Forum - View topicNEWS: Canadian Man Guilty of Possessing Pornographic Anime
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
enurtsol
 Posts: 14795 |
|
|||||
Well, I wouldn't put Japan as the epitome of understanding neither. They're the biggest exporters of "sex tourists" in Southeast Asia, after all. 
And not all doujins are that awesome. 
I'll just cap this by repeating what I mentioned here: This commentary about "Govt uses Obscenity Law to stuff up cartoon sex loophole" pertains to a UK case, but it makes good points on both sides of the debate: The key question is why one should need to do something about such material. That is not to defend it or advocate its possession: rather, it is to highlight concern that the current climate of hysteria over child protection makes it very difficult for our legislators to explore the underlying issues without the risk of having their motives questioned. The first and most important issue is whether this proposed law will make matters better – or worse. Existing laws on child porn have at their core the very reasonable contention that the mere existence – let alone circulation – of photos of child abuse contribute to the further abuse of a child. When it comes to wholly fictitious imagery, there is no direct harm. If the law is not simply premised on a desire to punish, then it needs to demonstrate either that it contributes to a reduction in longer term harm, or that it will do no worse than the status quo. The pictures in question may be odious, but do they "reinforce inappropriate feelings" - or do they act as a substitute for abuse? Moreover, if abusers have begun to collect cartoon images as a safer way to satisfy their fantasies, then could this law actually reinvigorate the market for real porn? Then there's also the question of what constitutes realistic enough in a cartoon depiction. A realistic sketch of kids drawn from pure imagination? A trace of a kiddie-porn photo but tweaked to be more cartoonish? Where to draw the line (pardon the pun)? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ergzay
Posts: 56 |
|
|||||
|
Personally I think the world "child pornography" should be banned. If it is the action of raping a someone (child or not) its obviously wrong. If you have a video of or a picture of someone being raped (child or not) it should also be wrong. THAT is what should define wrong or right. If no child or person is being harmed then it is not illegal. PERIOD
People are so paranoid about kids being talked into having sex when they are young and don't know any better, but the reality of the matter is that kids sexually mature way earlier now-a-days and most kids know plenty well what things entail from quite young ages if they haven't already done it themselves. Also kids are usually more computer savvy (and wary) than most adults so the adults are just replacing their children's knowledge of the internet with their own. There is the one issue I stated above about the rare cases of kids being talked into consensual sex. Personally this is where the case reverts to the parents. If the parents are fine with consensual sex with their child and someone else then that is where the law is drawn (or whoever the legal guardian is, and if someone doesn't like that they can try and get guardianship removed). So if their underage kid has sex or gets in a relationship or gets married to someone 20 years old than them (they would have to consent to the marriage first) and the kid has sex, if the parents don't want to press charges then it is COMPLETELY out of hand of the law. This is how things should be, and I won't rest until they are. Just because someone likes girls and ALSO happens to like young girls (real or not) doesn't all of a sudden make them incredibly likely to go out and rape one, just as much as someone liking girls over 18 all of a sudden makes the person likely to go out and rape one. |
||||||
|
||||||
jsieczka
 Posts: 150 Location: Rochester, NY |
|
|||||
This comment made me wonder about many things that makes this mess that much grayer, what if the novel, or graphic images are based off real events? Is a consumer warning that all events are fictional or that all characters are 18 a realistic protection? If graphic novels and novels are given a loop hole could we be seeing that used as a out for producers of Kiddy porn? Now most of the people making this stuff probably can't draw well at all, but would that mater to people? Even if they can't draw then writing the experience is not a challenge, and I doubt that the people who read "fictional" kiddy porn care that the story is not of Shakesparen quality. If a writer or penciler gets caught with real kiddy porn and then spills that there work was based on real events or idealized real events does that make those works illegal? For all those saying this is a black and white issue it really isn't. No law or lack of a law will fit all the categories that child pornography can fit into will prevent it from happening. That doesn't mean the legislators are not still trying to fix everything with new laws because they still are. These laws are easy to pass and get elected officials some easy voter points. Mean while every time these laws get passed it means a prosecutor has to try a case, a judge has to hear the case, and a jury can't stop and say this is stupid. |
||||||
|
||||||
hikaru004
 Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||
|
Well, data retention from surfing is now trying to be extended to 2 years from the 90-day current time period in an attempt to catch those that indulge in child porn (but the data can be used for other crimes such as illegal P2P downloading). So any thoughts of protecting privacy, etc with this issue is prob not realistic anymore.
|
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group