Do you agree with a sentence of 20 years for a victimless "crime"?

[Clarkie1]

Richmond, Va. (AP) - A man who used a public computer at state offices to receive child pornography depicted in highly stylized cartoons will spend 20 years in prison.

Dwight Whorley, 52, was sentenced Friday.

He's the first person convicted under a 2003 federal law that criminalizes the production or distribution of drawings or cartoons showing the sexual abuse of children.

A court found Whorley guilty on November 30 of using a computer at a Virginia Employment Commission office in March 2004. Authorities say he received 20 Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted minors engaged in sex with adults.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0306/309600.html

Edit: Put "crime" in quotes.

Edit #2: focusing on just cartoons here, as that is how the informatiion was originally presented.

[babylonsister]

1. He drew pics of sexual abuse w/ children? I'd like to give him a

pass, but that's bizarre.

[RoyGBiv]

3. Not drew, downloaded ...

As in Anime. Some of it is, to be kind, freakish, tentacle porn for instance which often features implied (key on implied) minors having sex with these bizarre, other-worldly, usually demonic creatures with tentacles. I had heard of this in the abstract and actually saw several of them for sale at a DVD/CD store locally. It's really hard to describe.

Anyway, what this guy apparently had was stuff that's published legally in Japan on a regular basis. I can't say I understand or sympthize with those who enjoy this kind of thing, but on a purely philosophical level, I have a huge problem with sending someone to jail for viewing a cartoon, no matter what it depicts.

[charlie]

14. Yeah, it's nuts

Stupid, scary law. Things are only going to get messier in the coming years, when realistic CGI porn can be cheaply and easily made. It's gonna be real hard to defend principles of freedom and sovereignty when the neo Comstocks can wave deranged graphic fever dreams in your face.

[RoyGBiv]

26. Yeah ...

Some of that is basically here already. I mean the technology used in something like The Sims 2 isn't all that hard to do for someone with the technical skills, and it's gotten to the point already that the skill level is far lower than it once was. I used Blender recently to "draw" an animated, 3-D monkey using the tutorial.

I unfortunately don't have to strain too hard to see software packages like Blender restricted to the point you basically have to sign your name to a register just to use them and then download an activation key that results in the program marking all of your productions with an embedded meta tag. And where that goes ... to borrow someone else's example in one of these threads, authorities will know the name and address of the individual who created the animation of Shrub with devil horns running around killing Iraqi children.

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Hmmm

This is madness
20 years :crazy:

[Karenca]

4. unbelievable... i had to read it twice ...

i think this is just a preview of what's to come...


just wait and see what happens when that internet deal becomes effective.

[sandnsea]

5. Child pornography isn't a crime???

Sorry, you've way lost me on this one. Child pornography is child pornography. Away with him.

[Clarkie1]

8. These were cartoons. There is no victim in a cartoon drawing. n/t

[sandnsea]

11. I just don't care

Honestly, I just don't and you can throw any argument you want at me. It's sick. No images of children engaged in sexual acts. Don't care how they were created. Illegal. Fine by me.

[pitohui]

17. don't go to barnes and noble

because there is a whole section devoted to these cartoons


it's called anime

look, somebody didn't like this dude, they persecuted him

but it's bullshit because every nerd has seen these cartoons and looked at them, anime is everywhere

you know what, somebody doesn't like YOU

and because you didn't stand when they took away anime guy, not sure why i should stand for you

as a nerd, i know too many men who have looked at anime cartoons

you condemn all males who have any technie type hang-out background at all

[sandnsea]

29. Adults and children having sex?

I'll call them tomorrow. I just asked my 20 year old son who is online all the time, never heard of them. Sorry, looking at children and adults having sex, animated or not, is some sick shit.

[mconvente]

35. It's called Hentai buddy...

There is a whole shelf of these books at Barnes and Noble. I will admit, that unless you're in the knew with underground web stuff, you probably won't know about them, but do a search on Google and you'll see there are plenty of sites on it. Not saying it isn't a bit weird, but it is a cartoon - not even close to real porn, not to mention child porn.

[sandnsea]

51. Here

99% of this pic, absolutely fine. The two little girls in the sailor outfit, if they were involved in a sex act, not fine. You can enlarge the picture in the link to see what I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hentai

[janx]

36. Read the article again:

He's the first person convicted under a 2003 federal law that criminalizes the production or distribution of drawings or cartoons showing the sexual abuse of children.

A court found Whorley guilty on November 30 of using a computer at a Virginia Employment Commission office in March 2004. Authorities say he received 20 Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted minors engaged in sex with adults.

I know anime, and my kids know anime. Anime cartoons do not normally show sexual abuse of children. Someone used the style/medium and chose to do so.

That would be like saying, "Photography is photography, and pornography uses photography, but photography isn't bad."

Anime has some anatomical drawings too, but these are not pornographic--let alone depictions of sexual abuse of children.

Very bad logic.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

31. Oh yeah, cuz all American support kids and adults having sex

:crazy: Good god no wonder we lose elections if this is the crazy ass shit people are "fighting for".

[951-Riverside]

39. No one is saying that sandnsea

[sandnsea]

46. This stuff is indefensible

It just is. This isn't some wacky fundy looking at Spongebob upside down and seeing a pair of balls or some other idiocy. It's animations of kids and adults having sex. No. Producing that or viewing it is not a first amendment right, and that's just my opinion on it.

[readmoreoften]

71. Drawings are never "indefensible."

They're drawings. And putting people in jail for 20 years because of cartoons is politically dangerous.

[sandnsea]

84. It's child porn

People have drawn child porn in the past and gone to jail too. Just because these are animations doesn't make it any different.

[gator_in_Ontario]

93. Got you

Only an abused child gets it! It is the most horrible thing. Fucks up your entire life!
made mine a mess

[Occulus]

115. Then please show for all of us the actual child depicted in the cartoons.

What? There wasn't one? Well, then.... there was no crime.

