Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

[likesfish]

First they came for the nonce cartoons etc etc

It may be disgusting but unless its actually causing real harm leave it alone because censors tend not to stop.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Shite.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

[xenon]

Liberal wankers. Yes. I said it

 

[Johnny Vodka]

First they came for the nonce cartoons etc etc

It may be disgusting but unless its actually causing real harm leave it alone because censors tend not to stop.

We could conflate the two cartoon stories. Say a French magazine published a satirical cartoon of a certain religious figure having sex with his alleged underage bride, would that be okay?

 

[frogwoman]

There's more of a danger of free speech being curtailed through 'anti terror' and 'anti racism' type laws isn't there?

Where have anti child porn laws been used for political prosecutions? I'm not saying they never have, I'm genuinely interested and can't think of any examples.

 

[Chick Webb]

I'm a bit confused, how have laws against child pornography (as opposed to laws against hate speech/public order/blasphemy) etc contributed to a restriction on freedom of speech?

This is a genuine question because I can't think of any examples?

The argument tends to go if you banned this manga, you'd also have to ban other stuff which would more usually be considered "art". An example Neil Gaiman gave was an autobiographical comic where the author told a story of sexual awakening/experiences set when he/she was 14. It would be very hard to distinguish in law between a trashy comic and arty comic that contained depictions of underage sex.

 

[Sasaferrato]

My own opinion is censorship should only be invoked in extreme circumstances. I don't really consider obvious drawings - no matter what they're of - extreme circumstances. I'd be surprised if anyone had first been inspired to molest children by watching manga. That said, what happens when fake images get more and more photo realistic?

Ultimately, you can't control what people whack off over. If they can't see a picture of it, they'll probably just think about it. (I'm sure many people have fantasies that others will find distasteful/shocking, but are also able to keep them just in their head or find a way of working them out which stays within the law (e.g. roleplay, S&M with rules).) The state can't control what people think about, so for me it's obvious that the crime is when a person enacts something in real life. Then punish them harshly in the case of child rape or other sex crimes.

It would be interesting to know the number of cases, where viewing these pictures escalates to physical harm.

We pay a blood price to have cars, ditto to fly. It is an accepted level of risk. It can be argued though, that cars and flying are necessary, whereas...

Reading the thread, makes you wonder what level of any particular circumstance society will allow, before it becomes a hue and cry?

If you thought that these drawings would lead to the rape of a single child, how would that shape your view, as to continued legal production?

 

[frogwoman]

I'm more worried about victims not being able to say things about celebrity paedos because of injunctions and the like.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

If you thought that these drawings would lead to the rape of a single child, how would that shape your view, as to continued legal production?

And if you thought one violent film had ever lead to a single murder?

 

[frogwoman]

The argument tends to go if you banned this manga, you'd also have to ban other stuff which would more usually be considered "art". An example Neil Gaiman gave was an autobiographical comic where the author told a story of sexual awakening/experiences set when he/she was 14. It would be very hard to distinguish in law between a trashy comic and arty comic that contained depictions of underage sex.

But you wouldn't 'have to', would you (and I'm not necessarily talking about the state bringing in such laws, they could be enforced within a community or by some other body). Despite the race relations act having been brought in (which I have many problems with BTW) you can still read something like mein kampf or indeed the bible perfectly legally.

 

[xenon]

The argument tends to go if you banned this manga, you'd also have to ban other stuff which would more usually be considered "art". An example Neil Gaiman gave was an autobiographical comic where the author told a story of sexual awakening/experiences set when he/she was 14. It would be very hard to distinguish in law between a trashy comic and arty comic that contained depictions of underage sex.

No ban. Just go on a list prohibitting working with children. Go from there. Pragmatics etc.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

The fact is Nancy,

I've always been a bit reactionary over this and probably always will be, the fact is that we don't have an intolerant enough attitude towards this stuff which means that rape and child abuse victims don't report it enough, there's just been a case of a judge only sentencing a teacher for eighteen months over having an affair with a fifteen year old, there's another case where a woman reported what ian Watkins was doing, for years, and wasn't listened to.

I'm all for allowing these people to get help and destigmatising it before an offence is committed but as a society rape and child abuse is not taken seriously enough, having these images in wide circulation helps to normalise it, and helps to make it a lot more acceptable than it would otherwise have been.

It's an easy thing to be reactionary about. Cos you feel safe in the knowledge that *everyone* hates paedos and wants to burn them. So you feel cheered on.

But there's also the principal of the difference between actions and thoughts.

Maybe it's not worth defending, I don't really know what I think. But it's certainly worth thinking about.

Cos next time it could be the state telling you that you can't make images of something.

 

[Chick Webb]

But you wouldn't 'have to'. Despite the race relations act having been brought in (which I have many problems with BTW) you can still read something like mein kampf or indeed the bible perfectly legally.

Maybe. I suppose there is a difference between something being shown in a story for proper narrative reasons, or just being there for reasons of titillation. The Neil Gaiman argument however is that an artist should not be put in a position of having to justify themself in that way.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

No ban. Just go on a list prohibitting working with children. Go from there. Pragmatics etc.

