UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[butchersapron]

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

Not until you say that this, that i am "suggesting people who express such opinions as paedo apologists." is untrue.

On this thread you've called me 'mental' and a 'mentalist' whilst also smearing me as calling other posters paedo apologists - and you have done this whilst accusing me of closing down debate. Good days work that.

 

[butchersapron]

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

You think someone else saying something (and something that doesn't constitute what you claim) justifies you making something up about me?

And you moan about the quality and level of debate. Well done, you've certainly brought this one to some sort of level.

 

[killer b]

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

I wasn't suggesting you're an apologist by that, and I'm baffled how you'd make such a leap.

 

[butchersapron]

I wasn't suggesting you're an apologist by that, and I'm baffled how you'd make such a leap.

No, it was me who called him a paedo-apologist (in his misreading) when you said that.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

fuck him tbh.

Unless you're a sailor uniform wearing schoolgirl with big eyes in which case he's probably like it

 

[sim667]

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.

The images are in a manga style.... If they were pictures of child in an impressionist or surrealist style, the idea that they are pictures of children would not negate the fact that they are impressionist or surrealist.

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.

Well Im not going to write out "the man who has been looking at manga images of children" every two minutes am I

And no, he was looking for imagined drawings that depict abuse of children..... he's not looking at photographs which is a realistic depiction, he is looking at interpretations of made from pen/ink. How can you not understand the concept that for a photograph to happen, a child has to be abused in some way, where this does not apply to a painting/drawing?

 

[Idaho]

I apologise if I wrongly suggested that you characterised opposing opinions add paedo apologists.

You are strident, combative and aggressive in discussions butchersapron. Sometimes being on the other side of the opinion from you in a thread is like being set upon by a pack of dogs.

 

[butchersapron]

The images are in a manga style.... If they were pictures of child in an impressionist or surrealist style, the idea that they are pictures of children would not negate the fact that they are impressionist or surrealist.



Well Im not going to write out "the man who has been looking at manga images of children" every two minutes am I

And no, he was looking for imagined drawings that depict abuse of children..... he's not looking at photographs which is a realistic depiction, he is looking at interpretations of made from pen/ink. How can you not understand the concept that for a photograph to happen, a child has to be abused in some way, where this does not apply to a painting/drawing?

I'm not suggesting they're not in manga style - i'm suggesting that your continued description of them as manga devalues actual manga and serves to make the hideous nature of the child abuse depicted appear as somehow less serious than they are by being part of an accepted style of art.

He was looking for images of sexual abuse of children - agreed?

 

[sim667]

I can't honestly say that anyone on this thread should be calling anyone a paedo apologist..... I think we're all universally linked in the thinking that child abuse and creating images of children are abhorrent, and rightfully totally illegal.

But that doesn't stop the debate that the idea of a crime is that a victim is involved, and in this case, there is no victim, and only a man's subconcious and concious urges that are on trial.

And yes Idaho I would agree that sometimes the way butchers debates is like being set on by a pack of dogs.

 

[Idaho]

I wasn't suggesting you're an apologist by that, and I'm baffled how you'd make such a leap.

The explanation would just lead to a pointless derail and subsequent disagreement.

 

[butchersapron]

I apologise if I wrongly suggested that you characterised opposing opinions add paedo apologists.

You are strident, combative and aggressive in discussions butchersapron. Sometimes being on the other side of the opinion from you in a thread is like being set upon by a pack of dogs.

That's why you have to get things right isn't it! Anyway, apology accepted, let's move on.

 

[sim667]

I'm not suggesting they're not in manga style - i'm suggesting that your continued description of them as manga devalues actual manga and serves to make the hideous nature of the child abuse depicted appear as somehow less serious than they are by being part of an accepted style of art.

He was looking for images of sexual abuse of children - agreed?

He was looking for completely fabricated images of children in sexual situations, not non consenting children forced into a sexual situation to have a reproduction made for distribution.

I literally could not give a fuck about manga, so im not going to get into a discussion about what does and doesnt constitute manga. these are manga style rather than made at the maga production house, the generally applied term to imagery of this style regardless of whether its made at the production house or not is manga, so thats what I'll call it.

 

[butchersapron]

He was looking for completely fabricated images of children in sexual situations, not non consenting children forced into a sexual situation to have a reproduction made for distribution.

But images of children being sexually abused in some format or another - actively seeking out images of kids being raped. After being convicted for this already. Does this suggest some sort of ongoing active fascination with sexual abuse - the sort of thing that we have examples of other people who are actively interested in this sort of stuff teaming up and going beyond the current level of their activity? I think given that we do, then prosecution to scare off this person and others is justifiable. I doubt this bloke will stop tbh but next time he goes down.

edit: one sentence (at least) in there is a mess and i can't work out what's gone wrong.

 

[Idaho]

What if someone was only interested in animated child pornography. They had no interested in actual photos or children? Indeed, if they hadn't (so far) moved on to the latter, how could we tell?

 

[frogwoman]

What if someone was only interested in animated child pornography. They had no interested in actual photos or children? Indeed, if they hadn't (so far) moved on to the latter, how could we tell?

how would you know given you cant read peoples minds?