It's like saying someone downloading drawings of people getting stabbed is themselves committing a stabbing, those who download photos of women getting raped- for whatever reason- are themselves committing rape, those who download (for example) images of vaults open at Fort Knox are themselves planning to crack open vaults in Fort Knox, and on and on and on.

There was no victim in the cartoon portion of his conviction. None. Period. End of story.

Your position is completely indefensible.

[CTLawGuy]

136. there are people who acually believe that

"those who download photos of women getting raped- for whatever reason- are themselves committing rape,"

Andrea Dworkin at all.

[Yupster]

138. I second what you just said kgfnally

Drawing a picture should not be a crime.

End of story.

It's sick? Maybe people think someone else's pictures are sick too.

Everyone has opinions, but they shouldn't be crimes.

[Marie26]

6. Oh, please.

I'm referring to my post in that thread that can shed some more light on this. There's a lot more to this case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1000888#1001342

[Clarkie1]

9. Thanks!

But that does not, of course change the injustice of criminalizing the cartoons.

[cynatnite]

12. The cartoons are questionable...

I'm curious if they've ever convicted anyone of this kind of material alone.

[Clarkie1]

15. That's the issue here. n/t

[janx]

43. Have you seen them?

That's the only question I have.

[readmoreoften]

72. Well, hell, don't answer yes!

Because "seeing them" for whatever reason involves jail time.

[hfojvt]

105. seeing them, or owning them is not the issue and not illegal

what is illegal is "producing" or "distributing" them. Thus, if you email them to me and I view them and keep them, I have not broken the law, but you have, by distributing.

[Marie26]

114. Sure!

That article was just awful & extremely misleading. There certainly were actual crimes here involving actual victims; and I'm fine w/him receiving a 20-year sentence for them. (The title of your poll is also pretty misleading, but I know you were going off of the original OP). I agree that the cartoons themselves shouldn't be criminalized, but it's good to know that the SC has already struck down laws that attempted to criminalize "virtual depictions" of children. IMO, this conviction doesn't stand much of a chance on appeal. But I do feel like people are sort of minimizing these cartoons - they were actual depictions of sexual abuse of a child, sent by a sex offender who was also distributing real images of children. I don't know what kind of person would be distributing this stuff, but it's not someone I'd want as a next-door neighbor. In an abstract sense, I agree that these images are protected under the First Amendment, but practically, it's hard for me to get very outraged about this particular man's conviction.

[sandnsea]

10. Thanks for the additional info

It is a bafflement to me why some people intentionally glom on to some irrelevant tidbit to defend the indefensible. And frankly, even if it is animation, it's demented and should be illegal. Animation is alot more than a simple line drawing of old.

[Clarkie1]

18. WTF?

How DARE you imply I am DEFENDING child pornography! So this is how low you will stoop?

[RoyGBiv]

20. Where do you define the boundaries?

To get this out of the way up front, this guy was slime and apparently deserves jail time. To get this also out of the way, I personally think people who enjoy this kind of animation are only using it as a substitute for "the real thing," which means they at least need some forced therapy.

The problem, to me, is the statute used to convict him. The FBI site says actual images of children were found on the same computer he was using. Why didn't they prosecute him for that specifically? Why did they choose the cartoon?

I don't currently have a suggestion as to why, but it disturbs me due to its potential. The reason is that finding an objective line of what constitutes "sexual abuse of children" in a drawing is very, very hard to do and largely left up to the imagination of the prosecutor or jury. I posted in another thread on this issue about an old professor of mine who is no longer allowed to use respected, widely published texts because they have drawings of male and female anatomy depicting children as well as photographs showing the horrific methods once (and sometimes still) used to keep young girls "pure" and to prevent teens and children from masturbating. That, to me, is a depiction of the abuse of children, and it is literally illegal to show according to laws like these. With some interpretations, it's even illegal to describe it with words, so you can't even study it in an acamdemic setting. This professor has been told by a new Dean of his school that he is no longer allowed to use the books, and he's questioning wether he'll be allowed to use The Hite Report or M&J's studies on male and female sexuality because of their written descriptions.

[PublicWrath]

25. Along those lines, couldn't such an interpretation of the laws

lead to a climate in which it would be impossible to study pedophilia itself, the research relying as it does mostly on written descriptions?

[RoyGBiv]

30. That was precisely his point ...

My old professor, that is.

He teaches several sexuality related classes, one of which is "sexual deviance." Some of the books he uses in that class are on the ban list. All he is clearly allowed to use are books with a "criminal justice" bent to them, and even some of *those* are iffy.

[PublicWrath]

47. I think it's very dangerous to criminalize the symbolic.

It will institutionalize a kind of academic prudishness that will set us back a hundred years.
For another thing it opens the door to the state judging art and literature for perceived subversive tendencies.

[sandnsea]

33. No it couldn't

Because pornography laws rely on the basic foundation of community norms. And community norms differentiate between educational resources and blatant sexual titilation.

[RoyGBiv]

42. Sorry, no ...

As mentioned, a professor I know is being prevented from using what are clearly "educational resources" (published by a university press, btw) because, according to his new boss, they could be interpreted as child pornography. As an exercise, try to find _The 1970 Presidental Commission Report on Pornography_, published originally by the US government, in a library somewhere, anywhere.

[sandnsea]

44. "to his new boss"

Which is not the same as "under the law". I'm sure your professor could take it up in the courts, and he'd probably win. I'm sure there's lots of things from 1970 that are no longer in print or withdrawn because the science is no longer accurate or a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with censorship.

[RoyGBiv]

52. His new boss ...

His new boss has handed down this decision based on directions from the state AG. As for trying it in court, I have to ask if you're really serious. Do *you* want to go to court, in a Bible belt state, with the AG on the side of the school's administration, and claim you have a Constitutional right to use a book that shows a picture of a teenage girl with her labia sewn shut?