So after you put people on a list for watching manga, do you start on those who are into extreme s&m (whipping, chains, etc), because surely they're deviant too and are too 'risky' to be allowed around kids? What about people who own films like Nekromantik or Cannibal Holocaust? Can you be sure they're not a risk to kids?

 

[elbows]

I'm a bit confused, how have laws against child pornography (as opposed to laws against hate speech/public order/blasphemy) etc contributed to a restriction on freedom of speech?

This is a genuine question because I can't think of any examples?

I didn't mention freedom of speech, I mentioned spill over into other areas. These areas would include grey areas, such as who gets to decide exactly where the boundaries are. The power of the state to close down or block certain websites. The power of the state to conduct mass surveillance.

None of these are reasons to do nothing about images of child abuse etc. They are reasons why people may feel the need to approach the issue of policing this stuff with care, without having any desire to 'go soft' on those who pose a risk to children, adolescents or indeed adults.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I'm all for allowing these people to get help and destigmatising it before an offence is committed but as a society rape and child abuse is not taken seriously enough, having these images in wide circulation helps to normalise it, and helps to make it a lot more acceptable than it would otherwise have been.

In the UK possession of any sort of child sexual abuse imagery is illegal but its impossible to prevent circulation from the internet. I'm not sure how we can take child abuse any more seriously than we do though. I suppose most of us find the whole subject so horrible we do not really like to think of it. Most paedos don't look odd, they look normal & its hard to understand how a normal good looking friendly bloke can sexually abuse a child so most of us don't want to think about it.

We can discuss this subject endlessly on forums but really its not the sort of subject you chat to friends in pubs about, beyond the usual 'kill all paedos', I don't anyway. Imho the way forward is simply zero tolerance in both law & in public opinion. Beyond absolutely incentivicing paedos not to offend in any way I can't see how we can do much more. If paedos cannot themselves understand the damage abuse does & not abuse then all you can do is lock them up indefinitely.

 

[frogwoman]

I didn't mention freedom of speech, I mentioned spill over into other areas. These areas would include grey areas, such as who gets to decide exactly where the boundaries are. The power of the state to close down or block certain websites. The power of the state to conduct mass surveillance.

None of these are reasons to do nothing about images of child abuse etc. They are reasons why people may feel the need to approach the issue of policing this stuff with care, without having any desire to 'go soft' on those who pose a risk to children, adolescents or indeed adults.

Then I would agree with that, but I just can't think of any examples where it's actually happened (as opposed to those justifications being used for restrictions supposedly against jihadis and the far right), I can think of plenty of examples where the state has intervened to protect powerful child molesters though.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

I didn't mention freedom of speech, I mentioned spill over into other areas. These areas would include grey areas, such as who gets to decide exactly where the boundaries are. The power of the state to close down or block certain websites. The power of the state to conduct mass surveillance.

None of these are reasons to do nothing about images of child abuse etc. They are reasons why people may feel the need to approach the issue of policing this stuff with care, without having any desire to 'go soft' on those who pose a risk to children, adolescents or indeed adults.

Answer this frogwoman ? Eta: oh you have done I see

Cos frankly people like you with small c reactionary views who don't even think it deserves discussion, it mentions paedos so you KNOW your right, and killer b saying get away from the children, start a register! that worry me.

I don't like manga. I think it's creepy and gross. Spymaster and me have chatted about it before. I don't think I want the state to have powers to 'register' these people.

I don't like registers very much.

 

[xenon]

So after you put people on a list for watching manga, do you start on those who are into extreme s&m (whipping, chains, etc), because surely they're deviant too and are too 'risky' to be allowed around kids? What about people who own films like Nekromantik or Cannibal Holocaust? Can you be sure they're not a risk to kids?

Consent. Informed consent. Children can't.

 

[frogwoman]

In the UK possession of any sort of child sexual abuse imagery is illegal but its impossible to prevent circulation from the internet. I'm not sure how we can take child abuse any more seriously than we do though. I suppose most of us find the whole subject so horrible we do not really like to think of it. Most paedos don't look odd, they look normal & its hard to understand how a normal good looking friendly bloke can sexually abuse a child so most of us don't want to think about it.

We can discuss this subject endlessly on forums but really its not the sort of subject you chat to friends in pubs about, beyond the usual 'kill all paedos', I don't anyway. Imho the way forward is simply zero tolerance in both law & in public opinion. Beyond absolutely incentivicing paedos not to offend in any way I can't see how we can do much more. If paedos cannot themselves understand the damage abuse does & not abuse then all you can do is lock them up indefinitely.

That tends to be my view of the subject too tbh but how do you actually reduce the problem so that paedos who haven't offended can get help before they offend, while there is zero tolerance for the ones that do offend?

I honestly don't know.

 

[maomao]

I'm all over the place on this one. I get freedom of artistic expression and I don't like having the government decide what can be published and what can't. I also don't want people who look at ('use' *shudders*) this kind of thing working with children.

