Forum - View topicNEWS: Virginia Man Found Guilty of Downloading Child Porn
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cyrax777
 Posts: 1825 Location: the desert |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sorry thats what i meant |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daxomni
 Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think some people are simply jumping to conclusions here. It's not yet possible to say how the law will be interpreted because we don't yet have a situation where the one and only charge is buying, selling, or possessing hentai/ero/ecchi anime, manga, or software.
It's possible that eventually even a simple bishoujo title could land you in jail, or maybe it will still be legal to own the most depraved lolicon you can imagine. We can't know this for certain until a more clear-cut case is before the courts. If and when someone is charged with posessing, selling, buying, or trading exclusively cartoonish erotica that appears to feature minors, you'll eventually have your answer. From what I can tell the number of hentai importers has actually been growing if anything. So, until they all pack up and quit my guess is that we can assume that hentai will remain legal for the time being. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
angel_lover
 Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks, I'm glad there's someone else here who can read and think before they start emoting all over the place. I'm not trying to excuse child pornography. I'm honest enough to admit that lolicon (but not moe-fixation) is clearly a type of pedophilia, but I do challenge the common assumption that pedophiles are child molesters "in waiting". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ryuujin00
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The original articles have to be giving incomplete info, i just don't see how all those charges could have been charged to one occassion on one govt computer. It's possible he sat there for an extended period of time but you've got to think that they'd been building a case against him. Some of the stuff he did sounds like stuff that could accidentally happen to anyone.
It's all so vague, what constitutes "receiving" and "distributing"? Did he get and send them in emails? Was he using *insert your favorite form of P2P*? Was he surfing sites? The majority of people get a ton of junk email they never open what's to say one time you accidentally open one intending something else and wham kiddie porn pops up. You downloaded the email and and received it so wouldn't that make you guilty of receiving even if it wasn't your intention? Same thing with if he was at a site, everyone has at one time or another accidentally clicked on a link that landed them somewhere they never had any intention of being. Lots of these sites have pop-up loops, those can be seen as "hits" as we all know (all you have to do is check a cookie's history). I'd imagine the real story goes like this, man gets busted initially, he's out on parole, resumes his previous actions, goes to virginia employment commission, gets caught there, they go back and find out everything he's been doing since he got out, they seize all his computer stuff, etc. Great news blurbs really, they get the shock factor across with a minimum amount of info. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Andromeda
Posts: 119 Location: Florida |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How do you "accidentally" write emails describing sexual activities with minors?  Seriously.
Besides, the article never said that he did all of those in one day, did it?
Buy a dictionary, please.
From the mention of email in the article, I'd say yes.
Here's what to say that wouldn't happen under pop ups and such: Even public schools have software on their networks sophisticated enough that it logs EXACTLY how long a person spent on a site. If it's several minutes or several hours, it's usually a sure bet that it's intentional and not accidental. And I'm sure programs for email also log when a message was opened vs. when it was deleted, too. You seem to assume computers can't do any of that, for some reason.
1. He's on probation, isn't he? They are SUPPOSED to keep tabs on him. They wouldn't be doing their job if they hadn't been.
2. Didn't someone say something about "government" computers or a work computer? You do know that in those cases, it is perfectly legal to be monitered?
I imagine your imagination is pretty confused, because that wasn't a very coherent imagining. They've been monitoring him the whole time since he was put on probation (or was it parole? I've seen both terms used here ). They're supposed to.
Well, I have to agree on that much. Although I don't think it counts as legally "setting a precedence" until it's gone to higher courts, which this hasn't. So it's even less precedence-setting than you're assuming, from a legal standpoint. 
-Andromeda |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ryuujin00
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You're taking some of what i wrote way too literally.
The descriptions i agree on i was referring to the receiving of pictures. Which was meant as a rhetorical question.