As for the commission report, it's out of print because it was censored, and books don't suddenly disappear because something else comes out that refutes them. A lot of scientific and sociological works that have been proven incorrect are still available widely. In a good unversity library you can still get very detailed, "scientific" examinations of why Blacks are an inferior specices that were published in the 1800's. But not this, not anywhere, not even in libraries where it was once available. It's illegal to sell it or purchase it or view it. I saw it the year it was pulled from a local library shelf. About 20 or so years ago, during the Reagan administration after a new report was published under Justice Rhenquist's stewardship that offered conclusions exactly the opposite of the 1970 report, the 1970 report was suddenly pulled. I wonder why.

[sandnsea]

61. I'd go to court

Hell yes, if I was right. And your professor is right about being able to use that picture, it's important people know what's done in this world, past and present. But don't equate that right, which he isn't even willing to stand up for, to a right to actual child pornography. If people didn't make those kinds of stupid arguments in the first place, it'd be a lot easier to keep controversial educational materials around.

As to the report, since I don't know about it and am not interested enough to study up on it, I'll just defer to you. I've been told many things in my life, that upon further study weren't anywhere near the truth. But like I say, since I'm not interested enough to find out for myself, I'll just say a lot of things that have been done since Reagan have been a damned shame.

[RoyGBiv]

63. Qualification ...

You're jumping to a conclusion saying he's not even standing up for that right. He's fighting this thing tooth and nail through a carefully considered process. He doesn't *want* have to go to a courtroom, and I don't see how anyone could blame him if he didn't since he pretty much stands to lose the rest of his life as someone's girlfriend in Big Mac if he loses, but knowing him, he will. He's gone out on more dangerous limbs before. I haven't mentioned this because I'm really and truly not wanting to get into specifics about this since it is current. I mentioned it off-hand elsewhere, and I realized once I was rolling that it provided too perfect an example of what I was trying to argue.

But once again, the problem is with these blanket laws that so broadly define such things. You know what's wrong, and I know what's wrong, but what some random idiot on the streets of Oklahoma knows is wrong is probably an entirely different thing. This professor is harassed all the time for his political views in more mainstream areas, and something like this is tailored made to shut him up or remove him from circulation.

[sandnsea]

69. That makes no sense

He isn't using the material is he? If he's not, then how in the world can he end up in prison? Put his books in the custody of his lawyer. If he is, well then that's just goofy and he's asking for trouble. Not the way to go about it at all. I'm glad to hear he's fighting, he should.

Yes it's difficult to live in a country where all views are heard. But the opposite could be argued too, all views including those of adults who would like to have child sexual activity legal. Lines have to be drawn. It isn't always easy. Your professor fights for an obvious right to teaching material. Others fight to end explicit child sexual material. In the end, I think we get it right most of the time.

[RoyGBiv]

79. Unanswered questions ...

After further reflection, I'm afraid I have to leave this comment largely unanswered because I've already gone over a line I should not have crossed with regard to this particular issue. That's my fault, and I apologize.

Suffice to say I have not presented it in its full context and that "using" the book is the central issue, thus without using it, the professor has essentially bowed to the demands of the administration/AG.

[sandnsea]

82. No problem

And I wish your professor all the best and hope I don't end up hearing the rest of the story on CNN.

[RoyGBiv]

83. Addendum ...

Just to let you know, I do question my own command of the facts and decided to do so with this one since it has been a very long time since I visited this particular issue.

I was only partly correct. You can still find the text of the report. What you cannot find was a commercially published book with the same title that included both the text of the report and images that were presented to the commission as evidence. The specific images at issue were some that involved a film known as "Animal Farm," which was a pornographic bestiality film.

A couple other corrections. It wasn't Rhenquist, rather Edwin Meese whose name is associated with the Reagan-era report. The 1970's report is also called the Lockhart Commission. The former was commissed with the specific intent of countering the latter.

[sandnsea]

32. kids giving blow jobs to adults

Pure and simple. No further mind-fucking analysis required. Kid, adult, sexual acts, ILLEGAL. That is all.

[RoyGBiv]

40. Okay ...

Fair enough.

Now, in a cartoon, how do you know it's a child?

I sympathize very, very strongly with what you're saying. I was sexually abused as a child. And I know the difference between mainstream porn and KP.

I don't know how one always knows the difference with this type of animation. Sure, some of it is probably very, very clear, but it's not like traditional porn where the producers are required to keep records proving the age of the performers. When we slide just past the very clear stuff -- and the stuff I've seen in stores and in SPAM is quite a ways past the very clear stuff -- you hit a barrier of definition I'm not real comfortable trying to define. What constitutes "proof" that the depiction is of an underage person? Is it lack of pubic hair? People shave. Is it a voice? Some people have weird voices. How about the "school girl" motif? A "school girl" in Japan, where most of this stuff is produced, is often what would here be a college-aged person, but if they have no pubic hair, a "childish" voice, and have a flat chest does that mean they are underage? It's a cartoon, and you can't get a birth certificate for a cartoon.

My point is simply that the potential for abuse of this kind of law is enormous. I would have no qualms whatsoever if the guy had been convicted under existing laws against actual child pornography. Hell, I'd buy the gas for the van that takes him to prison. I'm just very suspicious of the fact they used this particular statute when they claim they also found actual CP on the same computer. Why would they do that?

[cynatnite]

50. I would bet he would have still got 20 years without the cartoons...

And you're right. There are some cartoons where you really don't know the ages.

I'm actually surprised this law hasn't been challenged in court yet.

[RoyGBiv]

54. I agree...

Based on the facts posted since the original story, I have no qualms with the sentence for what he has actually done. It's just the law used to dish out the sentence, and the fact you can get it under the terms of that law, that bothers me greatly.

[PublicWrath]

55. This removes the application of law from the sphere of the protection

of society, i.e. people, and takes it into the creepy zone of providing penalties for offences against a nebulous 'standard'. I don't like it.

[sandnsea]

56. I was very clear

And I'm honestly not interested in the nuances of it. I'm just not in this instance. Adults, child, sex act. Illegal.

