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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Jailed for watching elf and pixie porn.

2»

Comments

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


    Santa must be gutted.


  • #53
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #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
    .
    .


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


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

    Contrived & Pretentious =/= Paedophilic material.


  • #56
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,009 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #57
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


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

    Not exclusively, no.


  • #58
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,189 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


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


  • #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.


  • #60
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #61
    entropi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #62
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,253 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


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

    Yep. Believe it or not, some people have fetishes for cartoon porn but have no attraction to children.

    Some people have sexual fetishes for people dressed up in furry costumes but no attraction to actual animals.

    It's a funny world we live in.


  • #63
    Richard Dower
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Richard Dower


    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 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?

    Bizarrely, you can find normal elf and pixie porn....even stuff with Santa!


  • #64
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Does this mean that they'll lock up everybody that has read Fifty Shades of Grey?


  • #65
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Just another example of 'elf and safety gone mad


  • #66
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    cournioni wrote: »
    Does this mean that they'll lock up everybody that has read Fifty Shades of Grey?

    I haven't read it, but I highly doubt it depicts or describes children participating in sex.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,253 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Prodigious wrote: »
    I haven't read it, but I highly doubt it depicts or describes children participating in sex.

    How about Lolita?


  • #68
    humbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Wasn't animé porn actually joked about on The Big Bang Theory. Kind of nuts that on one hand it's mainstream enough to joke about on an extremely popular PG sitcom but still grounds for gaoling someone.


  • #69
    Prodigious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭Prodigious


    o1s1n wrote: »
    How about Lolita?

    It is literature, not pornography.
    humbert wrote: »
    Wasn't animé porn actually joked about on The Big Bang Theory. Kind of nuts that on one hand it's mainstream enough to joke about on an extremely popular PG sitcom but still grounds for gaoling someone.

    Anime porn =/= Drawn child porn


  • #70
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,034 ✭✭✭Ficheall


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

    I've watched plenty of porn with very sexualised redheaded lasses - doesn't seem to have increased my chances of enacting any fantasies :(


  • #71
    humbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Prodigious wrote: »
    Anime porn =/= Drawn child porn
    Why not? Animé characters are certainly human and certainly not adults.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    starviewadams wrote: »
    Because it normalises the idea of sexually exploiting children,even in animated form.

    citation needed


  • #73
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,009 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    humbert wrote: »
    Why not? Animé characters are certainly human and certainly not adults.

    Hmm, not true. Hentai is actually meant to be depicting adults even if most look quite young, lolicon is a different section of hentai which is for depicting prepubescents. Understandable how most people would just see hentai as non-adults though, but there's difference genres within hentai.

    Japanese have some weird stuff, I mean possession of actual child porn is still legal there afaik, I think production is the illegal part, and I think it's only hardcore production, whereas softcore stuff is still legal there. However, afaik, the incidence of sexual abuse to minors is actually quite low in Japan and has been decreasing since this stuff was introduced, although might be wrong on that.


  • #74
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Prodigious wrote: »
    It is literature, not pornography.

    It's art depicting children engaged in sexual acts.

    I don't see how whether it's drawn or written is relevant.


  • #75
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    also, has anyone mentioned "thought crime" yet? I haven't read the whole thing....


  • #76
    humbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    titan18 wrote: »
    Hmm, not true. Hentai is actually meant to be depicting adults even if most look quite young, lolicon is a different section of hentai which is for depicting prepubescents. Understandable how most people would just see hentai as non-adults though, but there's difference genres within hentai.

    Japanese have some weird stuff, I mean possession of actual child porn is still legal there afaik, I think production is the illegal part.
    I've a suspicion that the classification of child porn and the fact that these young hentai characters represent adults is in some way related!


  • #77
    humbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    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!
    bodice ripper wrote: »
    also, has anyone mentioned "thought crime" yet? I haven't read the whole thing....
    I did but I was sarcastic and not everyone had their detectors on.


  • #78
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,253 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Prodigious wrote: »
    It is literature, not pornography.

    Yep, because this below passage could not be considered erotic to a paedo. Oh wait, maybe it could...