"In March we reported on a man in Virginia who faced life in prison for, among other things, downloading anime-child pornography on a computer at the Virginia Employment Commission." Might just be me, but that sounds like the description for a one-shot deal, not something that happened over a period of weeks or months. I'm going on the assumption that he was there as a visitor and not an employee since he was convicted of a crime and has it permanently on his record. It's hard (and rightfully so) for people with criminal records to get work. Which would explain why he was at the VEC (Virginia Employment Commission). Also, the main reason i don't think he's an employee is that it's extremely difficult to get a govt job short of something like custodial services if you've got a criminal record. IMO this is all the writers trying to go for the shock factor and not give the full story.
Rhetorical questions, you only make yourself look like an ass by trying to imply that a person wouldn't know something as simple as receiving and distributing.
Well aware of monitoring software, but once again since they were so vague we have no clue how long or why he was actually there. You can assume that he was there awhile, i won't though since this is a public govt. facility. Short of a library you can't get that kind of time with a computer at a govt. public facility unless you're employee. Also , if it was a log that alerted them then he'd have to have been an employee because you don't get access to programs for emails at public facilities. Everything has to be done by logging into a website ie: hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc. All this would have been cleared up had they said what he was doing there in the first place. Which only strengthens that the writers were trying their best to blow this out of proportion.
Never said they shouldn't have been monitoring him i never questioned the legality of how they got the info needed to convict him. Only that all the information wasn't collected in one day from one place like the articles imply.
How am i confused? Most of that is fact. 1. He did get busted one time and was convicted. 2. He was either paroled or given probation. If you're ever convicted of a crime you're always put on either parole or probation (they're the same thing, the only difference is how long the period is and whether or not you serve extended jail time before you get it. you serve no extended jail time with probation). 3. He did resume his previous activities. If we wouldn't even be discussing this. 4. He did go to the VEC and look at child pornography and was caught. I only added in that they probably got additional evidence (other than the instance at the VEC) and that it likely came from his home computers. They would have had to seize his computers to get the evidence. I know i simplified it like hell orginally but how exactly am i confused on any of that?
I wasn't implying it as a legal precendent but that the precendent was that they took action. If they're willing to do this much work to convict someone they'll be willing to do this much work again. Which is pretty important imo. I never had any problem with legailty or right and wrong of the case itself, only with how vague the stories on them were. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Andromeda
Posts: 119 Location: Florida |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No, I'm taking it the way you wrote it. Don't blame me if YOU didn't think about how you were wording things, or if you didn't think about what you were saying before you said it. 
First: I was actually honestly asking, it wasn't a rhetorical question (it would have been more sarcastic, had it been rhetorical). Because the article page was screwing up on me at the time, so I couldn't double-check. Second: Where the FRIG would you get that as a valid point? No, really. Where? All that means is that he used the same computer. I don't care where it was, 1.) there's a chance he could get access to it more than once 2.) Whether or not it was all in one shot is, technically speaking, irrelevant to begin with; the fact that he downloaded THAT much porn is verifiable fact. and 3.) If he DID download it all in one shot, that makes it HIGHLY unlikely that it was an "accident". It also suggests a compulsion or addiction. Believe it or not, you CAN get psychological help in prison. Additionally, while not everyone who looks at child porn is a pedophile, having the compulsion to look at young children being sexually abused is, needless to say alarming. There is nothing to say it COULDN'T go further than looking at pictures (you have to realize, courts try as much for prevention as they do for punishment a lot of the time). Additionally, his lawyer might have done a better job defending him, if you ask me. Sounds like he could have plead insanity of some sort... but then, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure.
Yes. Your point? All that means is he was using public resources to download child pornography. That just makes it worse. And there isn't anything that says he couldn't have visited more than once, is there? Like you said, he has a criminal record now, so he's going to be hard to hire. It's not inconcievable that he could have been to the VEC more than once. Do I wish that the article had been more specific on this point? Yes. But it doesn't mean that my question had no merit under the circumstances, either. Although the answer to my question is, in fact, irrelevant anyway, so I'm not sure exactly why you bothered to get defensive about it.
THey would have said he worked there, probably, if he did. But, notice that I never said he did work there. I just asked a perfectly valid question about where the computer was located, and noted that if it wasn't a home computer, then it could be legally monitered without violating privacy laws.
