Forum - View topicNEWS: Supreme Court of Japan: Nude CG Images Based on Child Photos Are Pornography
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Kougeru
 Posts: 5527 |
|
|||
|
I'll defend drawings that come out of someone's mind to my death but "based off images of an actual child" is definitely, 100% messed up and very obviously had a real victim involved.
|
||||
|
||||
CatSword
 Posts: 1489 |
|
|||
|
I absolutely think this is where we should draw the line, as images that are modeled off of real child photos contain a real-life victim, compared to the fantasy scenarios and characters of typical lolicon and shotacon content.
|
||||
|
||||
Megiddo
 Posts: 8360 Location: IL |
|
|||
|
No qualm here. That stuff is CP.
|
||||
|
||||
Engineering Nerd
 Posts: 898 Location: Southern California |
|
|||
|
When you think deeper, yeah, that absolutely makes sense, since a real-life victim is involved, we should absolutely draw the line
|
||||
|
||||
residentgrigo
 Posts: 2421 Location: Germany |
|
|||
|
Finally caught up with the majority of the world. Congrats Japan.
Pixiv pure incoming. That crap site is filled with these. |
||||
|
||||
WANNFH
 Posts: 1697 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Jen Bigby
 Posts: 112 |
|
|||
You're going to be disappointed then because this isn't about typical CG loli artwork. It was specifically about 3 of the pictures in the photobook he made that were deemed too similar to the original photos used to not be transformative enough to be classified as original artwork. Presumably the 31 other images in the book were not an issue. |
||||
|
||||
|
Netero
Posts: 162 |
|
|||
|
Whilst it is clear that there is a big difference between a work entirely of the imagination and something derived from what should basically be regarded as a crime scene, the problem is that in the case of possession rather than production, typically only law enforcement agencies will know which is which.
It is one of the requirements of a just law that a person should be able to tell whether they are breaking it or not, and any law which criminalises simple possession of lolicon images based on whether or not they were derived from a real child inevitably fails that test. |
||||
|
||||
|
Halko
Posts: 107 |
|
|||
I dont believe the case described in this news post said anything about the possession of these images but rather the production of them by the defendant. The book itself could still likely be considered legal or at least it should be in japan considering their current laws and the fact that its nearly impossible for a consumer to tell the difference. I doubt they will find a list of purchasers and hunt them down for owning a copy. I see it as basically the same situation as pawn shops. Its illegal to trade in stolen goods but you cant hold the stores and customers accountable except in blatantly obvious cases. |
||||
|
||||
cookiemanstah
 Posts: 546 |
|
|||
|
regardless of it being based on reality like this article or not, do any of you wonder what goes through the mind of official illustrators that draw lolicon and their audience? It's just all straight up pedophilia with no distinction. It's catering to pedophiles by default and there's no argument against that.
Although I don't know if you people think being a pedo by default (which you are if you engage in lolicon art) is the same as being a pedo that's harmed real people. People make no distinctions with the terminology. |
||||
|
||||
Tuor_of_Gondolin
 Posts: 3524 Location: Bellevue, WA |
|
|||
|
Are actual children involved in any way? That's the line that must never be crossed, IMO.
I agree with this decision. |
||||
|
||||
|
Halko
Posts: 107 |
|
|||
These same thoughts and problems can be asked to anyone thats ever made an action or horror movie. Do you wonder whats going through Keanu Reeves or Robert Englunds mind as they portray their character killing people? Its all fantasy and as long as it stays fantasy it doesnt really matter. In the end its all just entertainment and it all depends on a persons interests and/or fetishes. At the end of the day your not a murderer for watching John Wick in the same way that your not a child molester for enjoying loli. |
||||
|
||||
Blanchimont
 Posts: 3448 Location: Finland |
|
|||
There's always been a distinction. The former is simply a paraphilia and a psychiatric disorder. The latter is a crime. Pedophilia only turns to crime if one acts on it, otherwise it would be a thought crime... And I'm not sure I can agree with labeling lolicons pedos by default, I may get off at good lolicon art, but at most I tend to find real children cute... |
||||
|
||||
|
cookiemanstah
Posts: 546 |
|
|||
but if it's a disorder as you say, it's clearly not normal. It's really up to you under the logic it's all fake but still, there's no doubt lolicon equals to pedophile. If pedophilia by default is not a crime in real life, you shouldn't really be bothered or nervous by the terminology. But there's a *reason* someone would be sexually attracted to say, Kud or Rika. And it's not just the moe factor because moe applies to plenty of teenage over-looking characters in anime. |
||||
|
||||
|
Firefly251
Posts: 354 |
|
|||
... you literally scanned pics of real children for the work! no way he didn't intend when thats the entire reason of it  [/quote]
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group