• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

3 year sentence for porn cartoon

Raizinman

Raizinman

Platinum Member
Missouri man sentenced to 3 years for porn cartoons
Posted by Chris Oberholtz, Multimedia Producer
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -
A southwest Missouri man will spend three years in prison for possessing cartoons showing child pornography.
A federal judge sentenced 36-year-old Christjan Bee of Monett on Monday to three years without parole, followed by five years of supervised probation.
Bee pleaded guilty last October to possession of an obscene image of the sexual abuse of children.
The Joplin Globe reports Bee's wife called police in August 2011 after finding what she believed to be child pornography on her husband's computer.
The U.S. attorney's office says in a news release that comics found on the computer found several images of minors engaged in sexual activity.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

http://link.kctv5.com/4f87207262047742c9e419bbu0iz.1sq/UQklDCuoS6RQIyyWAfcda

Let’s see. If you make a picture of an obscene image showing the sexual abuse of children, you can go to jail for 3 years. Hmmm….. I wonder if stick figures would count? I wonder if I need to start checking my kids art work to make sure none of them could be interpreted at sexual abuse pictures. I remember one of my kids crayon pictures had a bunch of kids sitting on a picket fence. Could that be sexual abuse?

Even the wife believed it to be child pornography and not sexual abuse of children. Should the charge be sexual abuse of a child or sexual abuse of a cartoon comic book character? Anyone want to move to Missouri?
 
Last edited:
To me there's a clear distinction between actual images of children vs cartoons (ie drawings). One is real, and is the product of abuse. The other is a drawing.

As much as I think anyone who abuses kids or consumes child pron is scum and should be taken out back and shot, sending someone to jail for drawings makes no sense. It's a dangerous precedent, it equates someone drawing a possibly illegal act with actually committing the illegal act.
 
You know the country is going to hell when you get arrested for a possessing a pic of a drawing that someone else made. I understand possession of actual pictures being illegal, and am all for going after people with said imagery, but I find it utterly ridiculous that someone can get arrested for possessing a drawing.
 
How do they prove the cartoon characters are underage? What if someone argues that they were created to be 18 yrs old and the arguement was they look 16?
 
What kind of wife does that? No doubt she is now filing for divorce and cleaning him out while he's locked up in jail and cant properly defend himself...
 
The laws on this, at least federally, started to develop after it became possible to create highly realistic virtual child porn by Photoshopping children's faces on the bodies of barely-legal women. As I recall, the Supreme Court has ratified the Constitutionality of these laws, and they apply all over the country, not just in Missouri.

EDIT: The Supreme Court opinion is at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf

The application of these laws to cartoons may be a little goofy, but they in general criminalize possession of any image that depicts children in a way intended to sexually stimulate. I have no idea what these cartoons looked like, but they may have been something that any normal person would find highly disturbing.
 
Last edited:
The application of these laws to cartoons may be a little goofy, but they in general criminalize possession of any image that depicts children in a way intended to sexually stimulate.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous. These pictures are not of real people. There are no victims here. Essentially, the verdict is saying that it's illegal be sexually stimulated by pictures that look underage. We are now legislating people's feelings. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Don Vito Corleone said:
I have no idea what these cartoons looked like, but they may have been something that any normal person would find highly disturbing.
Click to expand...

Should've just drawn cartoons of a bunch of kids getting shot or stabbed. That's not illegal 🙄

Just to be clear I'm not trying to defend child pr0n but cartoons, no matter how offensive they are, are different. There was no victim here.
 
Wow that's ridiculous. Isin't child porn considered child porn when the child is under a certain specific age? (16 I think?) How would one dictate the age of a fictional cartoon character that was made up on the spot? Or did he use known characters like Bart Simpson? You can go by looks, but if it's like a stick figure it's kinda hard to tell. Maybe it's an adult midget? lol
 
so basically anyone that ever watched cowboy bepob or the legend of the overfiend urusukodoji or whatever its spelled is a criminal?
 
ThePresence said:
That is ridiculous. These pictures are not of real people. There are no victims here. Essentially, the verdict is saying that it's illegal be sexually stimulated by pictures that look underage. We are now legislating people's feelings. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

From the OP:

Bee pleaded guilty last October to possession of an obscene image of the sexual abuse of children.
Click to expand...

Big difference between images that are "sexually stimulating" and images that show "sexual abuse".

I'm not comfortable with the sentence, but I'm not comfortable with ignoring this, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top