Forum - View topicNEWS: U.K. Man Sentenced for Prohibited Images of 'Manga' Children
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Greboruri
Posts: 378 Location: QBN, NSW, Australia |
|
|||||||||
I don’t know why you think that is a complex issue. It’s fiction, not reality. The only real issue you might have with your “someone made drew or modeled characters with the likeness of a real person and then animated that” is maybe defamation. The problem with real child porn is that real children are abused in the production of that. Though animated or drawn child porn may be as distasteful as hell to most of the population, it’s still fiction. It’s not real. The UK “Dangerous Cartoons Act” is a dreadful piece of legislation which criminalises people who don’t really harm anyone else. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Blanchimont
 Posts: 3453 Location: Finland |
|
|||||||||
Yes I am, if it's fictional drawings and no victims were involved in making them. I let the post after yours rephrase that;
I wonder how long a sentence my collection of ComicLO would have netted, had I lived in UK?... |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
WSJ4L
Posts: 5 |
|
|||||||||
That's exactly what I thought. Are series like that now gonna be banned in the UK? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Kutsu
Posts: 570 |
|
|||||||||
Yes. Just like I'm fine with depictions of women being raped, kids being naked, orgies etc. Some of these depictions can even have artistic value, as history has shown. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
WSJ4L
Posts: 5 |
|
|||||||||
What if one were to own anime with high school girls exposing themselves? They're still under 18 and are therefore legally children, so where is the line drawn? And it doesn't say he had loli porn, it just says "young children". How young is "young"? Last edited by WSJ4L on Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
EighteenSky
|
|
|||||||||
|
Wow this case is really disturbing. Reading similar cases from other countries was bad enough but to see something like this happen in your own country makes it feel even more worrisome and real.
|
||||||||||
|
Blanchimont
Posts: 3453 Location: Finland |
|
|||||||||
Probably that one. At least very likely... |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Touma
 Posts: 2651 Location: Colorado, USA |
|
|||||||||
|
Maybe I am going to get into an argument.
The implications are not different. You watch the action movie because you want to see things get blown up. You watch pornography because you want to watch people having sex. Whether or not the people are children is irrelevant to the argument. In both cases you just want to watch. The only difference is in what you are watching. There are no different implications. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
XSp
Posts: 255 |
|
|||||||||
|
The usual witchhunt.
Again and again, there is no legal, scientific, non-controversial study that links lolicon/shotacon manga and whatnot to pedophile behaviour. Shure, some pedophiles might go after the material, just as violent people might go after violent games, but correlation does not equal causation. If you defend that this guy got what he deserved and is against the people's versus violent games cruzade, you are a hypocrite. It's the same thing. Fictional scenarios - be it in books, music, movies, series or animation should not and cannot be censored, prosecuted and criminalized - nor it's consumers be prosecuted, victims of prejudice and whatnot - because this is an essencial part of what constitutes "freedom". Just because you personally don't like the content doesn't mean that it should be criminalized. When judges start deciding law based on morality, what you have is a totalitarian system ruling over society. There is absolutely no proof that this guy was commiting any sort of crime, being damaging to society overall, and that he would become or is a pedophile. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which the subject feels sexually attracted to real children. You cannot and should not equate fictional depictions as real. The moment you do, you should be subject to psychological evaluation yourself, namely the judge. Law should be greater than feeble personal opinnions, and things like, I quote: "This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without". This is an opinnion. It should not be held in court. The judge is making a personal accessment of what society and the public can do with, and it isn't right. It's moralistic and megalomanic to think that he could. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if "the more the ill-disposed may think it's acceptable". We are inundated by socially acceptable content everyday that the more ill-disposed may think is acceptable. Movies, series, news among other things that not only shoves violence in the face of it's expectators, but also poses it as acceptable behaviour. The immorality or inconsequential behaviour of celebrities set as examples to be followed by kids. Our society is based on such concepts. Ill-disposed people have a wide ranging stream of sources to go for. Which is why one of the pillars of education is separating fact from fiction. If people were really worried about problems regarding sexual abuse and this psychological condition known as pedophilia, we wouldn't be using fictional scenarios and it's consumers in this fruitless witchhunt. But the actions needed to prevent such things are far more complex, expensive and problematic - deeply rooted into societies - which is why sensationalistic measures like this one arise. We'd have to work more into education, security, public services, and restricting far more of the content freely available out there even on public networks from children. We could go into the side effects of hypocritical moralism preached by some religions and how it ends up having an opposite effect on society. We could go after celebrities who keeps preaching on their music and artforms about sex and about shitty relationships, all of which children often have free access to. But no, we choose to go after a guy that, while he might have questionable tastes, keeps it to himself. Our society as a whole can never evolve if that's the way we choose to do things. It's pure unadultered bullshit. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
CatSword
 Posts: 1489 |
|
|||||||||
|
...Doesn't Strike Witches have a 12 certificate in this country?
And isn't this the same country that used to have countdowns to when a female celebrity turned 16 so she could pose nude on page 3 of The Sun? I am beyond words. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
GateCrusherDX
Posts: 15 |
|
|||||||||
|
LOL, the apologists haven't watched the link I've posted. You're proving BB's point. Comparing those who masturbate of have images of CHILDREN to violent video games is rather dumb. Being addicted to violent games does not mean that you will commit XXX shooting, but masturbating or having attraction to underage characters, whether or not it be real is WHY this is wrong. It is pedophilia. As BB said, masturbating to Baby Trunks is fucked up. It doesn't matter if he's real or not. It is his CONCEPT that is why such an action is disturbing. None of you have yet to answer or debunk this fact. Call me a conservative or backwards, but those "pejoratives" do not erase the truth. If anything, it means that I have standards.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
TD912
 Posts: 274 |
|
|||||||||
I think some people don't understand that "arms" = "guns". Not "arms" as the body parts. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
EyeOfPain
Posts: 312 |
|
|||||||||
I think some people understand that distinction just fine. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Nemo_N
Posts: 272 |
|
|||||||||
If you can't separate fact from fiction, you should seek professional help. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||||||
|
Shit, we don't even have to be discussing child-like depictions, any 16 or 17 year old character would be considered the same thing.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group