoot to kill if he resists arrest.
-
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thought crimes. C'mon, it's what Chris Hansen is all about. Why don't you have a seat over here?
Seriously though....if fantasy CP is a crime, so is pretty much all the crap you see on tv, movies, magazines, etc. Even things on the Disney channel and Nickelodeon. Thought crimes. Want to see something even more disturbing? It's that this crap [google.com] is a-ok, and the parents participate. Disgusting.
Let's ban sci-fi/fantasy/mystery/thriller books and throw their authors in prison while we are at it.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather the point I made up above -- if fantasy depiction of one crime is illegal, and is to be penalised as if it's the real thing -- then ALL fantasy depictions of crimes must, in fairness, be equally penalised as if they are real.
And there goes the contents of most libraries, most film/TV, and anything else that might depict persons or property or intent.
I'm reminded that some cultures and religions prohibit depictions of humans -- the stated reason is that it's idolatry or soul theft or some such, but one wonders if the foundation might have been something akin to what we're discussing. Imagine the caveman arguing his case before the hetman: "Og drew a picture of me with a knife in my head! Og wants to kill me, and for that Og must pay!" To which the hetman, tired of this argument, responds: "No more drawings of people! And if you disobey me, the sky gods will strike you dead!"
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Interesting)
But this is a special case. Taking a picture of a murder is not itself illegal. However, taking a picture of under-age sex is illegal. So the picture is illegal. It is not that someone made a depiction of an illegal act, but that they made an immitation of an illegal item. The item of child porn itself is a crime. The reason this is to confusing is because child porn has so many thousands of laws against it. There are the rape laws, the statutory rape laws, the child abuse laws, the transporation of minors laws, the traveling across state lines to have sex with a minor laws, the laws against recording such acts, and those are duplicated in every state, the federal level, and possibly on some local city/county levels. So what is "child porn" in this case? It's a photograph of an under-age person and someone else (whether under age or an adult is irrelevant). Child porn can be child porn even if both parties are not in violation of any other law (see the cases of the teens that took pictures of themselves and sent them willingly to others of their age who they were legally sexually active with and were charged with child porn). So, the focus here is not on children, their wellbeing or anything else, it's about a photograph. That photo is illegal. Holding it is illegal. Making it is illegal.
And the case here is whether creation of a simulation that resembles something that could otherwise have been illegal should also be illegal. Remember, child porn isn't about exploitation of children. Taking the picture of two 17-year olds having perfectly legal sex is child porn. Taking a picture of yourself at 17 is child porn, and most laws are written that you could go to jail for taking your own picture. Child porn is about thought police telling people they shouldn't fantasize about under-age people. Supposedly it started out as protection for children by restricting the profit motive for creating child porn, but if that were the actual case, then simulated child porn would be encouraged as a replacement, not discouraged. That leaves thought police as the only other possible explanation of why child porn is illegal and why it should be applied here. But, of course, if you talk like I just did, people attack you as a supporter of child abuse, rather than a person who hates child abuse and wants it stopped, but only with sensible laws that make child abuse illegal, and catch and punish those involved in it.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:4, Insightful)
Where things become difficult (and, I suspect, where this law is aimed at) is when computer-generated images look so realistic that any lay person would have trouble recognising it as being computer generated.
It prevents real perverts being able to use a defence of "It's all fake, no offence was committed".
(Before you ask, yes there are talented artists right now producing photorealistic images which are entirely computer generated. I've seen them myself but I haven't been able to dig any examples out).
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:4, Funny)
Just like pornography, actually.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about an animated pr0n based on the The Curious Case of Benjamin Button?
The character depicted would be 60+ years old by the time he appeared underage.
See people, this is the problem with attempting to flout freedom of expression. When it comes to real kids, I'm with ya. When it comes to make-believe...who's to say what's ok to make-believe?
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see people still miss the point. Whether you care to admit it or not, it's not normal to wank off to pics of underaged people. I personally lost interest in that more or less immediately upon turning 18.
The argument you're making is that because there isn't direct damage that it isn't causing damage. It's a bad argument, basically it would be OK to view and look at child pr0n as long as you didn't make or produce it. Encouraging it by giving the sites hits or trading other people's images would OK, because of course that person trading the images didn't make them.
I'm not really sure what about that isn't clear. Trading in kiddie porn is harmful to those that are abused and even in the best case scenario it trivializes what is typically a very damaging act.
And really, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for making light of what is an immensely painful experience for victims.
I don't suppose you noticed that are in fact no victims in this case. No actual children where involved. Otherwise I agree with you.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see people still miss the point. Whether you care to admit it or not, it's not normal to wank off to pics of underaged people. I personally lost interest in that more or less immediately upon turning 18.
And you can tell the difference between a 14-year-old with a pushup bra and a 19-year-old with a pushup bra exactly how? In a world where hormones in the drinking water and better access to good nutrition can lead to Precocious puberty [wikipedia.org] and a 12 year old who looks like she's 20, how the hell do you tell?
Legally, of course, you're completely right. I'm just pointing out that your claim to have "lost interest in that more or less immediately upon turning 18" is somewhat suspect indeed. Also, your claim that it isn't "normal" is suspect given the normal ages of marriage in primitive cultures, which usually for women was upon the onset of menses, much younger than 18.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember when the whole Traci Lords scandal thing came out. She was underage and making porn tapes.
Never having seen them, I couldn't understand how the pornographers couldn't have known. Then, years later I saw a documentary on it, and they showed a snippet of the porn movies that she made when underage (snippet had no sex and fully clothed).