Humans involved? You better have records.

I honestly don't care what people do sexually in just about any scenario, except kids. I'm about to help a friend launch a lesbian sex toy site for pete's sake. But I think the lines are crystal clear and this is one of those instances where liberals really twist themselves into a knot to make an issue where there really isn't one.

[RoyGBiv]

59. *You* may have been clear ...

The laws, however, are not. "Sexual abuse," in and of itself, is defined very broadly in some cases. That is, according to the laws in question and the way they are used, it's not even actual depictions of sexual relations between an adult and a minor that constitutes abuse. It's a depiction of any sort of sexual behavior in a person under the age of 18. (For the sake of clarity, I've kinda gone off track and am not necessarily talking about the specific law used in the case, rather invoking local laws that address the same kind of issue. Some of these define the written word involving any depiction of sexual activity involving a character or person under the age of 18 as "abuse," apparently because it abuses the image.) With this particular law, not even a person, but a character that some can interpret as under 18, if they want, or not ... it's pretty much left up to the imagination of the prosecutor or jury, as mentioned.

[sandnsea]

65. Community norms

The Supreme Court basis for judging porn and other adult sexual activities. It's not unclear. Children, Adult, Sex Act. Illegal.

[RoyGBiv]

67. Community norms ...

...is very unclear, and, imo, one of the biggest cop-outs ever in a SCOTUS decision.

[sandnsea]

70. I don't

I believe it allows every community to set a basic standard for themselves, and believe it allows a defense to challenge a jury to consider various community norms when deciding a case. Like I said, I think we get it right most of the time with child porn, because this is one area that I've never heard of someone in jail when they didn't need to be there.

[cynatnite]

60. You don't see the potential abuse this can have...

on adult cartoons?

Without anything definitive to say what age a cartoon character is there is room for this law to come down on legitimate artists who do a variety, including, pornographic cartoons. And I don't believe this would apply to just cartoons. There is also computer graphics as well. What about other artists who do nudes? It could be applied there, too.

[sandnsea]

62. No

The differences between child and adult pornography, and art, are settled law. You're not even mixing apples and oranges, you're mixing apples and cucumbers. There's absolutely no potential abuse or slippery slope or any train of thought between illegal kiddie animes and legal Playboys and nude art.

[patcox2]

142. What were the kids names? Where do they live?

There were no kids, no adults, and no blowjobs. There was ink on paper, electronic impulses. Fantasies.

[babylonsister]

34. A perv is a perv, period. Art or anything else? It's too late. nt

[IsIt1984Yet]

116. But, WHO'S DEFINITION of a "perv" is criminal?

Take the SD law against sex toys. If one graphiclly depicts this in a cartoon should they also be charged?

Just wondering who gets to draw the line in the sand?

[cynatnite]

7. Absolutely

After reading Marie's post and getting more information...the 20 years is justified. Hell, maybe he should get more than that.

edited after getting more info.

[Clarkie1]

13. Should he be jailed if it was only cartoons?

Of course he should be jailed for the child pornography, but the cartoons are a different matter. What if he hadn't been guilty of the pornography?

[cynatnite]

16. I really don't know

If they did convict someone just on the cartoons, I would expect them to also go after the creators and the suppliers of this material, too.

I was always a believer that there is no such thing as a victimless crime, but in this kind of situation, I do question it now.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Problem is ...

In the country of origin, this kind of art is perfectly legal, so there won't be any going after them unless the US government starts imposing its own laws on other nations again.

I'm not real clear or comfortable on this one myself. It's one of those situations where you despise the criminal so much you don't really want to defend him or her. I'm thinking of this more in terms of the law's other applications.

[cynatnite]

49. Yeah, it seems like such a gray area...

I'm no law expert, but it seems like this could be abused and manipulated.

[last1standing]

19. As your question stands, I had to vote "no". However,.....

The real "crime" was the downloading of real children naked or having sex which opens up a whole new question. Were these "children" 17 or were they 6? Were the pictures tastfully shot poses of the human body or depictions of sexual acts that are unnatural and obscene for an adolescent?

I'm not sure what the answers to those questions are, but if we're talking about preteens having sex with each other or with adults then we're not talking about a victimless crime. Maybe looking at the actual picture doesn't hurt anyone, but the act of producing it does and the demand for such images is an indirect cause in the damaging of a child. If that's the case, he deserves to be locked up for a long time.

We're a society that obsesses on sex and youth. It's not to be wondered that at least a small subsection would take those two things to an extreme that passes the boundries of decenct behavior. I think the real question that needs to be asked is what can we do to end kiddie porn?

[Clarkie1]

22. I am focusing only on the drawings.

I think people who engage in child porography should be locked up for life, but the original thread stated that the defendant received 20 years for downloading 20 drawings. Another person later clarified the confusion.

[last1standing]

27. That's why I voted "no".

I wanted to vote to your question, not the story. On the other had, I wanted to clarify that I do think the actual sentence was proper based on the given facts.

On another note, the idea of criminalizing thought, whether it be written, drawn or chiseled no matter how disgusting or perverted is anathema to me. I hope that law is struck down soon (of course with this supreme court it's very unlikely).

[Clarkie1]

38. I'm in complete agreement with you.

It's unfortunate that the story was originally posted here on DU in a way that made it sound like he was only convicted for the drawings, but that is not the issue. The issue is the unconstitutinality of the law that makes viewing drawings a crime.

[last1standing]

48. Good luck with getting some people to understand that.

There will always be a contingent who scream for castration and execution the moment children and sex are put into the same sentence. After that, facts and constitutionality don't matter. It's all about vengence for them.

Sometimes it reminds me of the homophobes who end up "getting lost" in gay bars. I think Shakespeare had a quote about it........

[Yupster]

139. About your avatar last1standing

When David slew Goliath, he was the youngest of Jesse's eight sons. The three oldest sons were with the army but David stayed home with the family sheep herd. He did bring food to the army camp for supplies for his brothers.

