UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[ViolentPanda]

When we're having discussions about treating actual paedophiles as a mental health issue and the police are saying they will not prosecute or chase users of low level child pornography images, is an appropriate response then to go and prosecute someone who has simulated images of children, get the ones who are actually causing real child abuse. Personally I don't think so at this moment.

The criminal justice system uses a series of categories by which they class images (real and simulated). "Low level" tends to mean something akin to the pictures your parents took of you on the beach in the nuddy when you were 3 or 4 (the sort Julia Somerville, the newsreader, got put through the wringer for). This guy isn't being done for "low level" images, he's being done for the more severe stuff.
As for you differentiating between people with collections of child porn, and people who engage in paedophile acts, that's all well and good for a majority of the image-collectors, but a minority of them will be collecting images and sexually-assaulting children - the images assist them in arguing that sex between children and adults is normal, and sometimes in specific cases has been argued (still contested) to be a "gateway" to more harmful behaviours. I don't buy the "gateway" theory myself, but I am aware that many child abusers start with low-grade offences and escalate over time, so it's hard to quantify the exact amount pornography might contribute in any individual case.

 

[killer b]

Yes clearly. If you are mental.

In that case: the answer to your question is no. In regards to this case? Well, clearly there is always going to be a tension between personal liberty and what society deems acceptable - and I think it's up to us to decide on a case by case basis which side we come down on. I know where I stand on this, and I also think defending child pornographers on principle is taking principle too far.

This is not the thin end of any wedge, any more than the Ched Evans case exposes consenting drunks to rape prosecutions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes clearly. If you are mental.

Oh, well argued!!!

 

[el-ahrairah]

I think encouranging the pleasure in and normalisation of the rape of children is something that should be discouraged vigorously, so I'm pretty relaxed with this kind of thought crime being prosecuted.

this post sums up my thoughts pretty well.

 

[sim667]

The criminal justice system uses a series of categories by which they class images (real and simulated). "Low level" tends to mean something akin to the pictures your parents took of you on the beach in the nuddy when you were 3 or 4 (the sort Julia Somerville, the newsreader, got put through the wringer for). This guy isn't being done for "low level" images, he's being done for the more severe stuff.
As for you differentiating between people with collections of child porn, and people who engage in paedophile acts, that's all well and good for a majority of the image-collectors, but a minority of them will be collecting images and sexually-assaulting children - the images assist them in arguing that sex between children and adults is normal, and sometimes in specific cases has been argued (still contested) to be a "gateway" to more harmful behaviours. I don't buy the "gateway" theory myself, but I am aware that many child abusers start with low-grade offences and escalate over time, so it's hard to quantify the exact amount pornography might contribute in any individual case.

I didn't really have a reference point for what levels where what. I thought all levels were sexual, rather than a kid with not a lot on, on a beach.

What I don't like about is the wider scope of what it means. A law is a line that you shouldn't cross based on activities that have effected other people, in the case of kiddy photo graphics then of course it effects the child. In the case of these images they are fabricated imaginings, a child wasn't hurt, and the law ascertaining to these images is more about putting a legal restriction over what you can and can't think, which is a different matter.

 

[Idaho]

In that case: the answer to your question is no. In regards to this case? Well, clearly there is always going to be a tension between personal liberty and what society deems acceptable - and I think it's up to us to decide on a case by case basis which side we come down on. I know where I stand on this, and I also think defending child pornographers on principle is taking principle too far.

This is not the thin end of any wedge, any more than the Ched Evans case exposes consenting drunks to rape prosecutions.

Of course it comes down to a case by case approach, and of course no one on this thread wants to protect child pornographers. It's just that there is clearly an ethnical, legal and moral jump between prosecuting images of actual children, and cartoon characters, regardless of how grim and sick the cartoons are.

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't really have a reference point for what levels where what. I thought all levels were sexual, rather than a kid with not a lot on, on a beach.

What I don't like about is the wider scope of what it means. A law is a line that you shouldn't cross based on activities that have effected other people, in the case of kiddy photo graphics then of course it effects the child. In the case of these images they are fabricated imaginings, a child wasn't hurt, and the law ascertaining to these images is more about putting a legal restriction over what you can and can't think, which is a different matter.

He can think what he wants - what he can't do is engage in activity that encourages the sexual abuse of children.

 

[sim667]

Of course it comes down to a case by case approach, and of course no one on this thread wants to protect child pornographers. It's just that there is clearly an ethnical, legal and moral jump between prosecuting images of actual children, and cartoon characters, regardless of how grim and sick the cartoons are.

And whether this leads on to other things, I.e. Could someone who enjoys stories about terrorist attacks then be considered a "terrorist"

 

[sim667]

He can think what he wants - what he can't do is engage in activity that encourages the sexual abuse of children.

Or alternatively he could be indulging in this in an attempt to control his urges.

Men who ask women to wear school uniform, should they be considered paedophiles too?

 

[butchersapron]

What on earth is this difficulty some people have in drawing a line?

 

[trashpony]

I didn't really have a reference point for what levels where what. I thought all levels were sexual, rather than a kid with not a lot on, on a beach.

What I don't like about is the wider scope of what it means. A law is a line that you shouldn't cross based on activities that have effected other people, in the case of kiddy photo graphics then of course it effects the child. In the case of these images they are fabricated imaginings, a child wasn't hurt, and the law ascertaining to these images is more about putting a legal restriction over what you can and can't think, which is a different matter.

