Only a matter of time before you get jailed for merely having a dirty thought... :o

BeerWolf · 26-06-2009 04:32AM #1

Jail Sentence for Hentai owner

Granted, he did have child pornography - but being brought to attention due to owning fictional things of sexual nature warrants that arrest to begin with ?

Only a matter of time before we all have a cheap in our heads that detects any deviant thoughts and alerts the authorities. :eek:

Bye bye freedom of expression and speech.

Nehaxak · 26-06-2009 06:27AM

BeerWolf wrote: »

Only a matter of time before we all have a cheap in our heads that detects any deviant thoughts and alerts the authorities. :eek:

Ooh ooh, I want a blue canary in mine !

Nehaxak · 26-06-2009 06:28AM

No but really, it's child porn ? Whether it's real or virtual comic book stuff, it's still depicting images of children in a sexual nature so really, I don't see what the problem is here with him and others like him being put in prison for it.

Ruu_Old · 26-06-2009 06:29AM

Giz a bag of chicken and cheaps!

lmtduffy · 26-06-2009 06:52AM

Nehaxak wrote: »

No but really, it's child porn ? Whether it's real or virtual comic book stuff, it's still depicting images of children in a sexual nature so really, I don't see what the problem is here with him and others like him being put in prison for it.

I always thought the problem with child porn was that it is exploitative of children as they can not consent to it?

Who really is the victim of someone creating an image with nothing but there mind and a pencil?

26-06-2009 07:12AM

lmtduffy wrote: »

I always thought the problem with child porn was that it is exploitative of children as they can not consent to it?

Who really is the victim of someone creating an image with nothing but there mind and a pencil?

Yeah, but then there's a stigma attached to it, and anything and everything relating to it, well, 'they' have to be seen to be doing something about it.

Don't get me wrong, obviously I'm not in favour of child porn, but as you say, it's a drawing. I didn't hear of the Simpsons getting in troube when they "exposed" Bart in their movie.

Caoimhín · 26-06-2009 08:01AM

BeerWolf wrote: »

Jail Sentence for Hentai owner

Only a matter of time before we all have a chip in our heads that detects any deviant thoughts and alerts the authorities. :eek:

How, how is it only a matter of time?

That is simply conspiracy theory nonsense. You should think these things through before blurting them out on a public message board.

I actually worry that there are loonies like you walking our streets.
Ask your self the following questions;

Who decides what is a deviant thought.
What is a thought.
How can a thought be detected.
How do you establish what is a conscious thought and what is an unconscious thought.
What about dreams? I have had some bizarre dreams/nightmares, are they deviant.
Who would implant these chips? That is risky brain surgery that No surgeon/doctor would be willing to do.
How is a deviant thought punished in a court of law, for example, how does society measure the severity of the "deviant thought"?

I think people who write bizarre conspiracy daydreams on a public message board should have certain civic rights removed, for example, the right to own a firearm, to vote and to have children.

Rant over.

Karl Hungus · 26-06-2009 08:04AM

Nehaxak wrote: »

No but really, it's child porn ? Whether it's real or virtual comic book stuff, it's still depicting images of children in a sexual nature so really, I don't see what the problem is here with him and others like him being put in prison for it.

So, a depiction is the same as the real thing, and should carry the same consequences? Necrophilia is illegal, so by the above logic, the depiction of such should be illegal also and carry the same consequence, and anyone owning a copy of a film that depicts Necrophilia should be put in prison, be that Visitor Q, Nightwatch, Braindead, Clerks or Weekend At Bernie's. Does that sound right to you?

You know, you could draw a pornographic cartoon of some kinda cannibalism fetish, or anything as equally horrific and horrendous, snuff or whatever, and while people may find it a bit sick, you wouldn't be sent to prison for it. But if it's a depiction of a child? Lock him up! Seriously, I think it's as KKV said, there's a stigma attached. Imprisoning someone for having a depiction of pedophilia as if it were the same as the real deal, that's just a freakin' witch-hunt.

Dravokivich · 26-06-2009 09:32AM

"he was also convicted of possessing actual child pornography"

You missed a bit in that report....

No problems with hentai...

the guy actually had child porn FFS!

- Drav!

TheZohanS · 26-06-2009 09:35AM

Wait 'til they see Itchy and Scratchy...or SouthPark...

Fink Goddie · 26-06-2009 09:37AM

lmtduffy wrote: »

I always thought the problem with child porn was that it is exploitative of children as they can not consent to it?

Who really is the victim of someone creating an image with nothing but there mind and a pencil?

No f*cking normal person would want to look at that sh1t whether its an image or not, its really sick that you're even defending it.

johnny_knoxvile · 26-06-2009 10:16AM

No depiction is not the real thing. But anyone who wants to read "fantasy" about anything of a sexual nature involving children is disturbed.

