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
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Clandestine wrote: »
    Welp, half of 4chan's traffic better watch themselves.

    Also this is stupid, they are only drawings.

    Yeah, but the guy has previous convictions for abusing actual children.

    I'm guessing that as part of his rehabilitation, his counselors and parole officers would have made it known to him that any sexually deviant material could land him back in jail. I doubt that Joe Soap would be locked up for viewing such images... you have to take into account his history and how it may be a sign that he has not been rehabilitated.


  • Options
    #33
    titan18
    Registered Users Posts: 11,933 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Yeah, but the guy has previous convictions for abusing actual children.

    I'm guessing that as part of his rehabilitation, his counselors and parole officers would have made it known to him that any sexually deviant material could land him back in jail. I doubt that Joe Soap would be locked up for viewing such images... you have to take into account his history and how it may be a sign that he has not been rehabilitated.

    There'll be a lot of overcrowded jails otherwise.


  • Options
    #34
    orestes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,972 ✭✭✭orestes


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Yeah, but the guy has previous convictions for abusing actual children.

    I'm guessing that as part of his rehabilitation, his counselors and parole officers would have made it known to him that any sexually deviant material could land him back in jail. I doubt that Joe Soap would be locked up for viewing such images... you have to take into account his history and how it may be a sign that he has not been rehabilitated.

    So anybody with a previous conviction for a sexual offence should be convicted for looking at pornographic cartoons? Or how about just locking up anybody with a record of a sex crime any time they look at porn? The whole thing is ridiculous.

    His convictions were for indecently assaulting a teenage boy, not children, but let's not let reason and semantics get in the way of hysterics.


  • Options
    #35
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    o1s1n wrote: »
    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:

    Well the stick man comparison is actually the defence that he used at the court case in the article linked. I think it's a fair enough defence, that's why I said in my op I disagree with the conviction.

    I think drawing children performing sex acts is morally wrong. I think it should be illegal because the drawing could be of an actual child, whether the child is present during the drawing or from memory seems immaterial to me, it could harm children and should be legislated against imo.


  • Options
    #36
    humbert
    Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    He might have been looking at elves but he was thinking about children. Those thoughts he was probably having were wrong thoughts, very wrong thoughts and people who might be thinking stuff like that ought to be locked up!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    anything that depicts a child, whether it be real or not is illegal, this is not the first case of it's kind, But the law is clear in what's illegal.

    I don't know if I'm for against it changing.

    I can see both sides, those that say the cartoon porn could cause them to want the real thing, and those that say it'll help them release their urge, so I really don't know. I guess maybe finding percentage off molestors in Japan, and see if that's lower or higher, will show which point should override.


  • Options
    #38
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    humbert wrote: »
    He might have been looking at elves but he was thinking about children. Those thoughts he was probably having were wrong thoughts, very wrong thoughts and people who might be thinking stuff like that ought to be locked up!

    So you 've never ever thought of killing someone? Been so angry at someone you could hit them?

    Imagine sex with a hottie?

    Thoughts, are just that, thoughts, you can't start judging people based on those. :/


  • Options
    #39
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    I think it should be illegal because the drawing could be of an actual child, whether the child is present during the drawing or from memory seems immaterial to me, it could harm children and should be legislated against imo.

    As mentioned earlier at what point do we determine the child is actually the child abused?


    Take two offenders, one who's particularly artistic (Pedo A) and one who isn't (Pedo B).

    Pedo A draws a picture of the child which is clearly recognisable while Pedo B attempts to do the same but the child isn't indentifiable.

    Do we lock up Pedo A but not Pedo B?


    If you do then you're not prosecuting based on offense but on artistic ability, which is hardly just.


  • Options
    #40
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    orestes wrote: »
    So anybody with a previous conviction for a sexual offence should be convicted for looking at pornographic cartoons? Or how about just locking up anybody with a record of a sex crime any time they look at porn? The whole thing is ridiculous.

    His convictions were for indecently assaulting a teenage boy, not children, but let's not let reason and semantics get in the way of hysterics.

    Oh, as long as it was a teenager he sexualy assaulted thats fine then?

    Enough of the pc sh1t, dirty fecker has molested kids and now gets his jollies watching drawn kiddy porn, no need to defend this dirt bag.