    Sometimes…while Lolita would be haphazardly preparing her homework, sucking a pencil, lolling sideways in an easy chair with both legs over its arm, I would shed all my pedagogic restraint, dismiss all our quarrels, forget all my masculine pride–and literally crawl on my knees to your chair, my Lolita! You would give me one look—one furry grey question mark of a look: “Oh no, not again” (incredulity, exasperation); for you never deigned to believe that I could, without any specific designs, ever crave to bury my face in your plaid skirt, my darling! The fragility of those bare arms of yours, a folded colt, and take your head between my unworthy hands, and pull the temple-skin back on both sides, and kiss your chinesed eyes, and—”Pulease, leave me alone, will you,” you would say, “for Christ’s sake leave me alone….

    Artistic expression is just that, whether it's under the umbrella of 'literature' or base, tasteless humour/porn, it shouldn't be censored - unless there's someone actually getting hurt at the other side of it (ie - real child porn)


  • #79
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    In Ireland this is covered by the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998,

    Section 2 defines Child Pornography as


    “child pornography” means—

    (a) any visual representation—

    (i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

    (ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

    (iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,

    (b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented as being a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

    (c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

    (d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3 ,

    irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other electronic or mechanical means but does not include—

    (I) any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,

    (II) any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1992, is in force, or

    (III) any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the Video Recordings Acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force;


  • #80
    Make It Happen 968
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭Make It Happen 968


    Cant see what law was broken, meanwhile some paedo somewhere is grooming young boys/girls online


  • #81
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,009 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Make It Happen 968 wrote: »
    Cant see what law was broken, meanwhile some paedo somewhere is grooming young boys/girls online

    There are laws in place in some countries that make it illegal. Victimless crime, but doesn't stop people thinking they can place their moral code unto others.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    (i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

    Does this mean a 20 year old pretending to be a 15 year old in a porno is considered child pornography?


  • #83
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,253 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    (b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented as being a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,;

    Simulated audio child porn. Because deaf people need pretend child porn too.


  • #84
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,253 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Does this mean a 20 year old pretending to be a 15 year old in a porno is considered child pornography?

    It does indeed. All those videos you have of that 20 year old dressed up as a schoolgirl? Yep, child porn. You're going to prison.


  • #85
    humbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    o1s1n wrote: »
    Simulated audio child porn. Because deaf people need pretend child porn too.
    Actually, I think that would definitely make Lolita illegal (as an audio book).

    EDIT: Didn't read article (I).


  • #86
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Does this mean a 20 year old pretending to be a 15 year old in a porno is considered child pornography?

    Yes, but I don't think there has been any case on it yet. Of course if the film has a classification then it is covered by the exception.


  • #87
    DyldeBrill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭DyldeBrill


    I love elf porn


  • #88
    titan18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,009 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    I have a book, Warlock by Wilbur Smith. It's set in Ancient Egypt so 14 would be normal to get married back then in stuff, but there's quite a few sex scenes in it. Bought it in Dunnes Stores too so kinda funny that they'd be selling something that could be classed as child porn under Irish law.


  • #89
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    titan18 wrote: »
    I have a book, Warlock by Wilbur Smith. It's set in Ancient Egypt so 14 would be normal to get married back then in stuff, but there's quite a few sex scenes in it. Bought it in Dunnes Stores too so kinda funny that they'd be selling something that could be classed as child porn under Irish law.

    Covered by the exception as I set out above,

    (I) any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,


  • #90
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    So, how many of us would be going to jail based on this charge, can I get a show of hands....?



    maybe not a show of hands, actually.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    They can have my pixie porn when they pry it from my cold, dead, sticky hands!!! :mad:


  • #92
    Heckler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭Heckler


    Its not a crime to be a pedophile. Its a crime to act on those impluses and abuse children. Its not a crime to want to murder someone but it is a crime to actually kill them.

    Sexual abuse of children is a heinous crime but the OTT "Won't someone think of the children response" is what leads to a bunch of halfwits in the UK assulting a Peadiatricians surgery and I think burning it down because it had a sign outside saying "Pediactrics" or some such.

    Like a pedo is going to advertise.......the mind boggles at peoples stupidity.


  • #93
    orestes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,972 ✭✭✭orestes


    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.

    My bad, sorry for being so snappish in my earlier post.
    Prodigious wrote: »
    I haven't read it, but I highly doubt it depicts or describes children participating in sex.

    Actually, it does. Not explicitly, but it alludes to it very strongly. Available in all good bookshops, in the classics section, just like the Marquis de Sade. Do yourself a favour though, if you think Lolita is kiddie porn, reading 100 Days of Sodom might make you tear your eyes out.


Advertisement