As was the guy in this case.

seamus · 26-06-2009 10:22AM

It's worth noting that here in Ireland it is actually illegal to have images of child pornography, whether or not they contain real children.

That includes Hentai or Animé. It also includes women posing as children. So if you have a model/porn actress playing an underage girl (as opposed to just dressing in a school uniform or wearing pigtails), then yes you can be done for child pornography. Even if the woman is in her 30's.

It's a weird one and a tough one to call.

My name is URL · 26-06-2009 10:26AM

So if a porn photographer decided to get an 18 yo girl to dress young for a shoot it would be legal, but if he uses Photshop to add a cartoon filter to the pic it becomes illegal?

Insane!

edit/ didn't see Seamus' post. Still very obscure though

johnny_knoxvile · 26-06-2009 10:40AM

My name is URL wrote: »

So if a porn photographer decided to get an 18 yo girl to dress young for a shoot it would be legal, but if he uses Photshop to add a cartoon filter to the pic it becomes illegal?

Insane!

edit/ didn't see Seamus' post. Still very obscure though

it may be a tough one to call. But why would anyone go to such lengths to want to achieve such an image or fantasy?

I cant see why anyone would defend it.

biko · 26-06-2009 10:45AM

seamus wrote: »

It's worth noting that here in Ireland it is actually illegal to have images of child pornography, whether or not they contain real children.

That includes Hentai or Animé. It also includes women posing as children. So if you have a model/porn actress playing an underage girl (as opposed to just dressing in a school uniform or wearing pigtails), then yes you can be done for child pornography. Even if the woman is in her 30's.

Oops

She said she was 32, I swear.

My name is URL · 26-06-2009 10:45AM

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

it may be a tough one to call. But why would anyone go to such lengths to want to achieve such an image or fantasy?

I cant see why anyone would defend it.

God knows tbh, theres hundrends of paraphilias.

Many of them are classed as mental disorders

thelordofcheese · 26-06-2009 10:48AM

Fink Goddie wrote: »

No f*cking normal person would want to look at that sh1t whether its an image or not, its really sick that you're even defending it.

except, he's not.

Reading comprehension, it's fantastic!

LouOB · 26-06-2009 11:00AM

Jeez Fink
Are you just trolling every single thread here?

I just hope you are never tried by your own standards

walshb · 26-06-2009 11:02AM

What are the actual laws concerning 'child pornography' here in Ireland.

I mean, to me, I wouldn't be able to view it as it would be far
too upsetting, but to some, it's what gets them off.

I want to know if it's an offence to have images, whether they be electronic or
physical images.

How is it an offence, if it is, to simply view images. What is the crime here?

seamus · 26-06-2009 11:14AM

It's an offence to be in possession of any image which depicts a child engaged in activity of a sexual nature, basically.

"In possession" I guess doesn't require you to own it or it be in any particular format. However, glancing at a picture in a shop window (for example) is not a crime. In terms of surfing the web, data is cached, so if the Gardai can bring up an illegal image from you cache, then you are "in possession" of said image. With IE/Firefox caches of typically 0.5GB nowadays, anyone who likes to surf this kind of stuff may be at risk.

Karl Hungus · 26-06-2009 11:16AM

johnny_knoxvile wrote: »

I cant see why anyone would defend it.

Why can't you? It's an overboard, hysterical reaction to the issue of child porn, and I'm not just talking about drawings or other depictions here, child porn laws are extremely overboard in a lot of ways (I think Seamus' example is pretty overboard too). There's been many cases of teen girls being charged with child porn possession and distribution, having to be listed as sex offenders, for taking semi-nude or even suggestive pictures of themselves and sending them to boyfriends. Do a quick search on the subject, it's fairly rampant. Here is one example, and it's extremely disturbing when you actually read what some people are defining as child porn. It's a complete witch hunt, and makes no sense, like charging someone who committed suicide with murder.

I absolutely do not defend any actual child porn. There's a victim involved there. There is abuse implicit in an adult pornographer exploiting minors, that's why such laws exist. But slapping the 'victim' (a minor who took a picture of themselves) with severe criminal charges is a step too far. There's no victim involved in a drawing. I think this article is fairly important to this discussion, and illustrates how vague and over the top a lot of child porn laws are becoming, and how fuzzy those definitions are.

seamus wrote: »

It's an offence to be in possession of any image which depicts a child engaged in activity of a sexual nature, basically.

"In possession" I guess doesn't require you to own it or it be in any particular format. However, glancing at a picture in a shop window (for example) is not a crime. In terms of surfing the web, data is cached, so if the Gardai can bring up an illegal image from you cache, then you are "in possession" of said image. With IE/Firefox caches of typically 0.5GB nowadays, anyone who likes to surf this kind of stuff may be at risk.

