dude gets jailed for have manga child porn

[Typhoid]

Context.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Context.

Context in terms of who is taking the pictures, or context in term of who is viewing them?

There is a huuuuuuuuge difference.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Context in terms of who is taking the pictures, or context in term of who is viewing them?

There is a huuuuuuuuge difference.

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

What if it's a picture of yourself? :o

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

I wouldn't say any other situation is not okay...perhaps there is artistic merit in photographing nude people, even children. There is certainly scientific merit in the context of studying young children for diseases, cancer, and things of that nature.

My point of bringing up the subject of context was that regardless of whose children they are, a lot of people might deem the pictures pornographic. Especially in our strange Western society where nudity is not viewed as a natural state but rather a sexualized and dirty state.

On the topic of taking non-artistic pictures of your kids naked:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-co...ory?id=8624533

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/pa...ory?id=8622696

The knee-jerk reaction is in example of western culture failure.


We probably need a working definition of pornography in this thread, and that is just as hard as defining art.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I wouldn't say any other situation is not okay...perhaps there is artistic merit in photographing nude people, even children. There is certainly scientific merit in the context of studying young children for diseases, cancer, and things of that nature.

My point of bringing up the subject of context was that regardless of whose children they are, a lot of people might deem the pictures pornographic. Especially in our strange Western society where nudity is not viewed as a natural state but rather a sexualized and dirty state.

On the topic of taking non-artistic pictures of your kids naked:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-co...ory?id=8624533

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/pa...ory?id=8622696

The knee-jerk reaction is in example of western culture failure.


We probably need a working definition of pornography in this thread, and that is just as hard as defining art.

I think the main thing that makes it porn is this:

Why do you have it?

If you have it to show family members - not porn.
If you have it for medical advancement/research - not porn.
If you have it as art (obviously not talking of nude children, that would be creepy art) - not porn.
If you have it to jerk off to - porn.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I meant context of the situation picture was taken in.

Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is perfectly okay as long as it's your own child (or a relative) and that child is doing something a normal child would do. Having a photograph of a naked 3 year old is not okay if it's basically any other situation.

What if its a picture of a 3-year old that is a relative that you use for porn?

[magus113]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

What if its a picture of a 3-year old that is a relative that you use for porn?

That still agrees with what Typhoid was saying about the context of the picture.

[Teuthida]

That's got to be one of the stupidest laws. If that's what turns some dude on and he can't do anything about it, then it's much better to read some manga where the characters don't even look human (AND AREN'T REAL!) than searching out actual child porn or gods forbid three dimensional flesh and blood kids to do things with.


As for the context of photos, isn't it more who took the photo and their reason for doing so than who might end up with it? The safety of the kid is the utmost concern.

Example A: Having fun in the bath a parent takes a photo of their kid that a creepy uncle later jerks off to.
Example B: Creepy uncle gets off at giving kid a bath and takes a photo. The kid realizes this is wrong.


Hell, the whole Catholic church problem could have probably been avoided if they handed out child porn manga to the priests. "Father John has a devilish look in his eye. Quick, fetch a copy of Tentacle-Fucking Kindergarteners." Crisis averted.

[TheGame]

As expected, Prof ignores that fact that everyone's issue with the law is that it's unjust. Nobody said the law shouldn't be enforced, people said the law as-is is unjust, therefore it shouldn't exist in the first place.