I get what you’re trying to say, but the anime schoolgirl at the top of this post wouldn’t be considered an inappropriate photo of a real girl, so the cartoon version really wouldn’t be either.
The point is that it is an expressive work, and once the thoughts behind works of art are tied to harm, the world is their oyster when it comes to all the crimes you’ve committed.
That the picture in this post is not explicit is the point. After all, it is still, in context, readily arguable that it’s a sexualized depiction of a minor. Once the inferred motive behind possession of such things is deemed dangerous enough in itself to permit legal sanction, it doesn’t actually matter how explicit it is. The inference or innuendo alone then–to borrow a term from the judge in this case–“encourages” criminal thought.
7 Likes
Acceptable, no. But not acceptable isn’t the same as criminal. It might mean you need psychological help. On the other hand it might not. This is a very dangerous precedent.
For example in the first book of the popular Japanese manga Full Metal Panic! it shows a highly sexualized depiction of the female lead of the series in the shower, who is supposed to be 16 at the time (she is shown as a fully developed woman). It depicts an erotic image of an underage girl. Putting aside all commentary of what is appropriate in a manga aimed at teenagers, wouldn’t this count as criminally actionable child pornography under the judge’s interpretation? Whenever you set a rigid rule, especially for a crime that is quite literally victimless, you have to be very careful.
3 Likes
Then I recommend you think more about it.
BTW, nice to speak to the one man who draws that line for us all. Quite a responsibility. I wonder, were you elected, or was this a self-appointed promotion??
4 Likes
People get convicted for victimless crimes all the time — nothing new here. (Manga may just get all the attention online because it may cut a bit too close to home for some…)
As long as something may violate the standards of what’s “socially acceptable”, you may go to jail for that, whether or not you agree with those standards, and whether somebody is directly affected by it or not.
I personally think it’s a silly concept, but it helps to understand the reasoning behind it, if you want to argue it.
Hrmm… I was going to argue your claim that it’s a sexualized depiction, as I don’t recall it being overtly sexual. But going back, I guess we could argue that the fact that her butt would be exposed to whomever is behind her does lead to some level of titillation. That’s really the only sexual aspect of the photo, as the outfit isn’t overtly sexual nor is the expression or pose otherwise. Though I’m not sure one could necessarily claim that this is a minor, without some more context.
Any way, we’re arguing a silly point that is detracting from a more serious point. I highly doubt the images that this guy had were as innocent as the one you have posted here. And while said images absolutely make me uncomfortable, I’m not sure we should be prosecuting people for fantasizing about illegal things but not acting upon them. I fantasize about robbing the bank sometimes when I’m waiting in line, that doesn’t mean I’d ever actually do it.
1 Like
I don’t see any offense against any individual here, just a mentally-ill person that is at greater risk of committing an offense in the future. I don’t believe in locking someone up for something they might do in the future, but I believe there is room for some sort of intervention short of that. I think pedophilia should be treated as an illness and those with it should get treatment.
I’ll admit that depictions of pedophilia squick me out. But if I draw a picture of a corpse, does this now mean I can be prosecuted for murder? I’m a good artist, I can do a very detailed and realistic drawing. Does this have any relevance to potential criminal charges? No and no. Prosecuting someone for artwork of fictional jailbait sets a dangerous & irresponsible precedent. I hope the sentence is overturned on appeal. I’m far more offended by this travesty of “justice” than I am by someone’s creepy manga.
7 Likes
[quote=“Rob”]
Once the inferred motive behind possession of [drawings, art, expression] is deemed dangerous enough in itself to permit legal sanction, it doesn’t actually matter how explicit it is. The inference or innuendo alone then–to borrow a term from the judge in this case–“encourages” criminal thought.[/quote]
It’s not just that you can’t permit criminalization of disgusting thoughts (or their private expression) without admitting that other thoughts (or their private expression) might be inherently criminal too.
The problem with thoughtcrimes is that once you’ve agreed they exist, you don’t need the evidence to be offensive or vile or explicit in its own right. You just need the evidence to show that it’s there.
6 Likes
So you’re right on board with interventions for everyone who plays GTA or Call of Duty, since those are violent games with “realistic” depictions of murder, right? After all, anyone who plays those is at "greater risk of committing an offense in the future, right? They must be mentally ill for enjoying crap like that after all.
Do you actually think about the words that come out of you? I recommend that you try.
2 Likes
Do you think people should be allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater? I think not. All rights have limits and are not all or nothing things. Giving up the right to create and consume virtual child pornography for the good of society as a whole is a perfectly rational thing to do. I do not think that the producers and consumers of virtual child pornography should be treated as criminals, though. They are clearly mentally-ill and in need of treatment and understanding support. No one chooses to be a pedophile and those that fight to not act on their impulses deserve our compassion and help.
Pedophilia is a mental illness that needs treatment, and consumption of child pornography, be it real or virtual, is a clear sign of that mental illness. Playing video games, violent or not, is a sign of having time to kill and money to spend on them and not much else.
1 Like
It really depends what the law is (and I am definitely not looking up UK laws, I’ve made that mistake before).
Check out Canada’s Law:
a photographic, film, video or other visual representation
that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years
any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act
It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age
So drawings count in Canada, even fictional writings that don’t include any visual depictions count. Even a film or video of actors who are over 18 is child porn is the characters they portray are under 18.
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence (a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.
So basically the defense involves whether a judge/jury subjectively thinks it is art, or how they assess the risk posed by the creation and distribution of it.
Child porn laws can be frighteningly overbroad. This story sounds way too thought-police-y for me. Personally the stories that really scare me are the ones where teenagers get arrested for sexting each other. In Canada that’s child porn even if you aren’t sending pictures!
1 Like
Compare and contrast:
1 Like
I wonder how these laws are squared with, say, some of the stuff in Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie’s Lost Girls.
3 Likes
I think the more accurate comparison would be whether you can make a crowd simulator of people escaping a burning theater and post it on the internet…
7 Likes
Exactly this, and this is where trying to legislate people’s inferred thoughts becomes nothing more than the personal prejudices of someone whose job it is to decide law, one way or the other.
Let’s say someone goes to an art museum and sees a classic Old Master painting of a bunch of cherubs and the infant Jesus, and they’re all naked with exposed genitals. The guy stands there for awhile, staring at them. Maybe he takes a photograph, or sketches them. Is he (a) an art student, studying the style of classic renaissance/baroque painting? or (b) someone lustfully staring at baby Jesus’ penis? Is it the job of a museum guard to infer the fellow’s inner thoughts and call the cops on a suspected pedophile?
When someone else can decide for themselves what’s going on in someone else’s brain, and pass legal judgement on them as to their impact on society, it gives those in that position a frightening amount of power to legislate their own personal morals.
8 Likes
False equivalence to viewing cartoon images of children.
Again, false equivalence.
For those whose only “offence” has been against virtual children, will this treatment be compulsory?
Perhaps his viewing of virtual images IS his fight not to act on his impulses with real children.
6 Likes
Or Lolita?
6 Likes
Exactly the question I feel this case raises. The usual rationale for child pornography laws is that the children are hurt, or exploited. But cases like this give the lie to that reasoning - since the manga artist almost certainly used no live models, who has been harmed? It really is the naughty thoughts of the reader that are criminalized.
Crusaders against pornography in general like to say that “pornography causes rape.” But well-documented studies have disproved this. Pornograpy causes masturbation, and that’s icky.
6 Likes