WTF? OK, that was a joek the first time. Now I'm actually serious. You're accusing me there of using a literary term that doesn't describe what I did. That's not a rhetorical question.
THIS is a rhetorical question: "It's not like we have all the time in the world, is it?" THAT wasn't, though. I'm not sure what it was, but it wasn't any form of "question" so hence, it is automatically NOT a "rhetorical question".
Irrelevant. He still downloaded dozens of porn pics and exchanged sexually explicit emails that discussed fantasies involving minors. Both of which are illegal, and both of which violated his parole. If he were only on any of the sites for a moment or two, don't you think his lawyer would have argued that point in court? Additionally, we have the improbability of "accidentally" downloading porn pics on a server that I'm guessing is meant for job searches. Especially that many.
Interesting, and if true, makes it worse. Either way, he was using a govt. computer for porn, using up valuable resources paid for by taxpayers to feed his illegal fetish. AND violating parole.
OK. Again, this doesn't negate anything I said. In fact, the question about "didn't it say it was a...or work computer?" is validated by what you just said. So, care to explain why you're getting defensive on this point, again?
Actually, I think it would be even more scandalous if he had been employed by them. So I think this is, on that point, more a case of the government trying to stay as quiet as they can, since he was, however he managed to get access to it, using a government computer/server, which is potentially quite embarassing for them.
Ah. See, your previous post implied that.
...which I didn't disagree with, actually. So, again, defensive much?
It was the wording that made not much sense to me at the time, actually (I was, however, very sleepy, so I believe that was my fault). Hence the "coherent" mention. Apologies, though. On a second reading, it makes somewhat more sense, even though you still assumed things the article did not actually imply towards the end.
On #2: Thanks! I was wondering why people were using both. 
If we wouldn't even be discussing this what? You may want to proofread your posts before you post them.
OK then. The way you said it the first time was strange to my eyes (again, I was sleepy, though). Thank you for clarifying.
No, actually, you made it long and rambling. Lists will ALWAYS be simpler than run-on sentences. I'm pretty sure I would have understood the list even when I was sleepy.
Um, you're not. I was. (I think you mean "confusing"?)
It's spelled "precedent".
Also, it isn't a very good idea to throw that word around when discussing a court case. ESPECIALLY if what you mean is not a legal precedent.
However, your post did not entirely argue that well.
-Andromeda |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ganryu
Posts: 106 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As i've kept saying again and again and again in discussions of this type: There is one central issue that HAS to be solved in order for any law like this to make sense, and because the issue can't be solved in any logical way, the laws will never make sense.
To identify child porn in real life you can do so by identifying the child and determining his/her age at the time the picture was taken. Shouldn't be too hard. A child does, after all, have a defineable AGE. Fictional characters do not have an age. It is undeterminable. As such, there are only two ways that the free-speech enemies can go to combat this material. Method one is by making illegal any depiction of a character who claims, or is claimed to be, underage. For the producers, then, the only thing to do is to claim in the material itself that the character in question is of legal age (rofl) and suddenly the depiction is legal. This is therefore easily circumventable by lolicon authors, and as such not preferable for the anti-free-speech people. Method two is by attempting to determine the age of the character in question using the appearance of said character. Compared to the first method, this one causes a different type of problem (which might not be a problem to the anti-free-speech people, but whatever). This is that by using a character's appearance to determine age of a fictional character you're essentially saying that any pornographic picture of a girl that LOOKS underage is illegal. This last one might not seem that bad, until you realize that the law must have to be written to only relate to fully cg generated material, otherwise it will also affect photographic porn of girls who are of legal age but LOOK YOUNGER (the anti-porn crusaders would LOVE THIS). The result would be hesitation from porn producers to use models that COULD to some people look like they are underage... And I for one don't want to whack off to the resulting granny porn. Even if the last method could be solved by excluding photographic porn from the law, how do you determine if a fictional character is 17 or 18 from a drawing? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fallcon
Posts: 13 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ok I think you peoples have cleared up alot of the this subject on seeing how this effects people looking at this type of hentai.
