×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the in-a-perfect-world-the-topic-would-not-arise dept.

Censorship 933

BenFenner writes "Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

933 comments

Not first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256833)

I don't look at child porn, but here's my story:

I dropped a brown rope this morning the size of a small black child. At one point, I wasn't sure if I was taking a shit, or it the shit was taking me. And while I'm on that point, what's the deal with taking a shit? Shouldn't it be leaving a shit? I'm certainly not taking anything with me when I'm done.

But back on topic, CP sucks ass

Jews on the Move (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256839)

Kike Killing Machines kicking in to overdrive to exterminate or move Mudslum populations.

I'm glad I don't have a county full of Jews next door to me.

Uhh, yes it does... (5, Informative)

Manip (656104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256851)

The act defines a "child" as a "person":
(2) the term âchildâ(TM) means a person who has not attained
the age of 18 years and isâ"
ââ(A) under the perpetratorâ(TM)s care or control; or
ââ(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;

Plus as some cartoons are over the age over 18 like the Simpsons for example. They're 20 years old as a point of fact.

Re:Uhh, yes it does... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256869)

So basically the judges are acting like politicians and "pandering" to their constituency. Given that, how do you recall a judge that cannot read and understand a legal act a two year old could?

Re:Uhh, yes it does... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257109)

what is the two year old wearing?

Re:Uhh, yes it does... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256893)

The problem is, they aren't using the age of the actual cartoon...but the apparent age of the participant.
I can't find info right now, but wasn't there a law, or at least a movement toward making a law, that would criminalize possession of pornography where the actor LOOKS underage, even though they are legal? Must be rough being that actor's significant-other.

Re:Uhh, yes it does... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257135)

Plus as some cartoons are over the age over 18 like the Simpsons for example. They're 20 years old as a point of fact.

So I can legally masturbate furiously to a video of a 10-year old being having sex with her father that was filmed eight years ago? Awesome! No seriously, there might be a logical fallacy in what you said.

At what level of detail (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256857)

does it become illegal? Two stick figure drawings with a caption "10 year olds" would be considered illegal if you didn't pencil in some shorts? Madness.

Re:At what level of detail (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256949)

One best reconsider following Bart's imposition to eat his shorts, or at least drawing such a thing.

So I assume these judges have signed affidavits of concern with respect to the depictions of a clearly naked Bart Simpson in the latest (and so far only) Simpsons movie? Right?

What, you mean they haven't? They are only trying to selectively enforce their misinterpretation of the law? Shudder.

Re:At what level of detail (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257107)

Madness... This is COPA!

Re:At what level of detail (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257139)

does it become illegal? Two stick figure drawings with a caption "10 year olds" would be considered illegal if you didn't pencil in some shorts? Madness.

Makes me wonder, actually? Remember the Muhammad cartoon controversy? Some people actually tried that trick with stick figures then as well; wonder what will happen now.

This will be the true test of free speech in the West - going not against the taboos of another society, but against ones of our own. Count me a pessimist on this one...

Simpsons porn is child porn too. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256859)

In Australia, a guy got done for having cartoon porn of the Simpsons.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html

Yet another reason for me to leave this backward backwater.

Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (2, Insightful)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256927)

And go where? The UK where they want to rate websites like movies? The US where we're being just as stupid? Canada maybe? But who knows how long til they buckle under. We can't keep running from these idiots.

Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257061)

It's not the best route, but a violent revolution (global this time) seems to be not far off from coming. This stuff doesn't fix itself and what we need is real democracies (and not republics).

My fear is the people that incite the revolutions and take leadership from it will be worse than what we have, setting us back many years.

Commonly the cause of the problem seems to be the generation gap and is exacerbated by technology,greed and politics, basically.

Re:Simpsons porn is child porn too. (5, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257155)

Ya, real democracy, wonderful. So that a 90% Christian nation can impose its morals on everyone. No, we need to remove blue laws, not give people the chance to make more. Our republic is supposed to be setup so that the majority can't run roughshod over minorities. Democracy is nothing more than codified mob rule.

