Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jailed for watching elf and pixie porn.

Options
  • 25-04-2013 7:52pm
    #1
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭


    A man has been jailed for watching cartoon videos of elves, pixies and other fantasy creatures having sex.

    Ronald Clark downloaded the Japanese anime cartoons three years ago, setting in train events that would see him in court in Auckland and jailed for three months for possessing objectionable material, and sparking debate as to what harm is caused by digitally created pornography.

    Clark has previous convictions for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and has been through rehabilitation programmes, but the video nasties he was watching in this case were all cartoons and drawings.

    He says the videos came from an established tradition of Japanese manga and hentai (cartoon pornography), a massive, mainstream industry in that country.

    Link.

    The guy does seem have a very wrong and dark side to him sexually but I don't agree with convicting someone in this way, "the justifications for punishment are likely to be worries about the tendency of the images to promote harm to real people in the future".

    If he's a paedophile then he should be castrated but locking people up for having pictures of fantasy creatures having sex on the basis that it 'may' lead to an actual crime in the future seems like a strange way to bring the law.

    If the video is depicting drawings of actual children I think the conviction would be correct but from my reading of the article it seems they're mainstream Japanese drawings of non humans.

    Thoughts?


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    why would the conviction be correct if they were drawings of children? they're still just drawings


  • Options
    #3
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Was he jailed for the porn or for violating conditions set out upon his release?


  • Options
    #4
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    This sounds like the begining of an actual porn movie where a really sexy prison officer holds the key to his cell


  • Options
    #5
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    I'd imagine that the "elves" were drawings of children, with pointy ears for a get out clause.

    Drawn pornography is another discussion.


  • Options
    #6
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    why would the conviction be correct if they were drawings of children? they're still just drawings

    Because I think drawings depicting children in a pornographic way should be illegal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Gosub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭Gosub


    He violated elfin safety rules.


  • Options
    #8
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Because I think drawings depicting children in a pornographic way should be illegal.

    in case the cartoon children suffer from cartoon emotional trauma?


  • Options
    #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Gosub wrote: »
    He violated elfin safety rules.

    :D

    *snorts laughing*


  • Options
    #10
    starviewadams
    Registered Users Posts: 6,116 ✭✭✭starviewadams


    Because it normalises the idea of sexually exploiting children,even in animated form.


  • Options
    #11
    whiskeyman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    He's a nymphomanic for sure...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,566 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Because I think drawings depicting children in a pornographic way should be illegal.

    You might want to stay away from the art world...


  • Options
    #13
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    in case the cartoon children suffer from cartoon emotional trauma?

    Well what if the drawing that's been done was of an actual child?

    It's a very dark area tbh.


  • Options
    #14
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,361 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Link.

    The guy does seem have a very wrong and dark side to him sexually but I don't agree with convicting someone in this way, "the justifications for punishment are likely to be worries about the tendency of the images to promote harm to real people in the future".

    If he's a paedophile then he should be castrated but locking people up for having pictures of fantasy creatures having sex on the basis that it 'may' lead to an actual crime in the future seems like a strange way to bring the law.

    If the videos depicted drawings of actual children I think the conviction would be correct but from my reading of the article it seems they're mainstream Japanese drawings of non humans.

    Thoughts?

    Bit of a weird choice of porn to pick for hand shandy time all right.


  • Options
    #15
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    o1s1n wrote: »
    You might want to stay away from the art world...

    Why? Is the art world full of pictures depicting children performing sex acts? :confused:


  • Options
    #16
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,566 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Well what if the drawing that's been done was of an actual child?

    It's a very dark area tbh.

    It's verging on thought police. I'm all for protecting children, but nobody should ever go to prison for something which amounts to a drawing on a page.

    At what point should this kick in? If I draw a stick figure having sex with another stick figure and they're not adequately 'of age' (beards perhaps?) should I go to prison?

    Stupid decision.


  • Options
    #17
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    in case the cartoon children suffer from cartoon emotional trauma?

    As above, it sexualises children and quite possibly increases the chances of a paedophile acting on his/her urges.


  • Options
    #18
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,566 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Prodigious wrote: »
    As above, it sexualises children and quite possibly increases the chances of a paedophile acting on his/her urges.

    Oh really? did you do your own independent study on this?

    I could quite equally argue that it gives paedophiles a way of venting without having to abuse children.


  • Options
    #19
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Gosub wrote: »
    He violated elfin safety rules.
    Japanese porn is frequently pixielated


  • Options
    #20
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,566 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Why? Is the art world full of pictures depicting children performing sex acts? :confused:

    As a fine art graduate who spent half a decade in art college, I can tell you that I saw quite a lot of art which could in some way fit into that, yes.