But so far i have not really see anyone try and answer one of the real questions. "How will this affect manga/anime?" Because some manga in the North America has naked children with the sexual parts taken out(Blanked out some how), even in the prints in japan. So will some of the manga be taken out of North America, and will the people who bought those manga or anime may, or could be charged for having already bought those manga or anime???
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
blackstardrag84
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
^^ This I think is the real question...I mean if depictions of underage girls being raped is illegal is owning the Berserk manga gonna suddenly land me in jail? In the manga there are at least two instances that I can think of where the it is stated that the girl in question is underage.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TiredGamer
 Posts: 246 Location: Florida |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I invite you to read this. Now... can you tell me that it can be argued with a straight face that hentai and doujins have enough artistic quality to be protected against charges of obscenity? 'Cause that's what a lawyer is going to have to argue in order to prevent Timmy from being labeled a paedophile when the principal of his high school conducts the usual random search of lockers and finds his stash of Sailor Moon doujins. Sticking your head in the sand and figuring it will go away is an excellent way to ensure the worst outcome. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TiredGamer
Posts: 246 Location: Florida |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Some child pornography cases have been thrown out because the images were digitally manipulated to throw into doubt the age of the child and even if the child existed. Hence we get the CPPA Act and PROTECT Act. (Yay for sledgehammer justice!)
A judge and jury will be the ones to decide if a particular piece of material depicts a child or minor. Do you think the average person, when faced with most hentai and doujins, will not be disgusted and label it obscene? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kazuki-san
 Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Let's go over the Miller test piece-by-piece. Firstly, it must satisfy all 3 parts to be considered obscene. Part 1: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. So, what are these community standards? They are not well defined, but it can be state, county, city, that sort of thing. And what standards? It's what the average person (not the porno king or the "wipe porn off the face of the earth" person, just an average person) finds acceptable in the community. These vary from region to region. Prurient is: inordinate and unhealthy sexual interest or desire. Prurient is another standard that differs from place-to-place. So who does the jury define such standards? Well, people from both sides go out and research the standards and the jury is instructed on them. If I can find stats that say "57% percent of the people in this community have watched a hentai before (rather generic but just an example)," then the standard would be that hentai is acceptable to the average person in that community and the jury would have to consider accordingly. It should also be noted that in none of this is the jury supposed to use their individual opinion of things (although it probably happens), they are supposed to use only the community standard. 2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. Once again, what is "patently offensive" differs between communities. It undergoes the same treatment as the first part, and must have state law behind it. 3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This is an issue to be decided by the court, and is not subject to community standards. It should be noted though, that even porn is generally merited as having artistic value. Note the obscenity case in Utah, where a video store owner (normal video store with an adult section) was prosecuted for "peddling obscenity." A defense investigator dug up the pay-per-view records of local marriots as well as those from local cable/satellite companies. Needless to say, x-rated material was very popular on those systems. This was introduced as evidence of "acceptable community standards" in the case. The jury took only minutes to acquit him of the charge.
And screaming "the sky is falling" doesn't help either. What most people forget when they argue about these things is that similar laws have been in the books for years upon years without the police state springing up. The same standards apply to normal porn, yet it's still a thriving industry, that *most* communities have open (legal) access to.
An average, run-of-the-mill hentai? I don't see why, since it's not likely to be much different from the porn movies most people on the jury watch and/or have seen, with the exception of it being animated vs. real. No don't get me wrong, I certainly believe some laws go a bit too far in what they are trying to do. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ProfessorOhki
Posts: 5 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thats what you call bad logic... Rapists (of adults) may subscribe to playboy.. playboy is obviously causing them rape, or is somehow enticing them to. (Which.. is actually slightly arguable in a sociological discussion how women are portrayed..) Don't you think its a tad more likely that the people who like little kids in reality, like them on paper too. Rather than the other way around? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
angel_lover
Posts: 645 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The sky may not be falling yet, but as the late Justice William O. Douglas warned, don't you think it's getting a little dark in here?
Yes, but it's still bad logic if you confuse people who like little kids (pedophiles) with people who hate little kids (child molesters). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group