Forum - View topic

NEWS: Twins, 20, Jailed for Child Porn Including 'Manga' Images

If he isn't going to fight it...did he (Your boyfriend) only look at the virtual porn? If so than this IS about virtual child porn if someone looking at real child porn and someone looking at manga are given the same sentence.

David looked at shota at one point on Forosdz.com, merely because he came across it. (This case started before they separated the shota in to its own sub-forum.) He never downloaded it, nor the real kiddy porn. His twin admitted to everything being his.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Somehow I don't think that they would let someone convicted of child porn in the US. These types would be called "undesireables".

He's going to need an immigration attorney anyways.

Quote:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Somehow I don't think that they would let someone convicted of child porn in the US. These types would be called "undesireables". He's going to need an immigration attorney anyways.

But entrapment is wrong. It's not unusual to clear innocent people eventually, though some end up spending years in jail. David was denied his right to speak with an attorney. He should have kept his mouth shut until he got that attorney, but most people who are innocent don't really see the need because they ARE innocent. The facts should prove them out, but law enforcement looking for a quick positive pr on busting a child molestor OH MY! know this & know how to manipulate their defendants. It's the criminals who know the system who know to keep quiet until that atty shows up.

The plea bargain thing sounds like what Polanski is claiming--that he had a deal but allegedly got word the Judge was going to change it in the name of getting publicity. Looks pretty good on that re-election bid "hard on child abusers".

Pursue the gal. If she did load it on there, she's up for something-entrapment, perjury, something. Some people are just evil & she sounds like it. It sounds like the family's done their share for her & she's just nasty.
The atty should have an idea how to handle this. Maybe a different one is needed. Realistically there are ways to play this-public sympathy for someone wrongely accused, but the child abuse factor could make for automatic judgement. Look how quick people here were to jump on the "fry in hell forever" side. I would think at least a few guys could relate to the false accusation, but gals can be pretty unsympathetic on sex issues & kids as are parents in general. (speaking as a chick who's heard her share of lynch-type talk from parents as my daughter progressed thru school)

Sankaku has a corresponding article: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/10/23/shotacon-twins-jailed-manga-victimises-children/ (NSFW)

This is a crime that victimizes young people around the world. It creates a market which then re-victimizes the most vulnerable in society.

All of this has nothing to do with immigration. The guy's got a conviction for child porn no less. That's what counts in the end imo.

He should save his money and stay in Canada imo. Get an attorney if he's that gun-ho on coming here.

1. In Canadian constitutional law, legislation that violates a right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is permissible if the government can justify it under s. 1. The analytical framework for assessing Charter violations is set out in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 26 D.L.R. (4th) 200 (S.C.C.), and has two conditions. First, the objective of the legislation must be pressing and substantial. Second, the means chosen to attain this legislative end must be reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. This test is met by showing that the violation is rationally connected to the aim of the legislation; that the impugned legislation minimally impairs the Charter right; and that there is a proportionality between the effect of the measure and its objective so that the attainment of the legislative goal is not outweighed by the contraction of the right.

3. In describing the scope of rights protected under the Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada has broadly interpreted “freedom of expression” to protect virtually any expressive activity. Therefore there is little debate that this protection extends to child pornography. What is in question is whether restricting the right of an individual to possess or use child pornography will be constitutionally justifiable.

6. Two experts gave evidence for the Crown. One testified that the Internet has facilitated an explosion in the availability of child pornography. The other was a clinical psychiatrist who offered four reasons why child pornography was harmful.

7. He testified that some pedophiles show sexually explicit depictions of children with adults in order to lower inhibitions and to make the depicted conduct appear to be normal. Second, pornography excites some child molesters to commit offenses. Third, child pornography augments or reinforces the “cognitive distortions” of pedophiles. Lastly, children are abused in the making of pornography and the material is a record of that abuse.

8. Tendered into evidence were two studies supporting the expert evidence. One found that child molesters have a greater exposure to pornography than do those who commit sexual assault on adults. On the other hand, child molesters were more likely than others to employ pornography as a means of relieving an impulse to commit an unlawful act.

9. There was no evidence led that the “cognitive distortions” referred to above cause any significant increase in danger to children.

10. Mr. Justice Shaw, who was the Trial Court Judge summarized his findings of fact as follows:
1. Sexually explicit pornography involving children poses a danger to children because of its use by pedophiles in the seduction process.
2. Children are abused in the production of filmed or videotaped pornography.
3. "Highly erotic" pornography incites some pedophiles to commit offences.
4. "Highly erotic" pornography helps some pedophiles relieve pent-up sexual tension.
5. It is not possible to say which of the two foregoing effects is the greater.
6. "Mildly erotic" pornography appears to inhibit aggression.
7. Pornography involving children can be a factor in augmenting or reinforcing a pedophile's cognitive distortions.
8. There is no evidence which demonstrates an increase in harm to children as a result of pornography augmenting or reinforcing a pedophile's cognitive distortions.
9. The dissemination of written material which counsels or advocates sexual offences against children poses some risk of harm to children.

Please don't turn your entire posts in to one giant link. Place your citation links in parentheses following the paragraphs or sentences in which they are relevant, otherwise it's just excessive. If you have to link text, then link only a few key words, not entire sentences and certainly not the entirety of a paragraph as you did here.

Plus, I have to also warn you that what you posted is a whole lot of nothing just to make a very simple point that you've already made a dozen times before. It's great that you did your homework, but a lot of that was irrelevant or barely relevant. The masturbation habits of teens doesn't really factor in much to the bottom line here. I applaud that you decided to back up your statements with actual studies and evidence, few people do that, but unfortunately a lot of it just doesn't go anywhere and it ends up as a tremendous eyesore with large blocks of text linked at a time.

Link to relevant information, that's fine and is even beneficial provided that information really does have a bearing on the discussion, but try to do so in a cleaner fashion, and try to show a bit of restraint and stick to the truly meaningful information.

(is Canada more lax about this or something or was it just the US court system being a jerk to Handley by overblowing the situation here?)