    Some people use art as a way of venting the horrible abuse they went through as a kid. Bit mad, but if it works for them, so be it.


  • Options
    #21
    titan18
    Registered Users Posts: 11,935 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Prodigious wrote: »
    As above, it sexualises children and quite possibly increases the chances of a paedophile acting on his/her urges.

    This, I don't really get. To me, it's the same line of thinking that playing violent video games makes people want to do violent acts. I mean, most people can separate fantasy from reality. Tbf, as long as no children are actually being harmed, it could be a safe way for paedophiles to act on their urges, providing they can remain doing so in a controlled manner.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    titan18 wrote: »
    This, I don't really get. To me, it's the same line of thinking that playing violent video games makes people want to do violent acts. I mean, most people can separate fantasy from reality. Tbf, as long as no children are actually being harmed, it could be a safe way for paedophiles to act on their urges, providing they can remain doing so in a controlled manner.

    Fair enough. What if one didn't have a particular sexual interest in children, but stumbled across one of these sites and it changed their views?

    Similarly, if someone plays violent games it could easily spike a previously unknown attraction to violence.


  • Options
    #23
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    o1s1n wrote: »
    It's verging on thought police. I'm all for protecting children, but nobody should ever go to prison for something which amounts to a drawing on a page.

    At what point should this kick in? If I draw a stick figure having sex with another stick figure and they're not adequately 'of age' (beards perhaps?) should I go to prison?

    Stupid decision.

    It is and it isn't verging on thought police. That's why in the op I said I disagreed with the conviction. I draw the line at (pun intended) if you are depicting a child performing a sex act, how do we know the drawing isn't of an actual child.

    So, pixie and elf porn is grand, child porn isn't.


  • Options
    #24
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    So, pixie and elf porn is grand, child porn isn't.

    So stick pointy ears on every drawing and you're grand?


  • Options
    #25
    orestes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,972 ✭✭✭orestes


    What a load of hysteria induced bullsh1t. On the basis of this kind of thing I would be locked up for the contents of my book shelves.


  • Options
    #26
    latenia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭latenia


    o1s1n wrote: »

    At what point should this kick in? If I draw a stick figure having sex with another stick figure and they're not adequately 'of age' (beards perhaps?) should I go to prison?

    It's precisely because of this that I always make sure to put in a few pubes whenever I'm drawing a cock on a wall.


  • Options
    #27
    titan18
    Registered Users Posts: 11,935 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Prodigious wrote: »
    Fair enough. What if one didn't have a particular sexual interest in children, but stumbled across one of these sites and it changed their views?

    Similarly, if someone plays violent games it could easily spike a previously unknown attraction to violence.

    You can't ban everything just cos there's a chance it'd act as a trigger to someone and cause them to do illegal things.

    Someone could see someone using a hammer, and decide that they want to see what a hammer would do to someone's head, or could see a girl eating a banana and decide they want to see that girl with something else in her mouth.

    Should we ban hammers and bananas in those instances. Anything can be construed as a trigger, but you can't start banning things and making them illegal just cos there's somebody fcuked up enough for it to happen.


  • Options
    #28
    Clandestine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    Welp, half of 4chan's traffic better watch themselves.

    Also this is stupid, they are only drawings.


  • Options
    #29
    returnNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭returnNull


    Prodigious wrote: »
    As above, it sexualises children and quite possibly increases the chances of a paedophile acting on his/her urges.
    or the other side of that coin would be that it would stop a paedophile from acting out the urges??


  • Options
    #30
    returnNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭returnNull


    orestes wrote: »
    What a load of hysteria induced bullsh1t. On the basis of this kind of thing I would be locked up for the contents of my book shelves.
    me too..just finished american pyscho...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    o1s1n
    Registered Users Posts: 34,566 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    It is and it isn't verging on thought police. That's why in the op I said I disagreed with the conviction. I draw the line at (pun intended) if you are depicting a child performing a sex act, how do we know the drawing isn't of an actually child.

    So, pixie and elf porn is grand, child porn isn't.

    So your issue is what if the person is drawing a picture of a child they've actually abused?

    Seems long a stretch when they could have just taken a photo?

    What if the drawing isn't very good? I don't think paedophelia and artistic abilities go hand in hand. What is the minimum level of representation before it becomes 'that child?' (I'll go back to my stick man comparison)

    I dunno, the more I think about all this, the more ludicrous the whole thing sounds :pac:


Advertisement