UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[Athos]

Is this an image of a child?

It's a 'Portrait of a Child'.

 

[trashpony]

No, because they thought it was a real child. In the case if the images, the idea would be someone knows it's not.

Sorry to be pedantic.

Again, if they know it's not a real child but pay to watch her perform sex acts, is that okay? If not, why not?

 

[butchersapron]

Youve changed what youve claimed throughout the whole thread, and now tell me I'm wrong.

I've not changed my position one iota - can you outline where i have and from what to what please?

 

[sim667]

So what I've worked out so far:

Citizen66 accuses me of being a paedophile, then says he was accusing my pseudonym, i.e. an interpretation of me, but thats not hypocritical when compared to shooting me down in flames to saying a man wanked off to an interpretation of a made up child rather than a photograph of an actual child.

Butchers is now claiming that that is ok for a man to solicit sex on a webcam with a fake child he thinks is real, but its not ok for a man to have fappy time with a faked image of a child he knows is not real, and actually is a cartoon interpretation.

 

[butchersapron]

Its a visual interpretation of a child in the form of a digital image.... I'd imagine porbably created in paint..... But it is not necessarily a record of an encounter with a child, (although in this case I imagine a child would have sat for this image for sometime, judging by the realism achieved in the painting).

Is this what all this is about, pedantry about terminology...and image of a child isn't always necessarily a record of a child in a place at a time.


As far as I can tell the images the man in question in the articles has not been charged with a photographic record of an encounter with a real life child, but he has been charged with a manga and tomb raider styled visual interpretation of a child, but it has not been proved that a child was present at the time of making those images.- Is this an incorrect statement? Am I missing something here you've all read?

Was he done for a style of art or for possessing prohibited images of children?

 

[butchersapron]

So what I've worked out so far:

Citizen66 accuses me of being a paedophile, then says he was accusing my pseudonym, i.e. an interpretation of me, but thats not hypocritical when compared to shooting me down in flames to saying a man wanked off to an interpretation of a made up child rather than a photograph of an actual child.

Butchers is now claiming that that is ok for a man to solicit sex on a webcam with a fake child he thinks is real, but its not ok for a man to have fappy time with a faked image of a child he knows is not real, and actually is a cartoon interpretation.

You're going to drown.

 

[Athos]

Butchers is now claiming that that is ok for a man to solicit sex on a webcam with a fake child he thinks is real, but its not ok for a man to have fappy time with a faked image of a child he knows is not real, and actually is a cartoon interpretation.

This is clearly bollocks. You're being bit of a dick. There are sensible (although, to my mind, unconvincing) arguments against the criminalisation of pseudo images, but what you've spewed onto this thread has been very, very poor.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

So what I've worked out so far:

Citizen66 accuses me of being a paedophile, then says he was accusing my pseudonym, i.e. an interpretation of me, but thats not hypocritical when compared to shooting me down in flames to saying a man wanked off to an interpretation of a made up child rather than a photograph of an actual child.

Butchers is now claiming that that is ok for a man to solicit sex on a webcam with a fake child he thinks is real, but its not ok for a man to have fappy time with a faked image of a child he knows is not real, and actually is a cartoon interpretation.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting Butchers' position, or did you actually struggle with the sarcasm in his post?

 

[Blagsta]

Then why isn't Trainspotting or GTA illegal?

I mean personally I probably think, yes make those cartoons illegal. But there are arguments on both sides.

Intent

 

[sim667]

Was he done for a style of art or for possessing prohibited images of children?

He was done for posessing prohibited depictions of children, not for having photographic images of children, as you and I both well know.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Exactly!

Guy wanks over cgi image of adult abusing child ....but it's cgi so "phew" it's all ok....dodged a bullet there eh?

You do realise pedos don't care where images come from? It's not the image that is important to them..it's what it depicts and what they get to see...and the fact its not a real child just depersonalises the whole thing even more in the mind of a pedo thereby objectifying a child sexually even more so. You must also realise that the overwhelming majority of pedos who progress to actually abusing a child have used and continue to use child sex images. ???

 

[sim667]

Are you deliberately misrepresenting Butchers' position, or did you actually struggle with the sarcasm in his post?