 

[butchersapron]

Why would you trust someone who claimed it was the case? Almost a text book example of where you shouldn't give the benefit of doubt given the potentially horrible consequences if you are wrong.

 

[trashpony]

He was looking for completely fabricated images of children in sexual situations, not non consenting children forced into a sexual situation to have a reproduction made for distribution.

The judge said

“They are clearly all images designed to make people think they are of children. They are fictitious images in the sense that in no part of them does any real person appear.

I don't see that it's much different from possessing 'real' child abuse images.

 

[Idaho]

how would you know given you cant read peoples minds?

Yes, that's what I am getting at. Regardless of this specific case. A crime of possessing created child porn images is in effect a pre crime as the fear (probably well grounded) is that the person would move on to real porn or abuse.

 

[Idaho]

Why would you trust someone who claimed it was the case? Almost a text book example of where you shouldn't give the benefit of doubt given the potentially horrible consequences if you are wrong.

Ok, but this is a fundamental departure from the usual process of law which supposes innocence.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes, that's what I am getting at. Regardless of this specific case. A crime of possessing created child porn images is in effect a pre crime as the fear (probably well grounded) is that the person would move on to real porn or abuse.

Surely some people who make images that look like they're real are also making the real thing?

 

[Idaho]

Surely some people who make images that look like they're real are also making the real thing?

No doubt. And apologies if I am haggling over an abstract point, but that is a good assumption, but not a legally valid one.

 

[trashpony]

None of us know how they're being made either. The quickest (and probably cheapest) way of making very realistic animation is to use real people and run the footage/image through image manipulation software.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok, but this is a fundamental departure from the usual process of law which supposes innocence.

I didn't realise we were talking about law - in which case it's clear that the law already criminalises these images in certain contexts - and any prosecutions and trials will proceed from the usual assumption of innocence. Such as this bloke. There is no need to remove that presumption of innocence.

I thought we were talking about society in general/treatment etc

 

[butchersapron]

None of us know how they're being made either. The quickest (and probably cheapest) way of making very realistic animation is to use real people and run the footage/image through image manipulation software.

The first time he got done for this he was using real actual photographs mixed with kids.

 

[Idaho]

I'm just glad I don't work in the agencies that have to research and control this stuff. That would mess you up.

 

[sim667]

But images of children being sexually abused in some format or another - actively seeking out images of kids being raped. After being convicted for this already. Does this suggest some sort of ongoing active fascination with sexual abuse - the sort of thing that we have examples of other people who are actively interested in this sort of stuff teaming up and going beyond the current level of their activity? I think given that we do, then prosecution to scare off this person and others is justifiable. I doubt this bloke will stop tbh but next time he goes down.

edit: one sentence (at least) in there is a mess and i can't work out what's gone wrong.

But what I find infuriating is the mistrust that people can not use their own judgement to determine what is and what isn't appropriate. If you were unable to determine the difference between anime kids and real kids but you felt sexual compulsion toward kids, then your judgement is not going to lead you to think "yeah I'll look at drawings of kids", you're going to go and look for photographs which are realistic.

This is a common problem in the art world, for example, Sally Mann the photographer took some beautiful photographs of her own children which were in no way sexualising them, but the exhibition repeatedly got shut down because people thought it might encourage noncery..

My point is that laws shouldnt be prosecuting for things that might happen, they should only be prosecuting for things that have happened. In this guy's case a law has been made which he is the only one prosecuted under, which basically says "someone who looks at fabricated depcictions of abuse should be prosecuted as an abuser incase he becomes one in the future". The point remains he hasn't led to the physical abuse of a child either himself or throught the images he's looked at.

 

[Idaho]

I didn't realise we were talking about law - in which case it's clear that the law already criminalises these images in certain contexts - and any prosecutions and trials will proceed from the usual assumption of innocence. Such as this bloke. There is no need to remove that presumption of innocence.

I thought we were talking about society in general/treatment etc

Not sure the law and society can be so readily separated.

 

[butchersapron]

But what I find infuriating is the mistrust that people can not use their own judgement to determine what is and what isn't appropriate. If you were unable to determine the difference between anime kids and real kids but you felt sexual compulsion toward kids, then your judgement is not going to lead you to think "yeah I'll look at drawings of kids", you're going to go and look for photographs which are realistic.

This is a common problem in the art world, for example, Sally Mann the photographer took some beautiful photographs of her own children which were in no way sexualising them, but the exhibition repeatedly got shut down because people thought it might encourage noncery..

My point is that laws shouldnt be prosecuting for things that might happen, they should only be prosecuting for things that have happened. In this guy's case a law has been made which he is the only one prosecuted under, which basically says "someone who looks at fabricated depcictions of abuse should be prosecuted as an abuser incase he becomes one in the future". The point remains he hasn't led to the physical abuse of a child either himself or throught the images he's looked at.

People have used their judgement. And decided this bloke is a wrong 'un.

And this bloke wasn't prosecuted for what might happen - but for what did happen.

 

[sim667]

The judge said

I don't see that it's much different from possessing 'real' child abuse images.

The difference is they don't have any 'real' kids in them.

 

[sim667]

I'm just glad I don't work in the agencies that have to research and control this stuff. That would mess you up.

I bet a few of them have got personal stashes at home though.