I was totally shocked. That girl looked far from an underage kid. I couldn't tell the difference.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
That gets into the entire 'what is normal' problem. Current attitudes concerning when someone is sexually mature are neither normal nor natural. Over the last century or so we have been pushing the age of 'child' further and further and putting more and more importance on 'keeping innocence' and have really been forcing the myth that minors (i.e. people between 12 and 18) are unable to act like adults...
Bad Summary (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bad summary.
The opinion makes it clear that the child pornography charges were related to the actual child porn he received, while his convictions related to the anime and emails were obscenity convictions. This is an important distinction.
In Miller v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not protect obscene speech, and that such speech could be banned by the government. However, the test for whether speech is obscene is so broad that very little pornography is subject to regulation. According to Wikipedia (since I'm too lazy to look it up on Findlaw), the three prongs of the test are:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
If each if these prongs is met, then the work is obscene and may be banned.
In contrast, in Ferber v. New York, the Supreme Court held that child pornography is never protected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether it is obscene. The rationale being that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children, and that by its nature child pornography causes injury to the children involved in its production.
So, in brief: child porn involving actual children--always illegal because actual children are injured in the process. Images and stories of children having sex--illegal if obscene. Whorely was convicted under an obscenity statute, rather than a child pornography statute.
--AC
Re:Bad Summary (Score:5, Informative)
The opinion makes it clear that the child pornography charges were related to the actual child porn he received, while his convictions related to the anime and emails were obscenity convictions. This is an important distinction.
That's not true - two of the three charges were child pornography charges, including one of the two in respect of the drawn images. Under current US law, drawn images are treated exactly the same as real child pornography (but only if they're either obscene or "depict an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" - anything which isn't has 1st amendment protection). Note that there is no requirement of obscenity under the second criterion; I doubt this is generally in issue, but it's possible there are circumstances under which it could be.
Technically, the charge regarding the drawn images was under 1466A rather than the actual child porn statute, 2252A, but it's only a technical difference - 1466A basically just says that the images are treated exactly the same as real child porn would be under 2252A.
The other charge regarding the drawn images is indeed an obscenity charge, more specifically one of importing obscene materials. In this case, by "import" they really mean "download from the internet" - the law in question specifically states that downloading from the internet counts as importing. (So putting this in "YRO" may actually be appropriate. Shock horror!) I suspect this law has far wider implications than just child porn.
Re:Bad Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a link to the opinion: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/064288.P.pdf [uscourts.gov]
Here's the language from the opinion:
Counts 1-20 charged Whorley with using a computer on March 30, 2004, to knowingly receive obscene cartoons in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462. The 20 cartoons forming the basis of those counts showed prepubescent children engaging in graphic sexual acts with adults. They depicted actual intercourse, masturbation, and oral sex, some of it coerced. Based on the same cartoons, the jury also charged Whorley in Counts 21-40 under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) with knowingly receiving, as a person previously convicted of illegally downloading child pornography, obscene visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. In addition, the grand jury charged Whorley in Counts 41-55 with knowingly receiving, on March 11 and 12, 2004, 15 visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2). These counts were based on lascivious photographs of actual, naked children. Finally, the grand jury charged Whorley in Counts 56-75 with sending or receiving in interstate commerce 20 obscene e-mails during the period between February 5, 2004, and April 2, 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1462. The e-mails described sexually explicit conduct involving children, including incest and molestation by doctors.
By my read, the key factor that made these prosecutions legitimate from a First Amendment standpoint is not that they were "child pornography," but that they were obscene.
--AC
Re:Bad Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
By my read, the key factor that made these prosecutions legitimate from a First Amendment standpoint is not that they were "child pornography," but that they were obscene.
Roughly speaking, yes. Since the argument for the exemption of child pornography from First Amendment protection is based on it being created via the abuse of children (though arguably the law has gone beyond this already, for example in relation to the handling of non-nude images) it would be difficult to apply it here. Based on past performances, I wouldn't put it past judges to allow the application of this argument to mere drawings - but the broader law has already been to the Supreme Court and failed, which is the reason the current law is worded the way it is.
However, the law is specific to child porn, and the punishment is that given for possessing child porn, not that given for possessing obscene material. (The official title is "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", but in effect it's an extension to the law on child porn.) Also, my understanding is that possession of obscene material within the home is not, in general, illegal in the US, whereas this law prohibits mere possession. I have a feeling this last aspect may turn out to be unconstitutional, if it hasn't already.
Re:Bad Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's change the scenario slightly.
Let's make them cartoons depicting gruesome murders -- but note that as with the kiddie porn, no actual person is harmed. Or at the other end of the scale -- cartoons depicting someone smoking pot, even tho no actual marijuana was grown, harvested, or smoked.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT??
Under a worst-case interpretation, a cartoon depiction or written description of a crime becomes legally the same as doing the crime itself, and subject to the same penalty as the real thing.
Under worst-case enforcement, that would pretty much empty most libraries, just for starters.
I don't have time to wade through and wrap my brain around all the legalese in the decision, but I do know we definitely do NOT want to go down the road of enforcing real penalties against fantasy depictions of crimes, regardless of what that crime may be.
Re:Bad Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
... Just because the Constitution does not require the government to permit something does not mean that the government is restricted from permitting it. The Constitution is, rather, a check on democracy itself, and for many things it sets no rules and leaves democracy to its own devices, which is probably the right thing to do in these cases.
Bzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer.
Why do people keep getting this all backwards. Under the Constitution, the people have all the rights, not the government. The government doesn't "permit" anything - it is restricted (by the Constitution) in what it is allowed to do.
The Bill of Rights should not have been necessary, but some states wanted certain important rights spelled out, just in case somebody got too ambitious with federal powers (it hasn't really helped, the US government does a *lot* of unconstitutional things). The 10th amendment spells it out pretty clearly:
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Funny)
what is the two year old wearing?