How do they prove it? (5, Insightful)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256863)

If it's fantasy, you can say the depiction is as old as you want. It's not real, rules of reality don't apply, at all.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256867)

This shit is gonna get sticky fast considering a large portion of hentai has underage characters. How do you define age? How do you define "look" based on art styles? How can you base a conviction and therefore the incarceration of a person based on the definition of the interpretation of a picture?

Based on TFA he's still obviously conducting illegal activity by having REAL child pornography but by including some anime hentai drawings in the ruling they are setting a very dangerous precedent.

Re:Hmm (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257043)

This shit is gonna get sticky fast

Poor choice of words.

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

Sigismundo (192183) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257253)

This has already happened, article here [cbldf.org]. Basically the dude ordered some manga from Japan, and the postal inspector had a look at it when it arrived in the US. When the guy went to pick up his delivery, police followed him home, seized his comics and charged him with possession of child porn.

Disclaimer (4, Insightful)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256871)

So a disclaimer at the bottom that all characters pictured are based off real adults who are merely very young looking would make it safe?

Ok, so if I draw a picture of a person having sex with a sentient machine (non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side) and that machine is only 10 years old according to the crappy fan-fic I write about it, does that make it child pornography?

Oh wait, I know how to use up more of the courts time, where were those rule 34 pictures of ALF and the simpsons I had laying around...

Re:Disclaimer (4, Funny)

Sabz5150 (1230938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256887)

(non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side)

Companion cube, indeed.

Re:Disclaimer (3, Funny)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256995)

Companion cube, indeed.

This was a triumph!

Re:Disclaimer (5, Funny)

Sabz5150 (1230938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257027)

"What is before you is an Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle. I do not recommend utilizing the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... for the results could be... unpredictable. Oh... I see that you are ignoring me and using the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle anyway. Fine. But will the Aperture Sciences cube shaped phallus receptacle... love you as I do?"

Re:Disclaimer (4, Funny)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256895)

Ok, so if I draw a picture of a person having sex with a sentient machine (non-human like, lets say a 1m cube with a penis sized hole in one side) and that machine is only 10 years old according to the crappy fan-fic I write about it, does that make it child pornography?

I find your ideas eroti..err.. intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Disclaimer (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257247)

I was going to watch some japanese idol videos... But now... I JUST CAN'T GET THAT IMAGE OUT OF MY HEAD!

*sigh*

Wonder if they got some anime in that genre... brb

Re:Disclaimer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256903)

So a disclaimer at the bottom that all characters pictured are based off real adults who are merely very young looking would make it safe?

I don't know whether it works in law, but I think hentai anime do have these disclaimers that the people depicted are 18 years old.

Posting anon in case people actually think I view them. (regular porn is doing fine for me)

Re:Disclaimer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257131)

What about movies where children are raped? Doesn't this mean that the Kite Runner should have gotten the producer put in jail?

And the point of these laws is? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256881)

I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation. It may not be possible to prosecute the people abusing children if they are in a foreign country, but you can help to reduce their market by prosecuting the people who buy their products. How, exactly, does society benefit from prosecuting artists who draw cartoons, however tasteless? The money would be better spent going after mimes.

Re:And the point of these laws is? (4, Insightful)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256925)

Isn't that the Zeitgeist of today? Persecuting people for looking light they might or abstractly could commit a crime?!

Re:And the point of these laws is? (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256969)

Well, yes. But ONLY if it is easier and safer than going after 'actual' criminals.

Re:And the point of these laws is? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257023)

Well, it is. Most (real) child porn of today comes from the former east bloc and far east asia. Ever tried to arrest someone in that area?

While people drawing porn come from all over the globe, just prosecure the ones in the western hemisphere and it sure looks like you're doing something about the problem. You don't, actually, the kids in Russia and south east asia are still being exploited, but you're doing SOMETHING.

Re:And the point of these laws is? (5, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256963)

"I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation. "

No. They're there to pander to the braying mob and instill a climate of fear. This does nothing other than having police chasing shadows, diverting their attention from real abuse cases. Very counterproductive.

It may not be possible to prosecute the people [for committing crime X] if they are in a foreign country, but you can help to reduce their market by prosecuting the people who buy their products.

This tactic was a roaring success in the war on drugs. In fact all drug dealers went broke during the first Reagan administration, and now there are no drugs to be had anymore.