When he said he'd fight Goliath, Saul said he could not since he was a youth.

Back then by 16 or 17 you would be with the army in times of trouble, so my thinking was that David was somewhere in the 13-14 range if not younger.

Hence Michelangelo's David is a depiction of an under age nude. Hopefully jailtime won't follow.

[mntleo2]

23. It's Just A Freaking CARTOON!

Sheesh. I am against depicting real children in real pictures, but a CARTOON is now illegal???? GAWD this country is becoming a bunch of moral nannies. What are they going to prosecute us for next ~ thought crimes?

Cat In Seattle

[American Tragedy]

28. I really seriously hope that he wasn't just convicted of viewing anime

I have several books of Crumb comics. Do I need to be imprisoned too?

[janx]

37. 74 counts?

I doubt it.

[charlie]

41. No, he was nailed for real kiddie porn as well

But the "cartoon law" was invoked and he was convicted for it. Best stash those Mr Natural comics somewhere cool and dark.

[TorchTheWitch]

45. Well, yeah

if your Crumb comics depict child sex. I'm hoping they don't.

[janx]

53. I somehow doubt that is what he was looking at... n/t

[sandnsea]

57. Depicting children having sex?

If you do, yes.

[janx]

66. The anime drawing books that my daughter had

showed how to draw anime characters, including breasts and things. But they did not show anything about child porn or kids having sex with adults or anything like that...as a matter of fact, anime by nature is very childlike in its presentation. Everybody is a kid in anime.

I can also think of historic anatomy artists that have pissed people off, but none of these pictured children having sex with adults. This sounds like some knee-jerk reaction that happened when people didn't know the facts, or else some perv ALSO had some perv cartoons in addition to his sick photos.

[sandnsea]

73. Here

Here's a link with a picture of anime porno. I'm very familiar with Japanese animation, you'd have to have been under a rock for ten years not to be. The pornography, not so much, and child pornography, not at all. Like I said to the person above, 99% of this photo is okay by me, except for the 2 little girls in the sailor suits, more specifically, if they were drawn engaged in sex acts. The difference is quite clear, particularly because of the bustiness of anime women to begin with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hentai

[janx]

58. Another question I have:

Since I have seen anime, I find it difficult sometimes to distinguish between children and adults in the renditions. Everything looks childlike.

So without seeing these things, it's impossible to tell what is going on.

[readmoreoften]

75. Well, a lot of people would condemn you to jail, then.

If you're looking at Hentai, you're equivolent to a pedophile. I guess if a stripper in a club dresses up like a school girl, the paddy wagon should come and take everyone away. Even if she's actually 30-teen.

Preposterous.

[PublicWrath]

64. Here's a related question:

Sexual themes are frequent in ancient art. It is not at all uncommon for such art to depict grown men having sex or about to have sex with boys. What should be done with such an artifact, assuming it's about 2500 years old? Does the amount of perversity it embodies decline as its antiquity advances?

[janx]

68. Like Auden?

We're going to compare anime to Auden, for instance?

[PublicWrath]

77. I don't know anything about Auden,

but I'm trying to get a clarification on whether the pornography charge could have been sustained if he had such a work on his mantel, instead of cartoons on his computer. I'm perfectly willing to switch 'young boy' for 'young girl' in my hypothetical. (I only used 'young boy' in the example because I've seen so many more pieces of ancient erotica involving boys, than girls.)

[sandnsea]

74. This isn't about artifacts

People really aren't that stupid. This isn't about art or history or even adult pornography.

It's about KIDDIE PORN, here and now. That is all.

[readmoreoften]

76. Nope.

Kiddie porn has real kiddies in it. Cartoons have cartoon characters. If the "kid" in kiddie porn has is purple and has antlers, does the defendant still go to jail? What if the cartoon character just "appears" 15, but the artist says he meant her to be thirty. This is idiocy.

If you want to round up all the teenage boys drawing pictures of the Sailor Moon Characters having sex, then arrest all the 30 year old strippers who dress up in catholic school girl outfits. And don't forget to arrest the customers. And don't forget to arrest the people who draw pictures of 30 year olds dressed up in catholic school girl outfits.

Meanwhile, real pedophiles are raping REAL children somewhere.

[sandnsea]

80. No difference

Anime kiddies or true-to-life animated kiddies. Children are children and it's quite obvious. And if teen-aged boys are drawing children having sex with adults, then they need counseling.

I'm not saying I want a special FBI division specifically devoted to anime porn, but I am saying when they find it as part of other child abuse investigations, it doesn't need to be set aside as unimportant.

[Mythsaje]

85. What if the teenage boys are drawing them having sex

with THEM? That's still "child porn" by these standards.

If a kid has a thing for the girl who sits across from him in homeroom, and draws a relatively recognizable picture of them having sex, he is now a criminal. He has created child porn.

And you say this makes sense?

[sandnsea]

86. Community norms

And a jury would decide and would toss it out on its ear. People have been drawing sexual acts forever. If someone drew lifelike sexual acts between children and adults, would you not consider that child porn just because they were drawings???

Your argument just doesn't hold up because prosecutors and juries are just not that stupid and have better things to do than arrest a 16 year old drawing a picture of himself with another 16 year old. A picture of him and a 5 year old? Whole other thing.

[Mythsaje]

87. It would be weird, and

perhaps a reason to have a long talk with the kid, but it's not a criminal act in and of itself.

And prosecutors and juries CAN be that stupid. If they'll send a kid away to prison for 10 years for a joint in some places (based on community standards) or accept the criminalization of sex toys for adults (based on community standards) they ARE that fucking stupid.

[sandnsea]

92. That's not child porn

People can keep dragging in every crime or stupid law they want. It's not child porn. Child porn is clear. Child, Adult, Sex. Illegal.