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gives a shit about the cartoons, The Son Of A Bitch was/is a child predator and got what he had/has coming, he'll pay for it in the pen!!! "Whorley also received digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexual conduct and sent and received e-mails graphically describing parents sexually molesting their children."
He is not a child predator. The adults acting in the photographs he received are. He just has a sexual fetish that is not shared by most of the rest of us, one that provokes fear in a lot of parents.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every public policy has a cost side and a benefit side. The cost of ever more stringent child pornography laws, in terms of both fiscal impact and damage to our society, far outweighs the marginal increase in safety to children.
Emotionally, cost-benefits analysis is repulsive. Emotionally, we want to do everything we can to protect children, and any other policy has all the emotional impact of actual child abuse. But fortunately, society is not based on pure emotion. Reason, which is the only mechanism through which we ever make progres, dictates that we take reasonable steps to ensure children are safe, but not to the point where we sacrifice other principles for which we stand and create an oppressive police state.
After all, we want to bring children up in a free society, don't we? We want them to safe after they turn 18, too!
mod parent (yuk yuk) up (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing wrong with the protective emotion in that nature has selected people with this tendency to survive, as this emotional/instinctive reaction was probably exactly what was needed to actually "protect the children" from an attacking tribe. It's the emotion that causes you to cast aside your fears when something real is attacking but it's now being used to fuel fear of an unknown enemy.
We need to balance our emotional response. Children need protection from real threats. Looking at the child abuse stats from 2006 [hhs.gov] (most recent on the USDHHS site) only 10% of all child abusers are non-parental (and half of that 10% are relatives [hhs.gov], with almost half of what's left after that foster parents/relatives).
If we stick with sexual abuse statistics [hhs.gov], parents and relatives still account for 60% of that, with friends, neighbors, daycare providers and other professionals making up 10%. Under 25% of sexual abuse is "other", which I guess is your classic "child predator" that we hear about on the news. I was always lead to believe that parents never hurt their children and we really need to pass laws against the people "out there" who are stalking our kids. The enemy is in the home already.
A purely emotional reaction ignores these facts and might put resources in the wrong places than it would really be needed to help more of the kids getting abused.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:4, Insightful)
He referred to "The cost of ever more stringent child pornography laws", in the context of the current discussion. He didn't suggest legality for all child porn.
So, do you have some statistics on the cost of social services provided to cartoon victims?
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids.
I understand that parents get pretty scared about this and rightly so, but no one should be locked up because of something that solely exists in their head.
Think "Minority Report". And I know it is over used, but also Thought Crime from "1984".
If someone has a derangement but hasn't actually hurt anyone then [s]he should be helped and not locked up just so you can sleep a little better tonight.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we take them off the streets and get them help. Not a prison...
Forcibly taking people off the streets against their will is the definition of prison. You can fancy it up all you want, it is still a prison.
Prison (n): a place of confinement or captivity
That way, we all win (assuming that "help" works in this case. IANAPsychologist, so I don't know if it can be "helped").
Furthermore, what do you do if they cannot be helped? You have just justified locking people up for things they might do. This opens Pandora's box and makes the situation ripe for all kinds of government abuse.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
He is not a child predator.
No, but the idea of sex with children turns him on. That makes him a dangerous, very potential child predator
Not really. Lots of people enjoy playing violent videogames, and that doesn't make them "a dangerous, very potential" violent person.
A lot of people can and do enjoy illegal (the Grand Theft Auto videogame, the Count of Monte Cristo book), immoral (the Goodfellas movie) and just generally unadvised (the Jackass movie) acts in fictional contexts, without having any serious amount of temptation of committing those acts in real life.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but the idea of sex with children turns him on. That makes him a dangerous, very potential child predator and someone I don't want near my kids, or anyone else's kids for that matter.
I get a kick out of watching gunfights on TV and in the movies. I also play paintball. Should I be arrested for murder? Aren't I showing the signs of being one step away from the latest mass shooting?
Viewing adult porn is different. Adults can consent or refuse to. However, a child can not legally consent, making any sexual act with a child rape.
I completely agree on this point. Kids just don't have the tools to deal with sexuality. Doing so is a part of childhood and growing up. But that should not involve sexual interaction with an adult.
Sorry, but if the idea of raping children turns you on, then I want you off the streets and securely locked away from my kids. If you are OK with these people being near YOUR kids, then you need to have your kids taken away from you and given to parents with some common sense.
Here we are convicting without a crime again.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bank robbers help enable the crime. Viewing child porn does absolutely nothing about the original crime. Viewing child porn is also not illegal, AFAICT - having possession of child porn is. Paying for child porn is a different matter, however, in that it does at least possibly contribute to child molestation. GP did not say there was nothing wrong with child porn.
You scare the crap out of me, because your reading skills don't seem to be up to much, your analogies suck, and you spout one insults at people you don't understand.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Becaauuuuse, it's bad precedent. Suppose someone has raped, tortured, and murdered over a thousand children. He get charged for those crimes, and in addition gets 20 years in prison for driving 62 on a 60 mph road. You may say 'who cares such a conviction is ridiculous, the guy deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life', but it sets bad precedent for all of us, not just the 'villains'.
That's why the cartoon-related conviction matters.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Say, hypothetically, that you're 23 years old. You go to a 18+ or even a 21+ club and you meet a girl who unambiguously wants to have sex with you. You ask her, "Are you over 18?" She tells you yes. You ask to see her I.D. and it shows her picture and it indicates that her age is over 18. You take her home and have sex with her...