Preventing the Photoshop defence (2, Interesting)

Richard Kirk (535523) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257039)

Supposing they found someone with a set of convincing looking child photos on their hard drive. They look realistic but the owner says they had been created within PhotoShop ( or Gimp or whatever ), and no children were harmed. They may have created the image, or they may have filtered the image in PhotoShop to remove any digital signatures from the camera that took the image. Okay, Solomon, how do we settle this one?

Well, there is a legal precedent. Hans Van Meegren, a Dutchman, was accused of selling Old Master paintings to the Nazi occupiers. He argued that the paintings he supplied were fakes. To prove this, he had to produce a convincing painting in court that would have passed for a Vermeer. And he did. Actually, his fakes were not technically accurate - he used things like zinc white instead of the lead white that Vermeer would have used, so the court could have decided on forensic evidence. However, as his recreation of the techniques of Old Masters was better than most other of his age - Tom Keating could have taught him a thing or two - the court required the proof of his talent.

Of course, if you bought some of these images, then we cannot know whether you thought they were real or no. We assume the Nazis thought the Vermeers were real. It seems reasonable to assume any collector of such images thought they were real if they look convincing enough, in the lack of other evidence.

I don't think the aim is to criminalize cartoons which clearly have no human originals, though doubtless there will be factions that will want to apply them that way. If you draw anime images of under-age sex or collect Star Trek homoerotica then people such as I might not want to shake your hand, but we will fight for your rights to do so.

Re:Preventing the Photoshop defence (3, Interesting)

lxs (131946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257147)

Okay, Solomon, how do we settle this one?

Easy, keep the crime illegal, but treat depictions of the crime like we do depictions of all other crimes, as evidence of a crime and not as a seperate crime.

Re:And the point of these laws is? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257101)

Arguably, banning the drawing of such things, and dissemination of such cartoons discourages sickos from watching the cartoons and being encouraged.

The rationale of protecting children might not justify the means, and it may be a general waste for no actual value in practice, but the logic of protecting children is readily extended to such things as cartoons.

Even though the characters in cartoons aren't real -- the viewers certainly are.

Re:And the point of these laws is? (3, Insightful)

vagabond_gr (762469) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257205)

I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation. It may not be possible to prosecute the people abusing children if they are in a foreign country, but you can help to reduce their market by prosecuting the people who buy their products.

Of course, these laws are about sexual abuse. Because our whole economy is based on products built by abused children on the other side of the planet.

The point of these laws is power (2, Insightful)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257225)

"I was under the impression that the reason for child pornography laws was to protect children from exploitation."

That may have been the original intention when the first child pornography law was created (I believe that was in 1977), but those who now scream "think of the children!" are not really thinking of the children at all.

Child pornography is an emotional topic, so it is very easy to use the issue for political reasons. Campaigning for laws against issues which cause moral outrage are an easy way for a politician to raise his profile and/or attract support. Each campaigner has to find something slightly different to campaign for, so it's not surprising that someone eventually chose virtual child porn.

Of course, laws against child pornography are also a great way to justify intrusive and restrictive laws. Child porn (among other issues, such as terrorism) was used to justify Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (UK) [opsi.gov.uk], which forces a person to provide any encryption keys which they know of, under penalty of imprisonment.

Laws against child pornography are an easy route to power, so it is not surprising that politicians use them regardless of the consequences to children and ethical paedophiles.

Am I in trouble? (1, Insightful)

dannycim (442761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256883)

Geez, I've been watching a lot of cutesy Japanese anime for a long time and some of the girls in the ecchi stuff I like appear very very young.

Maybe I should start thinking about whole-disk encryption. :)

Re:Am I in trouble? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256923)

It would probably be better for you if you would stop watching cutesy Japanese anime.

Or anime an general.

Re:Am I in trouble? (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256935)

No you need to see a therapist ... I'd suggest a hand-drawn psychiatrist and then two years of rehabilitation training in Myiazaki country mental ward. Afterwards you can go back to Hollywood and have Mini Mouse give you a hummer, she's at least mature.