  • Options
    #41
    johnty56
    Registered Users Posts: 822 ✭✭✭johnty56


    humbert wrote: »
    He might have been looking at elves but he was thinking about children. Those thoughts he was probably having were wrong thoughts, very wrong thoughts and people who might be thinking stuff like that ought to be locked up!

    Haha! Humbert.. wasn't that the name of the peado in Lolita?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    johnty56
    Registered Users Posts: 822 ✭✭✭johnty56


    Maybe he/she is trying to tell us something;)


  • Options
    #43
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    Seachmall wrote: »

    Do we lock up Pedo A but not Pedo B?


    If you do then you're not prosecuting based on offense but on artistic ability, which is hardly just.

    Both would be locked because the drawings is "of a child in a sexual act"


  • Options
    #44
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    orestes wrote: »
    So anybody with a previous conviction for a sexual offence should be convicted for looking at pornographic cartoons? Or how about just locking up anybody with a record of a sex crime any time they look at porn? The whole thing is ridiculous.

    His convictions were for indecently assaulting a teenage boy, not children, but let's not let reason and semantics get in the way of hysterics.

    Fair enough then, a child. I'm not being hysterical about it.. I couldn't care less if he's jailed or not tbh.

    Do you think a person convicted of rape should be watching videos depicting rape? It doesn't exactly suggest that they've been rehabilitated does it? I don't think people should be locked up just for looking at particular stuff.. but those with a history of violent or abusive sexual behaviors and consuming questionable media shouldn't be surprised if the police come knocking.

    If the guy can be shown to still pose no risk to the public then charges should be dropped, otherwise I'd see them as being a preventative measure more so than a punishment.


  • Options
    #45
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    I'd be morto in front of the other inmates if I was jailed for that


  • Options
    #46
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    Seachmall wrote: »
    As mentioned earlier at what point do we determine the child is actually the child abused?


    Take two offenders, one who's particularly artistic (Pedo A) and one who isn't (Pedo B).

    Pedo A draws a picture of the child which is clearly recognisable while Pedo B attempts to do the same but the child isn't indentifiable.

    Do we lock up Pedo A but not Pedo B?


    If you do then you're not prosecuting based on offense but on artistic ability, which is hardly just.

    I don't honestly care about artistic ability. If you have hundreds of images of children performing sex acts stored on your computer than you should be locked up for it.
    Do you think downloading hundreds of drawings and video animations of children performing sex acts onto your computer is grand and shouldn't be a criminal offence?


  • Options
    #47
    humbert
    Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    I don't honestly care about artistic ability. If you have hundreds of images of children performing sex acts stored on your computer than you should be locked up for it.
    Do you think downloading hundreds of drawings and video animations of children performing sex acts onto your computer is grand and shouldn't be a criminal offence?
    Absolutely. In no conceivable way was anyone harmed in the latter case whereas children were sexually abused in the former.

    Now whether the person needs medical treatment is a different matter.


  • Options
    #48
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    o1s1n wrote: »
    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:

    Are you insinuating that people who are not paedophiles draw the sexually explicit pictures of children? Doesn't make much sense..


  • Options
    #49
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Do you think downloading hundreds of drawings and video animations of children performing sex acts onto your computer is grand and shouldn't be a criminal offence?

    Yes.

    I think people should go to jail for victimising or planning to victimise others. Not for thinking about it or, as an extension of that, drawing about it.

    The art world is full of disturbing and perverse works of various subjects, including children, and distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not is impossible.

    Laws shouldn't be arbitrary, they should exist to protect people.


  • Options
    #50
    opti0nal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 900 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    Prodigious wrote: »
    Are you insinuating that people who are not paedophiles draw the sexually explicit pictures of children? Doesn't make much sense..
    Under the law a child is anyone under 17. Paedophiles are usually attracted to under 12's. So yes, there could be people who are not paedophiles who draw prohibited images. Hentai, Manga and Anime being examples. All are illegal under Irish law if they depict sexual activity or suggest it.


  • Options
    #51
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Prodigious wrote: »
    Are you insinuating that people who are not paedophiles draw the sexually explicit pictures of children? Doesn't make much sense..

    Art is often contrived and pretentious and intentionally controversial.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Chop Chop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭Chop Chop


    Santa must be gutted.


  • Options
    #53
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    The purpose of laws protecting children are to protect children.

    No harm is being done to anyone by looking at drawn pornography of any description, unless it's been drawn by chinese slave labour or something.