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

That's the scale. Thinking is one thing - he's making and producing images which isn't the same as thinking. I appreciate it's not as bad as actually raping real children but it's not policing thoughts

 

[butchersapron]

Or alternatively he could be indulging in this in an attempt to control his urges.

Men who ask women to wear school uniform, should they be considered paedophiles too?

Yeah, i'm sure that's the case. Ok, in your scenario you accept he's a paedophile and you think he should be allowed to have images of child sexual abuse in order to curb his paedophilia? (This after him finishing a sex-offenders course after a previous conviction). You don't think there might be a possibility that this would normalise and give official sanction to exactly what society is collectively condemning?

 

[sim667]

What on earth is this difficulty some people have in drawing a line?

Because one persons line can be very differently placed.

Asking a woman to dress up in school uniform is the same as simulating a child through drawings, they both play into a conscious decision to do something you know is wrong according to society, yet one is deemed acceptable in law and the other not.

The world isn't black and white, people's decisions aren't based on a "line" from day to day, and where do we draw the lines on drawing legal lines?

 

[butchersapron]

Because one persons line can be very differently placed.

Asking a woman to dress up in school uniform is the same as simulating a child through drawings, they both play into a conscious decision to do something you know is wrong according to society, yet one is deemed acceptable in law and the other not.

The world isn't black and white, people's decisions aren't based on a "line" from day to day, and where do we draw the lines on drawing legal lines?

One is based on a consensual agreement to participate in play - one is creating a situation based around the sexual abuse of children with potentially open-ended consequences beyond the act itself. Simple.

 

[sim667]

Yeah, i'm sure that's the case. Ok, in your scenario you accept he's a paedophile and you think he should be allowed to have images of child sexual abuse in order to curb his paedophilia? (This after him finishing a sex-offenders course after a previous conviction). You don't think there might be a possibility that this would normalise and give official sanction to exactly what society is collectively condemning?

Well he's not a paedophile in a physical sense is he, neither has he been proactively looking for images of actual child abuse, which laws are drawn up to protect children. This maybe completely smashing the boundary of a societal taboo, but actually he's cause no harm to any child by his demand for imagery or his physical actions (yet).

 

[sim667]

One is based on a consensual agreement to participate in play - one is creating a situation based around the sexual abuse of children with potentially open-ended consequences beyond the act itself. Simple.

I don't see it as quite that black and white, you can't says that the manga side of it is non consensual, an image can't consent.

 

[Idaho]

And whether this leads on to other things, I.e. Could someone who enjoys stories about terrorist attacks then be considered a "terrorist"

Quite. Is the law to make judgements about intentions, thoughts, fantasies?

 

[butchersapron]

Well he's not a paedophile in a physical sense is he, neither has he been proactively looking for images of actual child abuse, which laws are drawn up to protect children. This maybe completely smashing the boundary of a societal taboo, but actually he's cause no harm to any child by his demand for imagery or his physical actions (yet).

You were the one who based an argument on him being a paedo and these images of sexual abuse of children he manufactured might be an attempt to keep this paedophilia in check. That rests on him being a paedo.

And yes, he was actively looking for images of sexual abuse of children.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't see it as quite that black and white, you can't says that the manga side of it is non consensual, an image can't consent.

Stop saying manga - say images of sexual abuse of children including incest instead. That's what they are - he doesn't care that they're in manga format - he cares that they are images of children being raped.

No one is saying these things cannot be depicted - some people are saying that someone who clearly has an ongoing active interest in them, in seeking them out and in making them is a dodgy cunt who needs an eye kept on.

 

[Idaho]

You were the one who based an argument on him being a paedo and these images of sexual abuse of children he manufactured might be an attempt to keep this paedophilia in check. That rests on him being a paedo.

And yes, he was actively looking for images of sexual abuse of children.

In this case it seems that this person is actively seeking images both real and created. But setting this particular case aside, there is room for a discussion without you stamping on any different opinion and suggesting people who express such opinions as paedo apologists.

 

[butchersapron]

In this case it seems that this person is actively seeking images both real and created. But setting this particular case aside, there is room for a discussion without you stamping on any different opinion and suggesting people who express such opinions as paedo apologists.

I suggested no such thing - what a disgraceful and dishonest thing to claim.

 

[killer b]

I don't see it as quite that black and white.

you do though. More so - your line involves whether actual children are harmed, I suppose? The opposing view being pushed on the thread is open to much more interpretation and flexibility.

 

[Spymaster]

No one is saying these things cannot be depicted ...

I am.

I've got a very definite issue with the production of images depicting kids being raped, especially when their primary purpose is for perverts to wank off to.

 

[Idaho]

you do though. More so - your line involves whether actual children are harmed, I suppose? The opposing view being pushed on the thread is open to much more interpretation and flexibility.

You are suggesting that there be an "pre-crime" offence.

 

[butchersapron]

I am.

I've got a very definite issue with the production of images depicting kids being raped, especially when their primary purpose is for perverts to wank off to.

That's where context comes in - in say a work dealing with the way a survivor of sexual abuse relates to their abuse and finds a way to express certain things then i think it's credible. Others, nah of course not.

 

[killer b]

You are suggesting that there be an "pre-crime" offence.

Not if the possession of such images is a crime.

 

[Sweet FA]

suggesting people who express such opinions as paedo apologists.

Eh? When did that happen?

 

[Idaho]

Not if the possession of such images is a crime.

That's a circular argument!

 

[butchersapron]

Eh? When did that happen?

Can you answer this please Idaho

 

[Idaho]

First they came for the child pornographers...

I think this was probably the remark that triggered my comment. I think we can move on though.