He made a statement which follows as such

i discussed this earlier, and said that he thought it was real and proactively tried to solicit webcam sex with the controller..... totally different kettle of fish

No real victim. No matter what the intention. Let it go.

Where's the sarcasm?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

He made a statement which follows as such




Where's the sarcasm?

Here...

No real victim. No matter what the intention. Let it go.

 

[Spymaster]

He was done for posessing prohibited depictions of children, not for having photographic images of children, as you and I both well know.

Stop equating "images" with photographs.

 

[sim667]

Guy wanks over cgi image of adult abusing child ....but it's cgi so "phew" it's all ok....dodged a bullet there eh?

You do realise pedos don't care where images come from? It's not the image that is important to them..it's what it depicts and what they get to see...and the fact its not a real child just depersonalises the whole thing even more in the mind of a pedo thereby objectifying a child sexually even more so. You must also realise that the overwhelming majority of pedos who progress to actually abusing a child have used and continue to use child sex images. ???

I didn't say it was.... butchers did.

No real victim. No matter what the intention. Let it go.

The only pedophile Ive ever met was my old maths teacher, who took his own life about an hour before he was exposed.... I genuniely don't know. I don't meet many pedophiles day to day....

 

[sim667]

Stop equating "images" with photographs.

So what there's no difference betweena photographic and a drawing.... they're both realistic representations of an image/person/situatino?

 

[sim667]

Here...

Thats a statement.

 

[8115]

Again, if they know it's not a real child but pay to watch her perform sex acts, is that okay? If not, why not?

I find it disgusting.

I think having a moving image for me, crosses the line. But I don't know about criminalising people for looking at clearly fictional (I don't know if these were in this case) images.

Sometimes I think that we have to accept that people want to do things in private that we would rather they do not.

I am unsure the "progressing onto harder things" argument is valid. And if it is it might be that people feel, they have broken the law already so why not do something worse.

But yes, I think your hypothetical situation should be a crime. That still image which you posted is far more shocking than a manga one would be.

 

[butchersapron]

He was done for posessing prohibited depictions of children, not for having photographic images of children, as you and I both well know.

Not manga or cartoons. So stop saying that he was prosecuted for having manga or cartoons.

 

[sim667]

You're going to drown.

Threats and being accused of being a pedophile all in one day. Brilliant.

 

[Citizen66]

So what I've worked out so far:

Citizen66 accuses me of being a paedophile, then says he was accusing my pseudonym, i.e. an interpretation of me, but thats not hypocritical when compared to shooting me down in flames to saying a man wanked off to an interpretation of a made up child rather than a photograph of an actual child.

Butchers is now claiming that that is ok for a man to solicit sex on a webcam with a fake child he thinks is real, but its not ok for a man to have fappy time with a faked image of a child he knows is not real, and actually is a cartoon interpretation.

You're a disingenuous cunt.

 

[butchersapron]

Threats and being accused of being a pedophile all in one day. Brilliant.

I have so won this thread now.

 

[killer b]

My god.

 

[Spymaster]

There are sensible (although, to my mind, unconvincing) arguments against the criminalisation of pseudo images ...

Of child rape?

I can't think of a single reason why someone caught in possession of a wank-bank of child rape pictures shouldn't be prosecuted.

 

[sim667]

I have so won this thread now.

Is this about winning? Grow up

 

[butchersapron]

Is this about winning? Grow up

It's time for you to stop now.

 

[sim667]

Not manga or cartoons. So stop saying that he was prosecuted for having manga or cartoons.

From the article I posted

A 39-year-old UK man has been convicted of possessing illegal cartoon drawings of young girls exposing themselves in school uniforms and engaging in sex acts. The case is believed to be the UK's first prosecution of illegal manga and anime images.

What exactly do you think I've been misrepresentational about? I've only described the content of his files as have been described in the opening sentence of the article.

 

[butchersapron]

Threads still here - still space for discussion - don't run away everyone!

 

[articul8]

pseudo-images

that's where the argument gets lost

 

[8115]

Of child rape?

I can't think of a single reason why someone caught in possession of a wank-bank of child rape pictures shouldn't be prosecuted.

Because the state's reach ends somewhere?