Victims? (5, Insightful)

qbast (1265706) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256889)

So, who exactly is the victim in this case? If none is required then logically everybody involved in production of any work of (questionable) arts depicting killing, assault, robbery or any other crime should be convicted. Too bad over 80% or more of Hollywood and TV production would become illegal.

Re:Victims? (2, Interesting)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256953)

Who's the victim? People that can't stand the idea that there is someone who rapes children SOMEWHERE in the world so they have to get rid of every incriminating piece of evidence that would suggest the existence of such a person. It's weasely morons with no sense of reality. That's why these cases are held ... to get rid of the evidence that the world is a complicated place.

Re:Victims? (2, Insightful)

Kiuas (1084567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257149)

If none is required then logically everybody involved in production of any work of (questionable) arts depicting killing, assault, robbery or any other crime should be convicted.
Too bad over 80% or more of Hollywood and TV production would become illegal.

That's what I was thinking as well. Should the creators of these cartoons be convicted? And what about all those actors in movies who "killed" someone on screen? After all if it is not required that "the minor actually exists" (ie. there is no victim like you said) why should there be the need for the murder victim to "actually exist". On top of that movie actors tend to look more authentic than cartoon figures.

And it doesn't end there. In this case the man was only watching cartoons, but if that can be considered illegal imagine what it does to gaming. I have "murdered" tens of thousands of virtual characters just for the entartainment it offers, should I be held criminally resposible for that? Pure insanity.

Slippery slope they say? No, this is something more. This is a vertical freefall. It won't require many more cases like this and pretty soon people will start to accept that imagining certain things can be considered illegal and thoughtcrime becomes a reality. People should really wake up and do something to stop this sort of lunacy from happening.
 

Mission impossible, yet again. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256917)

How about pictures of underage girls with full grown male genitals? How about non-sexual underage vorarephilia? How about underage furry?

How about concentrating police time and effort capturing the REAL pedophiles? Remember? Those that actually DO illegal stuff!

Re:Mission impossible, yet again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256967)

To be fair, the Australian police in particular cracked down on more actual paedophiles than I am comfortable accepting exist at all.

But reality aside, the cynical side of me believes that laws are being broadened specifically so that law enforcement and politicians can appear to be catching more criminals, simply by making more people classify as criminals. Just like media piracy. Wow, just imagine the penalties for pirating hentai.

Re:Mission impossible, yet again. (1)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257199)

Pedophiles isnt the problem, pederasts are.

You get no arguments from me to lock them up a decade or two..

illegal stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257215)

> REAL pedophiles? Remember? Those that actually DO illegal stuff!

But it IS illegal stuff; the court has spoken.

That's why it is vitally important your cartoons depict 200-year-old VAMPIRE children -- then you'll be safe.

Interesting! (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256937)

The next stage should be to lower the resolution and bit depth of images that can still be classed as child porn. With luck, we should be able to find these sequences of bytes 'embedded' in software and video streams all over the place and this will provide lots and lots of money for the legal profession.

The most recent US Supreme Court decision . . . (2)

cinereaste (1241082) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256941)

I believe the last SCOTUS decision found that cartoon porn was protected speech by a 6-3 margin. Here's the relevant link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html [cornell.edu] Another interesting question is why did the Virginia court disregard the SCOTUS decision that I link to above?

Two possible reasons to ignore SCOTUS (3, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257173)

1) The law in question was passed after the SCOTUS ruling. The judges may be thinking that the law was crafted intentionally to avoid infringing on that ruling.

2) The judges may be be hinting to the current supreme court that the 2002 ruling should be revisited. The judges may know good and well that their particular ruling may be overturned, they may just be hoping that the current Supreme Court will narrow the "if there's no real kid in the picture, it's legal" blanket exemption.

Personally, I suspect that #1 is the "cover" reason and #2 is the "real" reason. Why? Human nature.

I hope the circuit court takes this up en blanc and either reverses the 3-judge panel in favor of the 2002 Supreme Court ruling, or gives a point-by-point legal argument to the Supreme Court detailing exactly why the 2002 ruling either does not apply in this case or was itself wrong as it applies to this case and and why it should be refined to exempt cases like this one.

He would still be convicted for the obscene e-mail (5, Funny)

Fjan11 (649654) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256943)

TFA states that he was also convicted for obscene e-mails describing sex acts with children. Anybody else find this even more worrying than the pictures?