[Mythsaje]

96. REAL, involving real children...

FAKE, involving nothing but someone's imagination and a pencil or pen.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, btw...and called the law regarding images not involving real children "overbroad and unconstitutional." The charges against this guy involving the cartoon depictions will most likely be struck down in appeal. He will still suffer the consequences of the REAL images of children where REAL children were actually harmed during their creation found on the computer.

As it should be.

[sandnsea]

100. See #98

I remember that law and the same arguments at the time. I thought it was stupid then, and I suspect if it had been presented in the right context, such as the comparison between graphics and pen and ink, the justices would have seen it differently. I do not think the justices, or most anybody, thinks it's acceptable to publish a kiddie porn magazine because it only has drawings, paintings and animations in it.

[Mythsaje]

103. Yet they're published ALL THE TIME

in Japan.

You can't tell the difference between an adult and a child in most anime. At least I can't. I'll bet any one of us could find examples of this sort of thing literally within minutes if we chose to look.

You don't see the difference between porn that involves the abuse of real children and something that came out of someone's head?

What about fiction? What if someone wrote a story about two barely pubescent children having sex? Is that child porn? Prosecutable? I'm not arguing it's not sick...but it's also entirely manufactured, and only one tiny step from being entirely a fantasy within someone's head. It involves NO other people at all.

edited for formatting.

[sandnsea]

107. One, this isn't Japan

Two, I highly doubt books and magazines with lifelike drawings and paintings of children being sexually abused are published in Japan. Other countries, most likely. But not Japan and not in most western countries. You keep avoiding the issue of whether you think lifelike drawings and paintings of children being sexually abused should be legal.

I can readily tell the difference between adults and children in these magazine covers, and this is what I pulled up in Google on my first search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hentai

Like art, the difference between literature and erotica is pretty clear. The laws are made and juries decide. Just like with everything else. You can't write a law for every single scenario where someone might kill someone in order to defend their life, juries decide on a case by case basis. That's the same with child porn and that's the way it should be.

[Mythsaje]

108. Could be an adult, could be a child...

Can you tell the difference?

How do you judge?

That's the whole point. If the character's age is ambiguous, you can assume it's whatever you like. If it's wearing a little sailor suit, or a catholic school girl outfit, it could well be a kid. Or it could be an adult PRETENDING to be a kid.

And since when was anime life-like?

[jberryhill]

130. So, is it okay if...

1. A live action movie has adult actors, all over 18, portraying themselves as children?

2. A cartoon book states that all of the cartoon characters are over 18, and are acting?

In the example you have posed with the Wikipedia illustration, how do you know those cartoon characters are not over 30 year old women cartoon characters wearing sailor suits?

[Yupster]

140. Are cartoon years

the same as human years?

Does it deoend on the kind of paper they're printed on?

This whole thing is stupid.

No cartoons were hurt in the drawing of these scenes.

And I'm an old guy who has no idea what Japanese sex animation looks like.

[Occulus]

118. Well, that's pretty... naive.

"And a jury would decide and would toss it out on its ear."

HUGE assumption.

"If someone drew lifelike sexual acts between children and adults, would you not consider that child porn just because they were drawings???"

They have- on pots. 2500 years ago. We call them artifacts, which is how this subthread started. The answer, of course, is "no, I would not consider that child porn, because they are only drawings."

I would say the same about computer models as well. No victim=no assault. Period.

"Your argument just doesn't hold up because prosecutors and juries are just not that stupid and have better things to do than arrest a 16 year old drawing a picture of himself with another 16 year old."

They also have more sense than to bring terrorism charges against a teen for writing a story about zombies attacking a school, right?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/08/high_school_zombie_threat/

"A picture of him and a 5 year old? Whole other thing."

No, it's still just a cartoon. It's worth only the attention necessary to divine whether he's actually doing it or going to do it, but the drawing itself can be of no legal consequence or we are all in extreme danger from "our" government.

I cannot understand why you don't get this. I label you "hyperparent".

[arcos]

111. True-to-life kiddies actually suffer when child porn is made...

As far as I know, no cartoon kiddies were ever harmed making any anime, since they don't exist.

Comparing the two is minimizing what real life survivors of child abuse have to go through.

And as the previous poster said, what if it's a kid-like weird alien monster from outer space? A few years I was very much into anime and had the chance to see a couple of hentai movies with some friends. We had heard of it, and decided to check it out for ourselves. Yes, we were absolutely shocked and frequently pressed the fast forward button... it is certainly bizarre, you would be surprised of how many non-human "characters" appear.

[PublicWrath]

78. People ARE that stupid, That's why virtually every museum had

some collections forbidden to the public. Many still do. It's also why many pieces have destroyed. You aren't worried about children, you are worried about thoughtcrime.

[sandnsea]

88. So now we do 1,000 years of history

To defend child pornography. Twisting into a pretzel to make an issue where there shouldn't be one.

You want a museum to display particular adult nudes or sexual art, then present the collection and museum and DO THAT. Don't use it as a basis to defend child pornography.

And most certainly at some point in the last 1,000 years just about anything has happened. But again, don't use that as an excuse to defend child pornography.

Criminy.

[Mythsaje]

89. You call it child porn

others call it a cartoon. Totally unreal.

Is a kid's naked butt on a drawing porn?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line?

I find the stuff tasteless and sick myself, but I don't believe in criminalizing things that cause no harm in and of themselves.

[sandnsea]

95. Others call it pencil drawings or paintings

How something is depicted doesn't change what it is. Child porn is child porn. Child, Adult, Sex. That's what this guy had. It's quite clear.

A kid's naked butt may or may not be porn. That's what we've got prosecutors and juries for.

It's really not complicated.

[Mythsaje]

97. YOU think it's not that complicated...

A lot of people disagree.

[PublicWrath]

94. You are trying to extend a principle of law that exists to protect

children into a bludgeon against people whose minds disgust you. These laws should not be used to avenge ink and paper, only children.

[sandnsea]

98. Child porn drawings??

Really? It's okay with you if someone draws and distributes books and magazines with lifelike paintings and drawings of children being sexually abused?? Next week at the MOMA, 3 year old fellatio, is that it??