Later the cops knock on your door and arrest you for statutory rape. Turns out she felt guilty about the whole thing. Maybe she used her fake I.D. to buy herself too many drinks and she lost her judgement, or maybe her boyfriend just found out and gave her an ultimatum with turning you in as a condition. But none of the petty details matter as much as the fact that
You are now a rapist. Look forward to a short, painful rest of your life in and out of prison.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember reading about a case like this in Canada. Guy picked up girl at the bar when the drinking age was still 21. Went back to her place for sex. Got caught by the parents and charged.
The judge was very apologetic as he sentenced the poor guy to 5 years.
Afterwards the law was actually changed so that honestly believing that someone was of age was a valid defense for statuary rape.
Re:Uhh, yes it does... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that I've met "rapists" who's only sin was having consensual sex with a girl who had a boyfriend, I can certainly be that cynical. Rationality goes out the window when someone is accused of a sex crime in America. As soon as you're labeled, you're automatically guilty and whole-heartedly deserving of any punishment up to death.
At what level of detail (Score:5, Insightful)
does it become illegal? Two stick figure drawings with a caption "10 year olds" would be considered illegal if you didn't pencil in some shorts? Madness.
Re:At what level of detail (Score:5, Insightful)
One best reconsider following Bart's imposition to eat his shorts, or at least drawing such a thing.
So I assume these judges have signed affidavits of concern with respect to the depictions of a clearly naked Bart Simpson in the latest (and so far only) Simpsons movie? Right?
What, you mean they haven't? They are only trying to selectively enforce their misinterpretation of the law? Shudder.
Re:At what level of detail (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Naked isn't equivalent to pornographic. If Bart had been depicted in a sex act, that could be considered pornographic. Nudity alone isn't sufficient.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At what level of detail (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes me wonder, actually? Remember the Muhammad cartoon controversy? Some people actually tried that trick with stick figures then as well; wonder what will happen now.
This will be the true test of free speech in the West - going not against the taboos of another society, but against ones of our own. Count me a pessimist on this one...
Re:At what level of detail (Score:4, Interesting)
How about a cartoon of Muhammad having sex with his 9 year old bride [muhammadanism.org]?
Two Words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Pedophilia and child pornography are morally reprehensible to most people, not to mention damaging to those exploited in its production. It's also worth pointing out that COPA and PROTECT are two prime examples of how our system of government fails to do what it set out to achieve.
COPA basically stated (among other things) that your first amendment right to free speech was null and void when the content of that speech was fictional child pornography. The supreme court ruled COPA unconstitutional [wikipedia.org], and rightly so, due to the fact that COPA very specifically abridged free speech; something the first amendment [wikipedia.org] very specifically states Congress does not have the power to do.
Due to the fact that Congress's fast one wasn't able to slip by the Supreme Court (whose job is to filter out this bullshit), they changed a couple of words and relabeled COPA as the PROTECT act. PROTECT, like its predecessor, also abridges free speech by again making fictional work, which is deemed morally reprehensible by the majority of voters who reelected the folks who pushed the bill through----er, wait a minute...
This is the most prime example I have borne witness to of flagrant abuse of power by the Congress in my life:
1. Congress passes law.
2. Supreme court says "wait just a fuckin' minute"
3. Congress changes wording on law, renames and repasses it, while supreme court bickers over previous law.
4. ????
5. Congressman Asshole wins reelection for being "Tough on Crime." (also known in politics as "Profit")
As long as anything is morally reprehensible enough, Congress can throw the bill of rights out the window to enforce their agenda while the flak takes years to tear its way through the judicial system only to finally be struck down by one court or another.
Just goes to show that politics really can be a system that clogs down on its own bullshit as long as there's enough of a popular opinion in the first place to ramrod the shit past its initial threshold.
Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:4, Informative)
In Australia, a guy got done for having cartoon porn of the Simpsons.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html
Yet another reason for me to leave this backward backwater.
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, real democracy, wonderful. So that a 90% Christian nation can impose its morals on everyone. No, we need to remove blue laws, not give people the chance to make more. Our republic is supposed to be setup so that the majority can't run roughshod over minorities. Democracy is nothing more than codified mob rule.
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what's gonna remove blue laws? Successive generations.
The politicians of today are fighting against two things they can not possibly win against: time, and Big Bird.
Yes, Big Bird.
Most of us here - regardless of country - grew up watching Sesame Street and other children's programs. You know, the stuff that taught us about sharing and respecting others? This is why I believe in 20 years or less gay marriage will not only be the norm nationwide, but it will be common. Big Bird told us not to judge people based on their beliefs, appearance, etc. and by the furry grace of Elmo we listened.
The second enemy - time. People are travelling around the world more and more. Information is spreading and its getting nigh-impossible for the government to control it. I'd say most teenagers think weed being illegal is bullshit. They just tune out the "anti-drug" crap and other lies as if it were their English teacher in high school.
These kids are going to go to high school with other kids who won't have to live in fear of being openly gay, or Atheist, or Muslim, or do or believe whatever they want that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And one day, these kids will be able to vote. The idiotic laws will be repealed to some degree. It's just a matter of time.
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Our republic is supposed to be setup so that the majority can't run roughshod over minorities. Democracy is nothing more than codified mob rule.
Tell that to the idiots that think pure democracy is the best thing since sliced bread. I would advocate at least two changes to get us back to what the Republic was supposed to be:
1) Repeal the 17th amendment. Senators should be responsible to the state and not the people, otherwise the US Senate might as well be abolished.
2) Pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Reynolds v. Sims [wikipedia.org]. Reynolds v. Sims was a SCOTUS ruling that prohibited state legislatures from drawing districts geographically. So it's ok for the US Senate to be drawn geographically but not for the New York State Senate? WTF was that ruling for other than a urban power grab?