    The law shouldn't exist to punish people for arbitrary moral decisions, it should be to protect people. It is doing nothing of the sort in this case.


  • Options
    #54
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0SMNZhYm2A


    ♫
    And he painted matchstalk men and matchstalk cats and dogs
    He painted kids on the corner of the street that were sparking clogs
    .
    .


  • Options
    #55
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Art is often contrived and pretentious and intentionally controversial.

    Contrived & Pretentious =/= Paedophilic material.


  • Options
    #56
    titan18
    Registered Users Posts: 11,933 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Fair enough then, a child. I'm not being hysterical about it.. I couldn't care less if he's jailed or not tbh.

    Do you think a person convicted of rape should be watching videos depicting rape? It doesn't exactly suggest that they've been rehabilitated does it? I don't think people should be locked up just for looking at particular stuff.. but those with a history of violent or abusive sexual behaviors and consuming questionable media shouldn't be surprised if the police come knocking.

    If the guy can be shown to still pose no risk to the public then charges should be dropped, otherwise I'd see them as being a preventative measure more so than a punishment.

    That's interesting, cos whilst there's rape porn, there are normal films that depict rape or have rape as a main subject. What sort of line is there then, is it just straight up rape porn, or are we going to put people convicted of rape back in jail for watching A History of Violence or something.

    Do you take that further, and anyone convicted of murder goes back in jail for watching American Psycho or something, or if you've escaped from prison, you better not watch Shawshank Redemption.

    Obviously the latter sounds stupid, but restricting what people can watch, listen, read etc when no one is being harmed from the production of the art/porn is stupid to me.


  • Options
    #57
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Prodigious wrote: »
    Contrived & Pretentious =/= Paedophilic material.

    Not exclusively, no.


  • Options
    #58
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,090 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    What was he watching, I wonder could it have been The Happy Little Elves Meet Fritz The Cat:D


  • Options
    #59
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Yes.

    I think people should go to jail for victimising or planning to victimise others. Not for thinking about it or, as an extension of that, drawing about it.

    The art world is full of disturbing and perverse works of various subjects, including children, and distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not is impossible.

    Laws shouldn't be arbitrary, they should exist to protect people.

    Laws certainly shouldn't be arbitrary, but in fairness depicting children performing sex acts isn't a grey area, they either are performing them or they are not performing them.

    Porn to me isn't art.

    Distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is certainly not impossible. Depicting children performing sex acts is not acceptable whereas just about everything else is grand.

    This is a strange area to be having a discussion in, I'm going to leave it at that okay.


  • Options
    #60
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    Laws certainly shouldn't be arbitrary, but in fairness depicting children performing sex acts isn't a grey area, they either are performing them or they are not performing them.
    Whether or not they're performing the act isn't the grey area, whether it should be crime or not is.
    Porn to me isn't art.

    Depicting children performing sex acts is not acceptable whereas just about everything else is grand.
    Both of these points seem arbitrary to me.
    This is a strange area to be having a discussion in, I'm going to leave it at that okay.
    Fair enough, posted so anyone else can continue the discussion if they want.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    entropi
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 21,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭entropi


    My name is URL wrote: »
    sexually deviant material
    These are animated drawings, of mythical creatures that are somewhat human-like, and there is usually no age associated with them either. Deviancy does not even come in to play here. You could argue the fact that if Jessica Rabbit gave you the horn in that film, you might be a sexual deviant for having an animated female rabbit get you aroused? It's a joke tbh.
    I doubt that Joe Soap would be locked up for viewing such images... you have to take into account his history and how it may be a sign that he has not been rehabilitated.
    Exactly. It's a non-issue. If Joe Soap wouldn't have a jail term thrown at him, why should someone watching what is basically, a cartoon, get jailed?
    gallag wrote: »
    Enough of the pc sh1t, dirty fecker has molested kids and now gets his jollies watching drawn kiddy porn, no need to defend this dirt bag.
    Agreed, enough of it, this P.C. stuff these days has really gotten out of hand. Next they'll be banning lego because of the potential injury to the foot from walking on it.

    By the way, didn't you know that those creatures like pixies and elves are never given an age, much like a cherub?

    I'm not sticking up for the guy, just arguing the stupid reason for a conviction tbh. They may as well ban all cartoons then. Actually, they should just ban everything.


Advertisement