You really need to take a step back and think about what you're saying because I suspect you don't mean it at all.

[Mythsaje]

99. There's a difference between thinking it's "okay"

and thinking it's not a criminal act. Wrong doesn't necessarily mean illegal...and legal doesn't necessarily mean right.

[sandnsea]

101. If you think that should be legal

Then I would guess you don't think much more than murder should be illegal to begin with.

[Mythsaje]

104. That's a stretch...

Gee, let's compare crimes where real people are harmed with crimes where no one is harmed.

Guess which ones I think should be illegal...

[PublicWrath]

102. If your argument is based on a perceived corrupting influence,

then you are in danger of banning a lot of sexually explicit magazines with themes unrelated to children.

(As an aside, I've got to go to bed, birds are tweeting. I'll be back tomorrow, though, and will read your post.)

[sandnsea]

106. But I'm talking about CHILD porn

So how could anything happen regarding anything UNRELATED to children. :crazy:

By that logic, we should never pass any laws because it might lead to a law banning eating cherry cheesecake and the world would come to an end if we all couldn't eat cherry cheesecake.

[Mythsaje]

109. Your arguments seem to involve

a lot of straw men.

No one is arguing against reasonable laws to protect children. But I, for one, fail to see how prosecuting people for comics does anything to protect children.

[mongo]

120. Here's your idea of child porn

[Occulus]

117. deleted

nevermind

[Mythsaje]

81. There's a character in my third novel...

The heroine, in fact, who's a twenty something year old woman who's often mistaken for a 13 y.o. because she's so small and petite. Using these guidelines, had I included a sex scene in the book, I may have been considered to be creating child porn because it's possible to THINK of her as a child since she looks like one.

The precedent bothers me... A lot.

I think child porn that involves real children is totally wrong. Cartoons, on the other hand, are what they are. Not in the least bit real.

I was blown away when I ran across a web comic that features some of this stuff. It's a strange one, but I'm not sure it should be illegal.

Apparently now it is.

[Chovexani]

121. Shit, you'd have to arrest entire communities on Livejournal

Not to mention the entire Loveless fandom.

This is kind of scary.

[OneBlueSky]

90. first it's viewing cartoons . . .

then it's writing about the subject . . .

then it's talking about the subject . . .

then it's thinking about the subject . . .

slippery, slippery slope . . .

[W_HAMILTON]

113. ???

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll assume you're not.

The only slippery slope involved here is calling this a crime, and what could be to follow. If watching a cartoon of something illegal is criminal, what about watching a violent movie? What about playing a violent video game? What about insulting and deriding our president on a message board during a "time of war?" Where does it stop?

[Mythsaje]

125. I think the point is

that making the drawings illegal is the beginning of a slippery slope to thought crimes.

I can understand your confusion though.

[Balbus]

91. What inspired the cartoonist?

Could it be, uhhh, child pornography? Now that the victims have been found let's see what the votes are.

[trisha]

110. Do you agree with a sentence of 20 years for a victimless "crime"?

What is this?

[W_HAMILTON]

112. What's next?

Cartoons are CARTOONS. What's next, locking up people for watching movies in which someone kills someone else? Or lock someone up for playing violent video games? It's a CARTOON. The whole reason behind child pornography being illegal is because they are being exploited and hurt and are too young to do anything about it. A cartoon character does not exist. If they are trying to say it's just a quick jump from watching porn cartoons to watching real child porn, where are you going to stop? They're already trying to put in legislation about video games, saying that if you play violent video games, you are more inclined to commit acts of violence in real life. So is that next to go?

That's quite the slippery slope.

[0007]

119. Twenty years is a little to much and something is wrong with

our society when many offenders walk after two or years after performing an act against a child. And nothing if you happen to be a Catholic priest.

[Nutmegger]

122. Don't read "Lolita"

I'm just saying. . . . .

I can't believe I'm witnessing this sentiment on DU and in Amurika.

[jmowreader]

123. There are other threads about this

I don't think the prosecutor would have tried this case if ALL it entailed was some asshat downloading hentai. The judge would have looked at this and said...hey DU lawyers, how do you say "I assume you're fucking kidding" in judge-ese?

I know, I know, the particular hentai Dwight Whorley had was extreme.

However! Whorley used a government computer to download the hentai, and he was downloading traditional child porn--the kind that has real children having real sex in it. This makes the hentai charges "padders"--things they add to the charge sheet to extend the defendant's sentence. (An example: I get brought up on armed robbery charges. They'll also add "possession of stolen property," "possession of a firearm with felonious intent," "possession of ammunition with felonious intent," "maintenance of a vehicle for criminal purposes," "maintenance of a dwelling for criminal purposes," "double parking," "jaywalking"...you get the idea.)

I think they could have gotten 20 years easy with just the child porn and misuse-of-government-property charges without bringing in the hentai charges.

[bloom]

131. "he was downloading traditional child porn"

Criminy - so all of these people are getting bent out of shape for nothing. Since most people have said that they would take photographic child porn seriously.


That's a bunch of nonsense if people are trying to make out that this sentence was all about the hentai if that was just a small part of it.

[jmowreader]

145. They have good reasons for getting bent out of shape

The hentai charges shouldn't be in there.

Oh-KAY! Let me see...Japanese pervert thinks drawing pictures of children having sex with adults is a good thing, draws said pictures, other perverts think looking at those pictures is a good thing.

I think it's really strange that you'd want to do that.

But...hentai is drawings with pen and ink. No real children were damaged in its production.

I think charging someone with possession of child pornography JUST for hentai is like charging someone with terrorism JUST for reading the Turner Diaries or the Anarchist Cookbook, charging someone with bank robbery JUST for watching Dog Day Afternoon, charging someone with religious discrimination JUST for looking at Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, or charging someone with racial discrimination JUST for watching Joe. And 20 of the charges in this case were specifically hentai charges.

