nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Jailed for watching elf and pixie porn.

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Prodigious wrote: »

Contrived & Pretentious =/= Paedophilic material.

Not exclusively, no.

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.

Seachmall wrote: »

Art is often contrived and pretentious and intentionally controversial.

Contrived & Pretentious =/= Paedophilic material.

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
.
.

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.

Santa must be gutted.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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?

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

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.

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"

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.