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the best route, but a violent revolution (global this time) seems to be not far off from coming.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Violent revolutions do not happen because a form of information got censored. Violent revolutions happen because a sufficiently large proportion of the populace cannot eat or because a sufficiently large proportion are being repressed (repression in this context means "taken away at night and never seen again", not "prevented from posting what they like in their blog").
Even then it's amazing what people will put up with. Note that Robert Mugabe is still in power, for instance.
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yea, I'm sure everyone around the world is totally in for a violent revolution because they are told they shouldn't be watching obscene things on the Internet, and an exceptionally small handful of those people get punished for it.
Some people need a reality check, or better yet a history lesson. Armed revolutions are not unheard of by any measure but they tend to happen for some very specific reasons. Namely, the oppression affects the vast majority of people and hampers the lives of the majority of people. Given A) the limited number of people punished for the action, B) the almost complete lack of regulation on the distribution of the material, C) the social stigma attached to the subject matter, and B) general psychology of the average perpetrator I'd say 'revolution' is a damn long way off.
Or you could mean the general 'censorship' of the Internet that is taking place and not this subject matter specifically? If that is the case its a bit off topic but I'll bite anyways.
Firstly, you are dead wrong about real democracies. You don't want to have that. Believe me, you really don't. Mob rule and mob justice tend to leave a sour taste in ones mouth, even if you were part of the mob. I'm not saying a democratic republic is a terribly great thing either, and while monarchies are romantic they're a bit too much like dictatorships in many cases, but you don't want whim running a nation. And that's just assuming the government isn't so inefficient it can't actually DO anything. No, a pure Democracy is a terrible form of government.
At the end of your post you mentioned three things and you don't seem to understand the last two fully. You're right about the generation gap relationship with technological advancement. We have people who when they were growing up didn't have computers making decisions affecting technology that came about when they were busy dealing with children for the most part. They just aren't qualified in many cases.
The last two bits you mentioned were greed and politics. This is a little different. This is not something you can change or expect to change. They're components of human nature. Survival traits. Social traits.
Regardless how you feel about Christianity, the Bible at least got that bit right (IMO): Greed is bad. It tends to hurt others anyways. But acquisitiveness seems to be a common human trait. You see it with consumers, you see it with collectors, you see it with fans of a movie or book series or TV show. It's not limited to physical goods either. You see it with any "resource" that is available. Money for some, power for others. It can be relatively harmless, like the guy at the party that is eating as much as he can rather than socializing, or it can be dangerous like what seems to be affecting most politicians these days, or the CEOs of all those 'failing' companies that are giving themselves millions of dollars.
Then you have politics. Just like greed this scales. Politics is really just group dynamics. You see it in your small family, or even the relationship you have with your loved one. Most people don't realize that. They just see the politics between nations which are on a grander scale. They fail to realize that even if humanity united there would be politics and it will be 'dirty'. As I mentioned before, it seems to be a survival trait of our species and as they say life isn't "fair".
Politics and survival brings up the big reason your idea of a "global" resolution is A) bad and B) farcical. Revolutions won't happen simultaneously the world over. Especially over something as "unimportant" as Internet Neutrality or "Simulated Child Pornography". Aside from either one just not affecting a large enough percentage of people (globally) the pressures aren't building up at the same pace in every country. Without that pressure pushing on the populace, they aren't going to go grab their gun and march on city hall.
No, if a "global armed revolution" was to occur it would just b
Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (Score:4, Interesting)
Denmark has Internet filtering [opennet.net] (which was kept secret until discovered)
How do they prove it? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's fantasy, you can say the depiction is as old as you want. It's not real, rules of reality don't apply, at all.
Disclaimer (Score:5, Insightful)
So a disclaimer at the bottom that all characters pictured are based off real adults who are merely very young looking would make it safe?
Ok, so if I draw a picture of a person having sex with a sentient machine (non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side) and that machine is only 10 years old according to the crappy fan-fic I write about it, does that make it child pornography?
Oh wait, I know how to use up more of the courts time, where were those rule 34 pictures of ALF and the simpsons I had laying around...
Re:Disclaimer (Score:5, Funny)
(non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side)
Companion cube, indeed.
Re:Disclaimer (Score:4, Funny)
This was a triumph!
Re:Disclaimer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disclaimer (Score:5, Funny)
I find your ideas eroti..err.. intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it is. Most (real) child porn of today comes from the former east bloc and far east asia. Ever tried to arrest someone in that area?
While people drawing porn come from all over the globe, just prosecure the ones in the western hemisphere and it sure looks like you're doing something about the problem. You don't, actually, the kids in Russia and south east asia are still being exploited, but you're doing SOMETHING.
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation. "
No. They're there to pander to the braying mob and instill a climate of fear. This does nothing other than having police chasing shadows, diverting their attention from real abuse cases. Very counterproductive.
It may not be possible to prosecute the people [for committing crime X] if they are in a foreign country, but you can help to reduce their market by prosecuting the people who buy their products.
This tactic was a roaring success in the war on drugs. In fact all drug dealers went broke during the first Reagan administration, and now there are no drugs to be had anymore.
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with our current laws is that the cases you describe are lumped together with cases of teenagers sending dirty pictures of themselves to their (girl/boy)friend. It's like stopping a bank robbery by nuking the entire city.
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently you haven't been listening [google.com].
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly are they stupid kids? Sure, people have the responsibility to know the law, but when the laws are increasingly at odds with basic ideas of freedom, it takes unreasonable effort to know them.
"In the meantime ... please ensure you are CLOTHED when taking pictures of yourself."
In the meantime, please ensure you log your internet traffic and report it to the state. Just in case a law requiring this has been passed.