I guess this means you can commit a felony by posting a few choice lines on slashdot?

(Posting anon since I don't want to be associated with this subject, however remotely)

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256979)

You forgot to hit the anon checkbox lol

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (1)

Fjan11 (649654) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257025)

Yeah, I know. Browser crash made me do it (safari). Oh, well.

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257047)

Yeah! Fjan11 = child molester. Grab the torches! Let's kill the bastard.

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256987)

(Posting anon since I don't want to be associated with this subject, however remotely)

Now THAT'S funny.

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257055)

So that will be Steven King, with the child sex scene near the end of 'It', in jail then?

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (4, Insightful)

carvalhao (774969) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257089)

Lucky for Nabokov he's dead, or he'd be jailed for writing Lolita...

Re:He would still be convicted for the obscene e-m (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257217)

(Posting anon since I don't want to be associated with this subject, however remotely)

Look everybody, Fjan11 speaks about child porn!

I can only wonder... (5, Interesting)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256957)

If pedophiles will get in jail whether they are looking at real CP or drawings depicting children, then why would they bother with fiction? I believe this can only bring a higher consumption of real 3D child porn.

Re:I can only wonder... (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257069)

Sadly, I'd rather consider the possibility of real child porn becoming more popular. Hey, when you're gonna do as much jail time for the substitute as you do for the real drug, which one would you pick?

For fscks sake, I thought it's already been established that the most powerful drive of the human is the sex drive. When you tell a rapist he's going to prison for masturbating while thinking how he abuses a person, what do you think is the effect?

Lost our minds (4, Insightful)

nehumanuscrede (624750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256959)

When we start trying to apply the laws of the
land to the realm of make believe our justice
system will have officially lost it's mind. . .

Next we'll be appointing a Cartoon Czar. . .

GOOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256971)

Hopefully they will ban other similar rubbish!

what disgusts you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26256973)

I jerk off to "two girls, one cup" nightly. I find "glass in my ass" to be the pinnacle of art. I mourn the loss of the goatse domain.

That being said, anyone who wants to depict sexual acts being performed on or with someone under the age of 18 is a sick fuck and should be either forced into some kind of mental treatment program or forced out of society (either jail or deportation, take your pick).

Age of consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257031)

The age of consent in most of the US is 16. So, depicting sexual acts being performed on or with someone under the age of 18 makes someone sick, even when actually having sex with that person wouldn't?

Re:what disgusts you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257177)

Well, anyone who finds sexual pleasure in 2 girls 1 cup is a sick fuck and should be either forced into some kind of mental treatment program or forced out of society (either jail or deportation, take your pick).

Now, maybe you can see why what you just said was extremely stupid. Just because you personally find a sexual act disgusting does not mean that everyone who likes it are "sick fucks." I find pornography like 2G1C where people are crapping to be absolutely disgusting. I can't imagine anyone enjoying that, and yet I know there are people who do. Although I am personally disgusted by it, I have no problem with anyone who enjoys it.

They will wind up devaluing the crime (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256983)

Child porn is of course the currently "indefensible" crime (the crime that no one can defend), and so of course prosecutors love to prosecute against it. The ironic thing is that they will wind up devaluing child porn if they are not stopped - it can either be a uniquely degrading and evil thing, or it can be squiggles on a piece of paper, but it can't be both at the same time.

Re:They will wind up devaluing the crime (1)

lupis42 (1048492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257165)

I wonder if we can get people who prosecute this sort of thing labelled as 'terrorist' prosecutors...

Re:They will wind up devaluing the crime (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257201)

Well, eventually McCarthy overstepped the line as well, we'll probably just have to wait.

Opps! You're indictable! (1)

Saint_Waldo (541712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26256991)

0|-<
o><

That's a gay priest fucking an altar boy. Slashdot is conveying ascii child porn, because I labeled it like that.

If it looks like thoughtcrime, someone, somewhere, won't be comfortable enough with themselves to understand the difference between a thought and a real deed. I don't care what your bible says, a sin in the mind is not a sin in deed. And, more important, that's not how laws work. This is cut and dried free-speech and the decision will be struck. Period. Full stop. We've been here before.