By those standards, you could get done for possession of child porn if you're reading a forum where someone has posted a funny pedobear pic.

Fink Goddie · 26-06-2009 11:18AM

LouOB wrote: »

Jeez Fink
Are you just trolling every single thread here?

I just hope you are never tried by your own standards

Nope just cant have an opinion that people dont like in AH or ya get banned.

How am i trolling this thread or any other, tell me that.

Anyway get back on topic xxx

Fink Goddie · 26-06-2009 11:20AM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

except, he's not.

Reading comprehension, it's fantastic!

My reading comprehansion is fine thanks honey.

I see you couldnt help but comment on what i have to say, u love me that much xxx

LouOB · 26-06-2009 11:23AM

-making statements with no back up
-making statements for the sake of making them
-only posting 'opinions' that seem derogitory or negative
-failing to see 'issues' in the threads
-focusing on people who challenge your closed beliefs
-not being open to others opnions but driving your own, on limited facts or limited reading of previous posts/threads

that enough

please play nice otherwise the guys will red card you
we like discussions but would appreciate if you read the issue rather than making sweeping statements e.g. 'freak'

seamus · 26-06-2009 11:25AM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

By those standards, you could get done for possession of child porn if you're reading a forum where someone has posted a funny pedobear pic.

I'm not sure actually. I'd need to re-read the legislation, but unless the child is naked or there's some semblance of sexual activity being portrayed, then it wouldn't fall into the category. Innuendo (in-your-endo) isn't the same as actual depiction.

mike65 · 26-06-2009 11:27AM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

There's been many cases of teen girls being charged with child porn possession and distribution, having to be listed as sex offenders, for taking semi-nude or even suggestive pictures of themselves and sending them to boyfriends.

Not to mention incidents the Julia Somerville case.

LouOB · 26-06-2009 11:27AM

Question - by above standards could you be put on the registered offenerds list without being charged? being that the letter of the law is vague

Fink Goddie · 26-06-2009 11:29AM

LouOB wrote: »

-making statements with no back up
-making statements for the sake of making them
-only posting 'opinions' that seem derogitory or negative
-failing to see 'issues' in the threads
-focusing on people who challenge your closed beliefs
-not being open to others opnions but driving your own, on limited facts or limited reading of previous posts/threads

that enough

please play nice otherwise the guys will red card you
we like discussions but would appreciate if you read the issue rather than making sweeping statements e.g. 'freak'

When has a statement in AH ever needed back up, this is not a court of law my friend.
I dont only post derogitory or negative posts, and so what if i did, can negative people not post no???
Failing to 'see' issues, nope just stick by my opinion, everyone has a different one, i'm not a sheep.

Focusing on people who challenge my beliefs, its called a discussion, i challenge theirs they challenge mine, not everyone has to agree.

You're the one challenging me, you're also going off topic and talking about me and trolling instead of the OP's statement like i was doing until you started this.
go to feedback if you have a problem.

Kintarō Hattori · 26-06-2009 11:33AM

Dravokivich wrote: »

"he was also convicted of possessing actual child pornography"

You missed a bit in that report....

No problems with hentai...

the guy actually had child porn FFS!

- Drav!

The OP mentioned the guy had actual child pornography, second line down.

johnny_knoxvile · 26-06-2009 11:33AM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Why can't you? It's an overboard, hysterical reaction to the issue of child porn, and I'm not just talking about drawings or other depictions here, child porn laws are extremely overboard in a lot of ways (I think Seamus' example is pretty overboard too). There's been many cases of teen girls being charged with child porn possession and distribution, having to be listed as sex offenders, for taking semi-nude or even suggestive pictures of themselves and sending them to boyfriends. Do a quick search on the subject, it's fairly rampant. Here is one example, and it's extremely disturbing when you actually read what some people are defining as child porn. It's a complete witch hunt, and makes no sense, like charging someone who committed suicide with murder.

I absolutely do not defend any actual child porn. There's a victim involved there. There is abuse implicit in an adult pornographer exploiting minors, that's why such laws exist. But slapping the 'victim' (a minor who took a picture of themselves) with severe criminal charges is a step too far. There's no victim involved in a drawing. I think this article is fairly important to this discussion, and illustrates how vague and over the top a lot of child porn laws are becoming, and how fuzzy those definitions are.

By those standards, you could get done for possession of child porn if you're reading a forum where someone has posted a funny pedobear pic.

my view which you quoted, that i dont know why anyone would try to defend it. That quote was in relation to anyone trying to create or achieve, a picture or fantasy of a minor in a sexual light.

I still do not see how you can defend that. If you want to be my guest. Thats my view.

I was not talking with regard to what teenagers do, regarding your article, or definitions of child porn.

Only a matter of time before you get jailed for merely having a dirty thought... :o

Comments