In the meantime, please ensure you don't buy any laboratory glassware to ensure you aren't mistaken for a meth lab. Just in case.
In the meantime, don't say disparaging things about the president. Just in case.
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
So a 16 year old brain is developed enough to be trusted with unsupervised control over 16 gallons of highly flammable liquid inside a 2 ton, 70 MPH projectile surrounded by hundreds of innocent bystanders on the highway, but not developed enough to make sexual decisions?
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Determining if a person is mentally ready to begin sexual activity in any objective manner is basically impossible.
Determining if a person is physically ready to begin sexual activity is easy.
The law should be based on the objective criteria, not the subjective criteria and certainly not on arbitrary criteria.
There is no reason that a 9 year old can not make responsible decisions. Until the Victorians invented childhood [wikipedia.org], people took on adult rights and responsibilities at puberty.
And what is the implications and ramifications really? Human beings have had the same body parts for a few million years now. Will the sky fall just because a teenager reveals the he/she *gasp* has genitals?
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Insightful)
If viewing cartoon kiddie porn makes people want real kiddie porn, then watching fake violence makes people want to kill real people and all mock violence needs to be banned immediately. This includes sports.
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation. It may not be possible to prosecute the people abusing children if they are in a foreign country, but you can help to reduce their market by prosecuting the people who buy their products.
Of course, these laws are about sexual abuse. Because our whole economy is based on products built by abused children on the other side of the planet.
Re:Preventing the Photoshop defence (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, Solomon, how do we settle this one?
Easy, keep the crime illegal, but treat depictions of the crime like we do depictions of all other crimes, as evidence of a crime and not as a seperate crime.
Re:Preventing the Photoshop defence (Score:5, Informative)
They may have created the image, or they may have filtered the image in PhotoShop to remove any digital signatures from the camera that took the image. Okay, Solomon, how do we settle this one?
Uh, innocent until proven guilty?
Re:The point of these laws is power (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws against child pornography are an easy route to power
It's also difficult to oppose a law against child pornography without sounding like you're endorsing child abuse, especially when you're a public figure, so these measures usually are passed without much opposition.
Re:The point of these laws is power (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also difficult to oppose a law against child pornography without sounding like you're endorsing child abuse,
Which, on the face of it, is retarded. Nobody who is even semi-rational is going to endorse child abuse, yet people are so easily convinced of such things when the topic comes up. Rather than consider that someone has a sophisticated opinion on the subject, too many people are all too willing to jump on the "why do you hate children?" bandwagon.
Re:And the point of these laws is? (Score:5, Informative)
"Arguably, banning the drawing of such things, and dissemination of such cartoons discourages sickos from watching the cartoons and being encouraged."
There is no evidence for the argument that viewing child porn cartoons increases the risk of a person molesting a child. There is evidence to the contrary, however. Hall, et al. (1995) [ipce.info] found that "arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior", Freel (2003) [oxfordjournals.org] found that "if someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children", while Sheldon & Howitt (2008) [direct.bl.uk] found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children."
Victims? (Score:5, Insightful)
He would still be convicted for the obscene e-mail (Score:5, Funny)
TFA states that he was also convicted for obscene e-mails describing sex acts with children. Anybody else find this even more worrying than the pictures?
I guess this means you can commit a felony by posting a few choice lines on slashdot?
(Posting anon since I don't want to be associated with this subject, however remotely)
Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (Score:5, Funny)
(Posting anon since I don't want to be associated with this subject, however remotely)
Now THAT'S funny.
Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lost our minds (Score:4, Insightful)
When we start trying to apply the laws of the
land to the realm of make believe our justice
system will have officially lost it's mind. . .
Next we'll be appointing a Cartoon Czar. . .
You're all on report. (Score:5, Funny)
Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next up... (Score:4, Funny)
Won't someone think of the imaginary children?!?
I call for the prosecution of Stephen King (Score:5, Insightful)
For repeated and multiple murder, for torture, both physical and psychological, for cannibalism and for a few other things that I'd have to consult my library for and reread some of his work.
And while we're at it, I also ask to have the governor of California arrested for ... well, pretty much the same crimes.
No, they didn't commit them. They only depicted and acted them. But appearantly that difference is no longer important.
Re:I call for the prosecution of Stephen King (Score:5, Insightful)
Kiss a pair of boobs and the movie's rated R. Chop them off and it's PG-13.
--Jack Nicholson.
I thought the entire argument against child porn (Score:5, Insightful)
was that its manufacture directly hurt children (the ones portrayed in it, not some abstract concept). While distasteful, virtual "child" porn, no matter how realistic, seems to be a freedom of speech which is protected under the Constitution. Otherwise, you are creating a thoughtcrime.
Also is the matter of arguing "age". Some are undeniably children, but we live in a country where 18 years old prosecuted for statutory rape of 16 years old isn't unheard of in our recent histroy. Do we really want to relegate to the prosecutors this power?
Also consider the common cartoon/anime characteristic of having an adult in mind in an essentially child like body. What then?
In summary:
-lack of victim
-Freedom of Speech, if only popular speech were to be protected, we wouln't need 1st amendment
-age ambiguities
The serious problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
The serious problem with any witch-hunt - we'll take paedophilia as an example, because it's the current one - is that banning speech about an issue prevents rational discussion of that issue.
When Charles Dickens was concerned about the condition of children in Victorian London, he wrote novels about it. When Robert Burns wanted to express his opposition to slavery, he wrote poems about it. The novels and poems reached a far wider audience and ultimately affected political change far more effectively than dry factual accounts.