In this administration, you really have to worry that the next time they pull this out, it isn't going to be used to pad out a charge sheet; after successfully prosecuting someone for hentai and photographic child porn, they'll find someone to charge with child porn just for owning some of that tentacle-sex anime, with no other offensive artwork.

[Nutmegger]

124. SWEET MOSES! I just witnessed a TENTACLE RAPE!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tentacle_rape

OH NO! Rape is evil and I'm totally against it; my witnessing this tentacle rape is a crime against society!

STOP THE TENTACLE RAPE! STOP IT NOW!

:sarcasm: just in case.

[DemoTex]

126. 1984 (Orwell)

Think the crime, do the time.

[LWolf]

127. Any publication that promotes

the idea that it's ok for adults to engage in sex with children is not victimless, in my opinion. Propaganda that encourages fascination with pedophilia victimizes all children. In my opinion.

I guess "downloading" was equated with "distributing." A first step to distribution, in any case.

This man, being on probation for a previous child pornography conviction, is not "innocent." He should receive some sort of sentence for that, and for using someone else's computer and bandwidth, as well. I don't know about 20 years; if he is a threat to children, he can do life. If not, 20 years may be excessive.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. OK. Does that apply to simply speaking the following sentence in public?

Or in writing?

"I believe it should't be illegal to have sex with a 16-year old."

[LWolf]

144. That's a different issue, imo.

You've taken that one into cultural differences about when one is no longer a child.

In the U.S., we define adulthood at 18 or 21. Puberty happens much earlier than that. I don't really consider a 16 year-old a child. Physically, a 16 year-old is sexually developed enough for sex. Whether that person is mentally and emotionally mature enough depends on the baggage and expectations for sexuality and sexual practices in the culture. Ready for marriage, parenthood, etc.? Probably not. An older partner is dangerous, imo, for the emotionally and mentally immature 16 yo who has little sexual experience and may have unspoken expectations that don't materialize in the relationship. Is a teenager a child or an adult? Both, and neither, imo. Teenagers are young men and women who are not mature enough for "adulthood," including some choices, experiences, and responsibilities.

I don't know when the whole thing comes together into "mature enough:" mentally, physically, emotionally, culturally. I know it doesn't happen in actual preadolescent/pubescent "childhood."

[Nye Bevan]

128. But some cartoon characters look much older than their years!

What if I read a cartoon on the internet where two people have sex and in the last panel the female cartoon character reveals that she is, in fact, only 15? How long do I go to jail for?

Who will study the cartoons to determine the ages of all of the characters? The judge or the jury?

And what if at the end of the cartoon all of the characters remove their synthetic skin coverings revealing them to be electonic robots? Is everyone then legally in the clear?

Finally, does anyone know Minnie Mouse's age, as I am not sure whether this is legal:



(See http://www.paulkrassner.com for the full poster)

[Homer Wells]

132. Shades of 1984 here

The term Thought Police comes to mind.
Precedent being set here.
Kiddie porn SUCKS, to be sure, but once this precedent has been set, sending a guy to jail for VIEWING and THINKING such thoughts, how long before thinking about other such things, (like maybe wanting to revolt against our governing powers) becomes criminal??
Seems to me, society would have been better served with giving him psychological counseling, perhaps nipping in the bud what could become a much more serious psychological problem for him in the future. Prison will only further screw up his sexual orientation, and make him that much more a social problem when he returns to society.
Just musing over this!
:shrug:
:hippie:

[Homer Wells]

137. After reconsideration

Jumped the gun a little bit. After reading that this was only the tip of the iceberg, this guy does deserve some penalties. Still, the prison system and society would still be better served getting this guy psychological help. It is quite convenient to just sweep these sick people under the rug, figuring out of sight, out of mind. These people are seriously twisted, and we all deserve to be protected from their possible actions....BUT....as human beings, (Compassionate human beings)..these people need to be cured. From all I have learned in my life, prison has no real desire to rehabilitate people.
Ah well.. if I had the answers, that would really be something
:dilemma:
:hippie:

[kestrel91316]

133. How does one determine the age of a CARTOON CHARACTER????

How do you know its not a cartoon of a DWARF? Or a hypothetical ALIEN? Or whatever?

[Minnesota Libra]

134. While cartoons should not be a crime IF it involves our children then.....

....yes it should be considered a crime. If a person is into pornography there's enough of the adult variety around so that children should never have to be involved for any reason.

[CTLawGuy]

135. If the child was having sex with the prophet Mohammed

then he should go to jail for 20 years. ;)

[JVS]

141. *snort*

[cigsandcoffee]

143. Is this also a victimless crime?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Photographer+guilty+in+child+porn+case&articleId=3b1cb0cd-b6bb-434c-9419-8978a1776a08


Photographer guilty in child porn case

Saturday, Apr. 22, 2006


Manchester – A Massachusetts man was found guilty yesterday of nine counts of possession of child pornography stemming from his more than 20-year association as a photographer for a youth camp in Amherst.

Marshal Zidel, 59, of Somerville, Mass., was convicted after a stipulated facts trial before Justice John M. Lewis in Hillsborough County Superior Court, North. Each charge alleged Zidel “knowingly possessed a visual representation of a child engaged in sexual activity.”

Zidel was a longtime photographer at Camp Young Judea in Amherst, where he took photos of campers and compiled them into yearbooks. He used those photos to create what he called his own “personal fantasy,” according to a county attorney press release. The telephone at Camp Young Judea is not in service until June 1. A message left on an answering machine at a Massachusetts phone number for the camp was not returned.

Zidel was accused of juxtaposing the heads and faces of campers onto images that depicted the youngsters engaging in sexual activity. Those images, saved on a CD ROM, were accidentally given to the camp’s director, according to the press release. While Zidel’s attorney admitted that his client knew the campers depicted in the photos were under 16 years old, the attorney argued the images were not child pornography because the children were not subjected to sexual content, according to the press release.