Jailed for watching elf and pixie porn.

Fromthetrees

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?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

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

My name is URL

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

Peregrine

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

Prodigious

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

Drawn pornography is another discussion.

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.

Gosub

He violated elfin safety rules.

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?

Gosub

Gosub wrote: »

He violated elfin safety rules.

*snorts laughing*

starviewadams

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

whiskeyman

He's a nymphomanic for sure...

o1s1n

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...

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.

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.

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?

o1s1n

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.

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.

o1s1n

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.

suicide_circus

Gosub wrote: »

He violated elfin safety rules.

Japanese porn is frequently pixielated

o1s1n

Fromthetrees wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Clandestine

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

Also this is stupid, they are only drawings.

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??

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...

o1s1n

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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?

johnty56

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

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"

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.

ToddyDoody

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

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 .

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?

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.