I'm not arguing that paedophilia is acceptable. It's clearly an abuse of power for adults to prey on non adults. But the boundaries of that condition do have to be explored: why is the age of consent for heterosexual sex in Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Israel and parts of Germany 14, in Denmark, Iceland, France and Greece 15, in Finland and most of the United Kingdom 16, in Northern Ireland 17? Why, in the United States, is sex legal at the age of 14 in many conservative mid-west states, but illegal until 18 in liberal California?
There's also a concept in many parts of the world that sex between two people of roughly the same age is allowable able at a considerably younger age than sex between a young person and a significantly older person - and that seems to me entirely reasonable.
But so long as there is a witch-hunt in progress we can't have rational discourse about these things. We certainly can't use fiction to explore the issues. Could Nabokov's Lolita even be published today? This is in the end a civil liberties argument - not because children don't need protecting, of course children need protecting. But so does freedom of speech.
How far we've come (Score:5, Informative)
If you're an oldster or a lawyer of the sort who can quote Dost, this may be sad but it isn't surprising.
For you young 'uns out there, listen up for a history lesson.
For a very long time in the U.S., child porn was legal. Admittedly, this point can be argued. Some say it was always illegal because it was always obscene. However, it wasn't prosecuted because the possibility existed that it could be produced in a way that was not obscene. Whether it was technically legal or illegal isn't important. The practical matter is that it wasn't prosecuted, wasn't specifically prohibited, and was easily available to anyone who wanted to send off a money order or walk into a big city adult book store.
IN the mid 1970s, the first laws were passed that said it was illegal. First amendment concerns surfaced but those were beaten back with the argument that producing it required that a crime be committed by an adult against a child. You couldn't produce child porn without actually raping a child. By the early 1980s, it was pretty much illegal everywhere in the U.S., though simple possession didn't get outlawed everywhere, uniformly until then. Even now, there have been major nations that didn't outlaw simple possession until recently. Simple possession didn't become illegal in Brazil, for example, until this year.
The U.S., though, was a different case. By the mid to late 1980s, the stuff had been mostly stamped out. In fact, immediately before the rise of the ubiquitous home internet connection, nearly all child porn sold in the U.S. was actually sold by the United States Postal Service as a part of sting operations.
In some of the early court decisions, the first amendment concerns were dismissed with the explicit allowance that depictions of underage sex for artistic purposes could continue unhindered as long as the actors involved were of age. At the time, the example often cited was "The Last Picture Show."
Since then, things have gradually changed from the sensible to the insane. The changes have been far too many and too complex to outline here and each change has been rather gradual. As the law now stands (IANAL, etc.) literally any picture of a child can be considered porn if a prosecutor can convince a jury that it was produced or possessed for prurient purposes. Nudity is not required. Sexual activity is not required. Prosecutors are willing to proceed on the flimsiest basis when motivated by stupidity or politics, sometimes successfully (the Pierson case, as a lead-in to prosecuting WebeWeb), sometimes unsuccessfully (as in the attempt in Oklahoma to criminalize the highly regarded movie "The Tin Drum.")
I'm not a big fan of Paul Little (the few minutes I've spent with him on several occasions convinced me that he's an ultimately harmless boor) but he should not be looking at jail time. Yet in this (U.S.) society, all rationality has flown right out the window where this subject is concerned.
Here are my two main points (and, incidentally, this is why I know so much about the subject):
1. If you value civil liberties, you need to know about child porn. It's the boogey man, just like "commies" back in the 1950s, that is used as an excuse to build freedom-destroying infrastructure into our laws and communications systems.
2. The original definition of child porn that justified outlawing it included one central tenet - that producing it requires adults to rape children. Nowadays, a large (probably the overwhelming majority) of child porn is produced by children for the consumption of children and there are no adults involved at any stage. If you have a 12-year-old with a web cam in their room or a digital camera built into their cell phone, there is a much-larger-than-you'd-like-to-admit possibility that you're providing a home for a child porn production studio.
Combine those two things and we're looking at a situation where child porn can be used to criminalize a huge portion of the populace. Forgive me for drawing parallels where
Re:How far we've come (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How far we've come (Score:5, Interesting)
Where did your point number two disappear? When did a nude photo become "porn" in any sense? Are we going to start burning 12-15th century paintings now, because they "depict child porn"? Destroying Greek and Roman statues? Hell, even the Sistine Chapel [easyart.com] might be in trouble. Those cherubs look a pretty young...
Re:How far we've come (Score:5, Interesting)
That's, imo, a hugely insightful question. My answer is also just my opinion.
I believe we lost that point (defining CP as absolutely requiring that a child had to be raped to make it) when we criminalized simple possession. The problem is we didn't know we had lost anything when we did that.
In the context of the time, criminalizing simple possession was obviously the right thing to do. Back then, the only way to get CP was to buy it. If you possessed it, you had to have bought it. If you bought it, you were giving money to people to encourage them to rape children. That's bad, no matter how you look at it.
Nowadays, things have radically changed. Most CP isn't bought; it's found. Most CP isn't made for monetary profit; it's made by kids messing around and by adults who are seeking self-validation for their perversion by producing and releasing the material. Thus, possessing CP no longer encourages it to be made. If we were just now getting around to outlawing it, we probably wouldn't because outlawing possession no longer has any real purpose, i.e. outlawing possession no longer does anything to encourage or discourage production.
In response to this, lots of other justifications have come along to keep possession illegal. There's the grooming argument; pervs can show their porn to little kids, thus convincing the kids that this behavior is normal. There's also the "continuing rape" theory that says children in CP are raped again, mentally, every time someone looks at the CP in which they appear. That second argument is just goofy-stupid and I dismiss it out of hand. The first argument, however, probably has some small (very small) merit and is enough for me to argue that no change in the legal prohibition against possession is necessary.