I think it's important to start getting non offending paedophiles into psychological treatment the way they are in Germany rather than giving them a derisory sentence and just sticking them out there again with a grudge against the society who hates them. I don't know how this specifically relates to the cartoon abuse images question I just want the problem dealt with in an effective way rather than a reactive 'lock 'em up' way. Not because I think a prison sentence is necessarily unjust or cruel but because I think a prison sentence for looking at cartoon depictions of child abuse turns someone who was able to fit into society and had an interest in not hurting children into someone who (at the end of the sentence) feels cast out and may be more likely to do something horrible. 6 months in prison doesn't cure anyone of paedophilia. What's the alternative solution? Death/life sentences for cartoon porn?

 

[frogwoman]

Answer this frogwoman ? Eta: oh you have done I see

Cos frankly people like you with small c reactionary views who don't even think it deserves discussion, it mentions paedos so you KNOW your right, and killer b saying get away from the children, start a register! that worry me.

I don't like manga. I think it's creepy and gross. Spymaster and me have chatted about it before. I don't think I want the state to have powers to 'register' these people.

I don't like registers very much.

Eh? Not sure why you're being like this, I haven't said we shouldn't discuss it, I do have a lot of trouble caring about paedos though.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

Eh? Not sure why you're being like this, I haven't said we shouldn't discuss it, I do have a lot of trouble caring about paedos though.

No one is asking you to 'care about paedos'.

Are you implying I do? Do you think you have to 'care about paedos' to be worried about this law?

 

[frogwoman]

I'm all over the place on this one. I get freedom of artistic expression and I don't like having the government decide what can be published and what can't. I also don't want people who look at ('use' *shudders*) this kind of thing working with children.

I think it's important to start getting non offending paedophiles into psychological treatment the way they are in Germany rather than giving them a derisory sentence and just sticking them out there again with a grudge against the society who hates them. I don't know how this specifically relates to the cartoon abuse images question I just want the problem dealt with in an effective way rather than a reactive 'lock 'em up' way. Not because I think a prison sentence is necessarily unjust or cruel but because I think a prison sentence for looking at cartoon depictions of child abuse turns someone who was able to fit into society and had an interest in not hurting children into someone who (at the end of the sentence) feels cast out and may be more likely to do something horrible. 6 months in prison doesn't cure anyone of paedophilia. What's the alternative solution? Death/life sentences for cartoon porn?

I was thinking about Germany and wondering if their approach had helped to drive down recidivism rates. As far as I know they have also banned cartoon nonce porn though, as it is banned in Europe .

 

[xenon]

Theres preventions on owning firearms. I wouldnt shoot anyone. Why cant i have a gun.
Slightly shit annalagy yes.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I think in the UK we are way beyond 'inviting' non offending paedophiles to out themselves by volunteering themselves for 'treatment'. It might work in a more rationally thinking place like Germany but in the UK no chance.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Consent. Informed consent. Children can't.

We're talking about cartoons, though, and, for the sake of this discussion, I'm pulling back to proper cartoons rather than anything too lifelike.

The films I mentioned (both passed by the BBFC now) - Nekromantik (I've not seen it btw) contains graphic fake corpse shagging. Cannibal Holocaust (I've not seen the full version) includes stuff like rape, cannibalism and the drawn out killing of a real turtle. Do you think people who have these sorts of films in their collection (so presumably enjoy them) should be allowed to work with children? Do you accept here that adults can compartmentalise these as fantasy?

 

[xenon]

That tends to be my view of the subject too tbh but how do you actually reduce the problem so that paedos who haven't offended can get help before they offend, while there is zero tolerance for the ones that do offend?

I honestly don't know.

I cba finding and linking to it. But i agreed in an ideal world, there would be suuch a system... Meanwhile we have what we have.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

We're talking about cartoons, though, and, for the sake of this discussion, I'm pulling back to proper cartoons rather than anything too lifelike.

The films I mentioned (both passed by the BBFC now) - Nekromantik (I've not seen it btw) contains graphic fake corpse shagging. Cannibal Holocaust (I've not seen the full version) includes stuff like rape, cannibalism and the drawn out killing of a real turtle. Do you think people who have these sorts of films in their collection (so presumably enjoy them) should be allowed to work with children? Do you accept here that adults can compartmentalise these as fantasy?

It's all pretty disturbing. Especially the bit about the turtle, watching any living thing suffer is awful.

 

[xenon]

We're talking about cartoons, though, and, for the sake of this discussion, I'm pulling back to proper cartoons rather than anything too lifelike.

The films I mentioned (both passed by the BBFC now) - Nekromantik (I've not seen it btw) contains graphic fake corpse shagging. Cannibal Holocaust (I've not seen the full version) includes stuff like rape, cannibalism and the drawn out killing of a real turtle. Do you think people who have these sorts of films in their collection (so presumably enjoy them) should be allowed to work with children? Do you accept here that adults can compartmentalise these as fantasy?

Whataboutery.