Forum - View topic

NEWS: French Man Gets 1-Year Sentence for 'Manga Pornography'

I know the phrase I was just trying to be subtle about it.

Mister wright do you have a problem with charging someone for having child pronography because that is what they charged him with (and gave him the lightest sentence possible probably since it was drawn and not a real 6-8 that was getting rapped).

Really?!

When found in possession of something that depicts illegal actions and making a comment online. This is profiling to the highest degree.

then outlawing dissenting opinions regarding the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey)

is it a thought crime yes, but the guy should get court appointed counselling, jail time probably not, but certainly counselling because people like it or not your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, and your actions define you.

enurtsol wrote:

then outlawing dissenting opinions regarding the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey)

This shouldn't be that controversial. Many European countries (including France) already have laws against Holocaust denial.

jl07045 wrote:

enurtsol wrote: then outlawing dissenting opinions regarding the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) This shouldn't be that controversial. Many European countries (including France) already have laws against Holocaust denial.

Yes but it has angered Turkey, and it's straining the relationship between Turkey and France. The Armenian genocide is different from the Holocaust . Turkey refuse to recognize this event as genocide to them. This is why Turkey and France has a bit of a strain relation after France announce the outlaw of Armenian genocide denial.

tempest wrote:

Sorrior wrote: As for this case i really thought France was better than this. Well, they're better than Canada and the US. Similar cases in North America that we've reported on resulted in much harsher sentences. Regardless "not as bad as the other country" still isn't "good."

They're not better, they're just different. France and Canada, along with several other countries, make no distinction between virtual and real for child porn charges, though the punishment can differ.

In the US, the charge (1466a) is not the same, though the punishment is just as bad *if convicted* (which is why many choose plea bargains under the threat, even if they could potentially win) but the requirements are higher and more complex. The only good thing about the Handley case is that defense was able to get a Federal judge to remove parts of 1466a on 1st amendment grounds. It now requires interstate commerce, and proving the material is obscene (via Miller test; courts).

While there is a whole other debate on the exception of obscenity for 1st amendment (NOTE: this means it's not protected, NOT banned; most regular porn could qualify as obscene), that last part about actually proving legal obscenity in the courts is why law enforcement in general and the FBI don't bother preemptively. If not for that, could have a very easy time since it's all out in the open and published commercially. I have mentioned before that the FBI investigated 4chan for other incidents. They are well aware of what goes on there.

IF the virtual stuff were treated as the real stuff in the US--very black and white like those other countries (e.g. UK, NZ, Canada, France, Sweden, Germany, etc)--then 4chan, sankaku and a ton of other sites, as well as commercial publications, and even Amazon, would be no more. Web hosts and blogging services would explicitly prohibit you from posting any nude or explicit drawings of what may be judged a minor too, but obviously they don't.

Though this is a federal law, proving obscenity legally requires judgement on the local level (this also brings up 10th amendment vs commerce clause, but that is another issue) That means deferring to state laws and courts. Some states don't have any laws against it and others explicitly allow it, like California for example:

Quote:

Even though it may depict children engaged in sexually explicit activities, there are some types of "content" that are excluded from child pornography prosecutions. Possessing "pornographic" images of minors in drawings, figurines, statues or in films that have been rated by the Motion Picture Association of America are exempt from California child pornography laws.[17]

(CA also makes an exception allowing obscene materials to be distributed to 18+ and minors by guardians)
for example, remember that JList is in CA, MediaBlasters is in NY

I wonder if attitudes about paedphiles are significantly misguided. I think that acting upon paedophilic urges should be sorely discouraged and punished, but scorning paedophiles themselves seems unwarranted and unproductive. We treat them as innately criminal, but I don't know that doing so is fair. I can't imagine anybody choosing to be a paedophile, so I'm left to think that it might be something written into their biology, thus beyond their control.

Whatever the case, I certainly don't think that anybody should face legal action for at worst being really creepy.

Tanteikingdomkey wrote:

is it a thought crime yes, but the guy should get court appointed counselling, jail time probably not, but certainly counselling because people like it or not your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, and your actions define you.

Wow. That's... amazing. So, okay. Right now, I'm thinking that I want you to have $1 million...

Do you have $1 million yet? But I *thought* it as hard as I could!

Maybe, just maybe, what I think doesn't mean a damn thing in the real world. Thoughts don't become anything. In fact, maybe I didn't actually think that I wanted you to have $1 million; how would you know? You're not a mind-reader, are you?

If someone actually attempts to harm a child... well, we have laws for that, don't we? And are you saying that everyone who fantasizes about something will definitely act upon it, or even that they would *want* to act upon it if they could? Speaking for myself, I can think of a whole lot of things that sound fine from a distance, but that I wouldn't want anything at all to do with in reality.

So, I'm sorry, but while those words of yours I quoted above may sound nice, they aren't very accurate: thoughts don't always lead to words, and words don't always lead to actions.

Tuor_of_Gondolin wrote:

Tanteikingdomkey wrote: is it a thought crime yes, but the guy should get court appointed counselling, jail time probably not, but certainly counselling because people like it or not your thoughts become your words, your words become your actions, and your actions define you. Wow. That's... amazing. So, okay. Right now, I'm thinking that I want you to have $1 million... Do you have $1 million yet? But I *thought* it as hard as I could! Maybe, just maybe, what I think doesn't mean a damn thing in the real world. Thoughts don't become anything. In fact, maybe I didn't actually think that I wanted you to have $1 million; how would you know? You're not a mind-reader, are you? If someone actually attempts to harm a child... well, we have laws for that, don't we? And are you saying that everyone who fantasizes about something will definitely act upon it, or even that they would *want* to act upon it if they could? Speaking for myself, I can think of a whole lot of things that sound fine from a distance, but that I wouldn't want anything at all to do with in reality. So, I'm sorry, but while those words of yours I quoted above may sound nice, they aren't very accurate: thoughts don't always lead to words, and words don't always lead to actions.

ok smart alack, if you say a group is sub human and deserve to die guess what happens a genocide. and you already charge people for one minor step above thought crimes. maybe you have heard of them, their called slander, libel, and racism/discrimination

sorry mad scientist I wasn't trying t to be a smart alack, just explaining why I wrote what I did

ok smart alack, if you say a group is sub human and deserve to die guess what happens a genocide. and you already charge people for one minor step above thought crimes. maybe you have heard of them, their called slander, libel, and racism/discrimination

sorry mad scientist I wasn't trying t to be a smart alack, just explaining why I wrote what I did

I don't really buy the 'thought crime' rationale. It seems unnecessarily grandiose and doesn't really make sense. The segment of the population that could be controlled this way and the extent to which they could be controlled hardly seems to fit any grand plan of psychological oppression. This kind of moral busybodydom probably has simpler, pettier motivations. Paedophiles are easy to hate and zealously hating them might be a way to gain or sustain social status.

ok smart alack, if you say a group is sub human and deserve to die guess what happens a genocide

Nevermind that; it should be objectionable enough that such laws abrogate freedom of speech. If liberties are to be founded upon meaningful principle, then one can't really pick and choose who enjoys them, no matter how distasteful. The proper reply to bad speech is good speech, not to use the sword of law to silence it. (Well, I might cut the Germans some slack, after all, they're German)

and you already charge people for one minor step above thought crimes. maybe you have heard of them, their called slander, libel, and racism/discrimination

sorry mad scientist I wasn't trying t to be a smart alack, just explaining why I wrote what I did