The problems arise when we accept any of these arguments *separately* from the original requirement that kids have to be raped to produce the stuff. If, for example, we accept that the possession of any material that can be used to groom children for abuse should be legally proscribed, then we are forced to look the other way when the forces of anti-freedom start outlawing anything they claim can be used for that purpose. They can outlaw text, drawings, photos - literally anything - if we allow the argument that anything that has the potential for misuse should be outlawed.
Since we, as a society, have accepted that the definition of CP no longer requires children to be hurt, we have opened the floodgates. Anything that a legislator considers icky enough can be outlawed. Anything that offends a prosecutor can get you arrested. Thus, things that were previously just dismissed as being, at worst, in bad taste can now result in people doing jail time. Take a picture of kids in the bath or your 10-year-old topless on the beach while vacationing in Brazil? You're risking your freedom. Use a computer to make a picture of some non-existent person who's apparently short and undeveloped? Same story. All a prosecutor has to do is convince a jury you got some kind of sick jollies from the process of creation and, wham-bam, you're in jail.
If you want to define an exact point in time, you should probably look to the early-1980s U.S. Supreme Court case where a film showing shirtless boys counting money on a bed while an adult male got dressed in the background was found to be CP. Given the overall context of the case and the implication of the film that the boys had just been paid for sex, the court held that neither nudity or sexual activity was necessary for the harmful-to-kids production of child porn. Really, though, it was a long process to get to this point. Short of Barack's oldest girl making a porn vid with her best friend and releasing it to the world, I can't imagine anything that could awaken the general populace to the notion that you really shouldn't call something child porn unless it involves grown-ups physically abusing little kids.
Any broader definition is an invitation to rampant irrationality. Just like we have now.
Re:How far we've come (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet (and I guess this is my biggest point) it's very tough to get anyone to get over their squeamishness about the subject and fight for what's right. ...which reminds me of another area that suffers from a similar problem: the issue of prisoner's rights. We have a prison system -- the most populous in the world, in fact, with more than two million prisoners -- where forcible rape is a normal occurrence and is tacitly accepted as part of the punishment, even for trivial non-violent crimes like, say, passing a bad check. And thanks to HIV and hepatitis, being sentenced to serve time often becomes a de facto death penalty.
That this amounts, in effect, to the systematic extermination of a substantial number of people is most often met with a yawn, if the topic comes up at all. It wouldn't do to appear to be "soft on crime" -- even if, in this case, being "hard on crime" actually involves encouraging rape and murder.
Easy fix. (Score:5, Funny)
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Go after God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Abraham strapped his son to an altar and was in the process of performing ritual sacrifice on him. Or that naked Moses, that's offensive. God only knows what those three "wise" men really wanted with a swaddling clad Jesus and his virgin (and underage I might add) mother.
If we're going to get the religious right nutters involved, we might as well get the completely involved!
Are thoughts still OK? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder where this idiocy will end. It's probably being pushed by the same people who want to make it a crime to burn the US flag. Ask them if it's OK to burn a picture of a US flag, or something that looks like a US flag but is one or two stars short, and they start to look at you with that same lost, betrayed expression a dog gets when you pretend to throw the ball, but hide it behind your back.
These assholes are a lot more dangerous to society than the occasional pervert who gets off on drawing dirty pictures.
The big question (Score:5, Interesting)
The big question is: does pornography heighten sexual urges (like an addiction), or satisfy them? If the former, then virtual child pornography might incite a pedophile into seeking out real child pornography or even lead them into child molestation. If the latter, then virtual child pornography can prevent them from taking more drastic action. Someone really needs to do some research and find the answer to this question before we make laws about cartoon child pornography. It's fairly likely that the answer to the question varies from person to person (just as some people can drink casually while others become alcoholics), in which case it would be nice to have some sort of test to see what kind of person any particular pedophile is, for their own benefit.
No one is responsible for whom or what they're sexually attracted to, and that includes pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestiality fans, etc; they are responsible for controlling those urges when they are inappropriate. That said, people with socially unacceptable fetishes should be treated with sympathy and provided the support they need to control and channel their sexual energy. Painting them as Satanspawn only isolates them, forcing them to find their own ways to cope. If there's a way for people to satisfy their urges without exploiting other people, than that is to everyone's benefit. We should all be lauding the rise of virtual pornography, not condemning it.
Re:SCOTUS and drawn CP as actual CP (Score:5, Funny)
Rule 34 on the Supreme Court.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't matter AT ALL the age depicted. The (Just) reason that child pornography is illegal is to stop the harming of children through its production. Adults have the right and ability to consent to be part of such productions as part of their own free speech rights. Children, almost by definition, do not, and thus their rights are violated when they are used in child pornography.
First in order to be child pornography a child, a real one has to be involved. Cartoon characters are not children and they have no rights to violate. Hand drawn pornography can be considered child pornography if and only if the drawings were done from an actual child model.
Secondly, though this doesn't apply in most cases, it has to be pornographic. Pictures of baby's first bath and similar don't count. Generally there is(and rightly so) less tolerance for what is and is not pornography when children are involved.
The real impetus behind child porn laws that go against those who merely possess or re-distribute the material and do not produce it or harbor those that do, especially once written, drawn, and cartoon porn is made illegal where a child was never involved at all(though if someone is making a lot of written porn they might not be up for jail but a mandatory talk with a psychologist might be in order), is generally to protect those persons' who are pushing for the law sensibilities. Just like segregation protected those same sensibilities by keeping the dark people out of sight, and such laws in the end are only a little less unjust, mainly due to fewer peoples' rights being violated on a generally smaller scale.