dude gets jailed for have manga child porn

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

It does violate someone's rights, to be fair. The guy who had the manga.

That's exactly what I was saying.

[THEmrResilient]

When does child porn become child porn? I mean everyone has naked baby pictures. So I guess I mean why is Baby Porn OK and Child Porn isn't and when are you a child and not a baby? AHHHH! Now I am confused.

[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

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

This is what garnered the "WOW" you just hadn't said it.

too tired to really coherently type it out but laws are constantly bent an broken, and the fact that they are is constantly ignored depending on the law. There are lots of laws that are now completely ignored (I.E. did you know oral sex is illegal in like 15 states even in the privacy of your own home? I mean technically police could bust you up for doing it, but you don't ever see that happen).

Just because laws exist it doesn't mean you should follow them blindly because they exist. That's ignorant. If history has taught use anything sometimes the best way to change the law is to treat it as though it doesn't exist.

For the record, I never justified the fact that some laws are enforced more than others. There are lots of blue laws that SHOULD be eliminated instead of ignored. Ignoring any law creates a precedent that any law can and will be ignored or selectively enforced. Selective enforcement is oppressive and unjust, and making is a moral sin as well as legal sin.

Reading your response though, you feel some laws just shouldn't be respected. Well then who gets to make the decision on what laws should be enforced, and what laws shouldn't? What reasoning are they using when deciding what laws should be enforced? How much money is involved? How much power can be transferred through such arbitrary decision making? These ideas you're expressing are dangerous.

This guy with no record of child abuse and no further evidence of Kiddie porn got a raw deal because he enjoy looking at naked anime children. He lost a year of his life over something as silly as that. Hell maybe the cartoons were the only thing keeping him from actually molesting a kid, and when he gets released from prison he'll actually do it.

What if the guy had thousands of files of this? What if he was distributing, illegally, and this was a way to shut him down? There is a lot we do not know. This is reason why there are laws and the expectation of equal treatment under them. This removes the emotional/sympathetic aspect. All we do know is that he broke the law, and admitted to doing so. Therefore: he should face the penalties demanded by that law.

P.S. Fuck the Establishment. It should be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.

Ok, now I think I understand you a whole lot better. If you destroy the establishment, which includes a democratically elected republic, who gets to rebuild it and what system should we adopt? See, its a lot easier to say "fuck the world" than it is to think rationally and work positively to address flaws.

There is no way to remove the human factor from the systemic governing of a society. Destroy the establishment if you like, but what establishment will take its place, and who will be making the decisions, and in what way will they be chosen? Justice is not devoid of corruption, because humans enforce justice and humans are corrupt. When any decision is made about determining how people should be treated by a government, we always need to ask: "By whose standard?"

This is why laws MUST be clear and enforced if they are remain valid and civilization is to progress. You cannot measure you personal activity against a constantly changing yard stick. To make enforcement contingent on someone's feelings and empathy is to be oppressed by that person.

[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.