Just remember one thing (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257011)

Pornography is usually defined in practice, legally, as something that turns on a Judge.

Just saying.

Not Necessarily (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257057)

You may have said that tongue in cheek, but it would be more likely to be something they found offensive against the perceived values of the culture they judge within.

a line must be drawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257017)

henti crosses the line all the time. The problem is not the definition, but the results. If these child predators have a facet to fixate on that is legal, they continue to further their addiction.

Make it illegal, to and work with ISP's to block this kind of traffic. I hate censorship, but at some point you have to draw a line. Images of the Japanese school girl being raped by a tentacle demon = bad....

Re:a line must be drawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257127)

1/10. You fail at trolling.

Re:a line must be drawn. (1)

lupis42 (1048492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257213)

Why?
What benefit is derived from drawing a line?
I can say "a line must be drawn" too, watch: br>A line must be drawn. All people who believe that a purely fictitious depiction should be censored are fascists.
A line must be drawn. Those who believe that censorship can work are the enemies of freedom and democracy, and we must fight like the heroic Joe McCarthy to protect our freedom-loving country from these evil invaders.


But seriously, what the hell. If you believe in censorship, than as far as I'm concerned, your no better than the Muslims who sent death threats to cartoonists. There's the line I'm drawing.

Non-existant entities do not have any traits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257021)

it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.

That's stupid. Things, objects, people - generally, entities - that don't exist don't have any traits; in particular, they aren't (cannot be!) minors, just like they aren't adults, either, or in fact anything.

To give a car analogy, consider the car I do not actually own and that does not actually stand in the driveway in front of my house. What colour is that car?

It'd make no sense to say that the car is red, obviously. Does that mean the car is another colour? But it isn't blue, either, or green, or yellow, or black, and in fact, the same thing can be said for ANY and EVERY colour. So does that mean that the car is a colour besides red (because it's not red), while at the same time not actually being ANY colour?

All this is obviously rubbish.

Another example? Take the oft-quoted "proof" that god exists that goes like this: "god is perfect; non-existence implies a lack of perfection; therefore, since god is perfect, he cannot NOT exist, therefore he exists". The fatal flaw in this argument is ascribing a trait (perfection) to an entity (god) that a priori doesn't exist (i.e., cannot be assumed to exist): by ascribing the trait of perfection to god, you already ASSUME the existence of god, since otherwise it makes no sense to talk about whether god is perfect.

Saying, in essence, "there is no person involved, and the whole thing's a crime if he/she's underage" equally makes no sense. If there is no person, there is no entity to which traits such as "underage" or "not underage" can meaningfully be ascribed.

Re:Non-existant entities do not have any traits (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257219)

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Re:Non-existant entities do not have any traits (1)

pyster (670298) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257251)

Are you high? A drawing of a person is not a person.

You're all on report. (5, Funny)

This name in use (1248516) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257041)

I'm reporting this thread immediately to the DOJ. You are all clearly trying to find loopholes around this important legislation that is vital to protect our cartoons and adults dressed as children.

degeneration of mankind much simpler than thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257059)

could happen differently. it's all in the manual. better days ahead. see you there?

your girlfriend looks underaged (1)

pyster (670298) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257097)

It should be noted that any fictitious depiction of a child engaged in sex or being sexually presented in is being threatened here. The remake of Lolita, where digital effects are used to create a naked underaged girl, scenes from the professional where leon glimpses mathilda who is trying to be sexy for him, pictures of your of age girlfriend if she looks underage...

Stick figures... Cartoon puppies... pictures of yourself naked as a child being molested by your adult self... The text describing ones own sexual experiences as a minor... Where does it stop? With a judge saying 'I cant define it, but I know it when I see it?'

These judges should have tossed out the virtual child porn, and the text, and convicted him on the actual child porn and other laws that may have been broken. These judges are traitors to common sense and freedom of expression. Off with their heads!

