Child pornography

[Farang]

I was browsing through Wikipedia and let's forget about how I got to this point but I came across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#United_States

On December 19, 2008, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, under presiding Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, ruled that the PROTECT Act of 2003 does apply to cartoons of child pornography, stating that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists". However, this appears to be in defiance of the 2004 Supreme Court ruling on the PROTECT Act. The 4th Circuit may have done this in order to persuade new justices on the Supreme Court to ignore the Supreme Court's prior precedent in regards to the PROTECT Act. Attorneys for the defendant (Dwight Whorley) say that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, asking them to re-iterate their prior verdict on the PROTECT Act.[84] He was sentenced to 20 years in jail for the possession of 20 anime.[85]

It seems wrong to me that a man can be locked up for 20 years for having comic books that depict child porn. If I draw a picture of a child having sex it seems I can be thrown in jail. If we compare this to a film like the Aristocrats, in which child sex is discussed openly and for the sake of being as crude as possible, how is drawing for the same purpose any different? Should we throw Bob Saget in jail for 20 years?

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Do you think that a person that is into child porn could possibly act on his/her infatuations?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Do you think that a person that is into child porn could possibly act on his/her infatuations?

Does owning or drawing depicted child porn automatically make you a pedophile though? Like I said some art is crude for the sake of being crude, which is why I brought up to Aristrocrats/Bob Saget example (see youtube if you don't know it).

 

[Soccerman06]

Thats why god made some girls with small boobs.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Do you think that a person that is into child porn could possibly act on his/her infatuations?

Does owning or drawing depicted child porn automatically make you a pedophile though? Like I said some art is crude for the sake of being crude, which is why I brought up to Aristrocrats/Bob Saget example (see youtube if you don't know it).

I'm sorry..but any man that is interested in women will not draw pictures depicting child porn.

 

[Taejin]

Well then any fake depictions of rape should be illegal too, cause it'll encourage people to go rape others, right Cdub?

 

[Taejin]

Actually why don't we just outlaw any and all depictions of murder as well, and underage teenage sex (implied and otherwise) since it's all illegal by law.

 

[mcmilljb]

Thank God this awesome judge has protected those poor innocent imaginary chldren! Think of the children! :roll:

I guess we don't need real laws either.

 

[frostedflakes]

I think it's a bit ridiculous. I'd rather resources be used to go after people harming real children.

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think it's a bit ridiculous. I'd rather resources be used to go after people harming real children.

This, if animated child porn makes then act, then it probably only a matter of time before they move up to real child porn. Point all of our resources there.

 

[OCGuy]

If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive. Anyone who is despised by the thought will not defend such horseshit.

 

[Xylitol]

i'd rather that pedos look at their own drawings than at real children

 

[frostedflakes]

I just don't believe lolicon turns people into pedos, just like violent movies and video games don't turn people into murderers. Sure it's perverted, but if it's harmless, who cares?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive.

A ---> ... ---> B

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive. Anyone who is despised by the thought will not defend such horseshit.

Yeah, if only your personal revulsion were sufficient cause to arrest someone. Two words: victimless crime.

In anticipation to your response: "two words: sick fuck" Did I get it right? Typical, reactionary nonsense. Anyone who doesn't bend over backwards to throw the constitution out the window in order to "protect the children" is clearly a pedophile. You must be high.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive. Anyone who is despised by the thought will not defend such horseshit.

Yeah, if only your personal revulsion were sufficient cause to arrest someone. Two words: victimless crime.

In anticipation to your response: "two words: sick fuck" Did I get it right? Typical, reactionary nonsense. Anyone who doesn't bend over backwards to throw the constitution out the window in order to "protect the children" is clearly a pedophile. You must be high.

This.

Couldn't of put it better myself. I'm personally sick of the government over reaching their authority to enforce victimless crimes and letting real criminals run wild.

 

[Pepsei]

well, the law is there.... and this has been discussed before here.... for some people Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.

that bob saget bit is funny. :thumbsup:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive.

I think you're ok, but let's face it, you're definitely not attractive.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Farang
Should we throw Bob Saget in jail for 20 years?

YES

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive.

I think you're ok, but let's face it, you're definitely not attractive.

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive.

A ---> ... ---> B

The description of an illegal activity should not automatically be illegal.

 

[imported_Asianman]

You guys should watch some Japanese cartoons. Even the ones targeted at children sometimes have animated child porn

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive.

I think you're ok, but let's face it, you're definitely not attractive.

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
If you think child-porn toons are OK, you must think they are attractive.

A ---> ... ---> B

The description of an illegal activity should not automatically be illegal.

Or in this case depiction?

 

[alphatarget1]

Wouldn't this be unconstitutional?

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Wouldn't this be unconstitutional?

you guys keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means

at least, not anymore :-/

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Do you think that a person that is into child porn could possibly act on his/her infatuations?

So, we're going to start throwing people in jail for what they might do now???

You gazed at my daughter for 1 second too long!!! Off to jail with you!!! :|