The claim made by many is that children may find these pictures, or that these images/texts find their way into the hands of pedophiles who would molest/rape children... It's all bullshit. Many adult things will fall into the hands of children and those things in general arent going to screw them up for life. Kids have seen lemonpart/goatse/2girls1cup/manga and are just fine. Will one of them see something and their brains shatter? Sure. But this more often happens when some fucktard introduces them to religion. Will pedophiles find this material and spank it to it? Sure. But using that kinda logic to ban it we need to ban everything that works along those lines... Ban porn because it makes some adults rape other adults. Ban alcohol because some drunks drink, drive, kill.

In the end... Virtual child porn doesnt involve any actual children, unless of course it was drawn by a child... What kid didnt draw huge ass titties on stick figures, of if they had talent just draw naked women?... But there is no victim here, except the victim who is offended by anothers artistic expression? That's just life kids...

In some countries, Australia, it is illegal to have virtual child abuse pictures or video. A man is facing jail time for posting a video of a russian circus child being tossed and swung in the air... Even tho the child is laughing the entire time the Australian courts are wanting to send a guy to jail for just linking to the video.

It might be time to rip the sticks out of ppls asses and beat them to death with them.

Drawing on the line of intent..... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257099)

The crime is in committing an injustice against a child.

Many people have fantasies that they would never carry out.
Ever fantasize about killing your boss, or ex?
But you can watch movies with such scripting, its not illegal to fantasize.

Without reading the details of this guys previous history that put him on parole to begin with, I'd imagine that having such cartoons and anime are really not direct evidence of his breaking parole but supporting evidence of the direction of his mental state and concern for real children he may come into contact with. Out of sight, out of mind is perhaps conditions of his parole?

The idea of Japanese anime depicting child porn is perhaps interesting as there seem to be laws that Japanese porn, real or anime, are restricted in what all is allowed to be shown. Certainly these restrictions are more strict than what restrictions against child porn would be and as such inherently include restrictions against child porn.

Perhaps they should be busting those who produce child porn anime as it does seem there are laws against it even in the country its produced in.

 

I call for the prosecution of Stephen King (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257115)

For repeated and multiple murder, for torture, both physical and psychological, for cannibalism and for a few other things that I'd have to consult my library for and reread some of his work.

And while we're at it, I also ask to have the governor of California arrested for ... well, pretty much the same crimes.

No, they didn't commit them. They only depicted and acted them. But appearantly that difference is no longer important.

Re:I call for the prosecution of Stephen King (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257191)

Oh, come on. That was violence. Totally harmless compared to sex ;-)

Re:I call for the prosecution of Stephen King (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257255)

Kiss a pair of boobs and the movie's rated R. Chop them off and it's PG-13.

--Jack Nicholson.

I thought the entire argument against child porn (5, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257117)

was that its manufacture directly hurt children (the ones portrayed in it, not some abstract concept). While distasteful, virtual "child" porn, no matter how realistic, seems to be a freedom of speech which is protected under the Constitution. Otherwise, you are creating a thoughtcrime.

Also is the matter of arguing "age". Some are undeniably children, but we live in a country where 18 years old prosecuted for statutory rape of 16 years old isn't unheard of in our recent histroy. Do we really want to relegate to the prosecutors this power?

Also consider the common cartoon/anime characteristic of having an adult in mind in an essentially child like body. What then?

In summary:
-lack of victim
-Freedom of Speech, if only popular speech were to be protected, we wouln't need 1st amendment
-age ambiguities

If depiction = real (3, Funny)

the_pimaster (854059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257119)

cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States

So if pictures can depict real things...
Does this mean we can just pay off any fines by drawing large sums of money (or just sacks with $$'s on them, would be easier).
Finally, we'll be able to pay all of those software people and musicians the 'lost' money they are owed by those pirates!

End the economic crisis.
End world hunger.
It's all in our reach!!

Thought Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257133)

The really offensive thing about this decision is that it crosses the line from punishing real world actions to punishing pure thought.

Now compare that with advances in PET and other brain scan technology that someday in the near future may be able to detect your thoughts externally.

If that isn't a Orwellian 1984 vision I don't know that would be.

Simpsons cartoon virus anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26257157)

Someone really really needs to write the cartoon simpsons virus installer.

Please don't use Slippery and Porn together (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26257243)

Dear Timothy [monkey.org]:

Please don't use Slippery and Porn in a headline together. Ohhh, my head, it burns!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...