UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[ViolentPanda]

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.

The low level grade is basically implicitly sexual - i.e. most people wouldn't see it as sexual, but a paedophile could be stimulated by it (from what I've researched, back in the days before the internet, when photo-collections were the main medium for wank fodder for child abusers, clippings from magazines of children in underwear etc were often present ). The higher grade stuff is, of course, explicitly sexual.

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.

It isn't limiting what you can think, it's limiting what you can possess, and it's doing so with a rational justification (although I'm not convinced of the psychological reasoning behind this) - that a paedophile, whether "practicing" or potential, may be stimulated by such images in a way that either:
a) causes the paedophile to internally normalise paedophiliac behaviours, or
b) "triggers" the paedophile to commit a sexual assault on a child.

Personally, I'm not convinced by any "trigger" argument - the data is scarce, and often value-laden, but that pornography of any sort can see people internalise and normalise certain sexual behaviours isn't really contested anymore. The seeming near-ubiquity of anal sex, and the concomitant rise of medical issues surrounding it, are evidence of that.

 

[butchersapron]

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

Of course not - but the argument that the legal presumption of innocence has been removed in this case or in the example you gave does not stand up. There is no reason at all for this to happen. Prosecution would proceed on the same basis as now.

 

[sim667]

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.

He was prosecuted under a law for something that did happen, although what did happen happened in no larger sense than a painter painting and someone looking at that painting, and the original law was made incase people who look at paintings decide paintings aren't good enough anymore.

 

[butchersapron]

He was prosecuted under a law for something that did happen, although what did happen happened in no larger sense than a painter painting and someone looking at that painting, and the original law was made incase people who look at paintings decide paintings aren't good enough anymore.

So it's not future crime then is it? It's bog-standard crime - offences committed.

 

[sim667]

its a crime under a law that only exists because of a societal taboo's rather than because there is a victim involved..... its essentially criminalising posession of any kind of visual stimuli that may cause inapropriate sexual thoughts, rather than just the mere criminalisation of images that show real goings on with a child as a victim.

 

[butchersapron]

its a crime under a law that only exists because of a societal taboo's rather than because there is a victim involved..... its essentially criminalising posession of any kind of visual stimuli that may cause inapropriate sexual thoughts, rather than just the mere criminalisation of images that show real goings on with a child as a victim.

Do taboos exist for a reason? Here's one that will get idaho going - do they serve some evolutionary function?

 

[sim667]

Its not the fact he's been prosecuted successfully that bothers me, the guy was clearly looking for pictures of kids, its the precedent for other forms of art and literature that the government may deem unacceptable that I find worrying.

 

[sim667]

Do taboos exist for a reason?

Taboos are a result of cultural grooming...... not because they're right or wrong.

 

[butchersapron]

Its not the fact he's been prosecuted successfully that bothers me, the guy was clearly looking for pictures of kids, its the precedent for other forms of art and literature that the government may deem unacceptable that I find worrying.

Do you really think they're going to banning Lolita? That after all these centuries we're unable to see things in some sort of context? Judge motivations?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Is the protection of one individual's freedom of thought and action (the fantasy and the masturbation) more or less valued than the protection of a group of people (children) from potential abuse? In posing the question this way I am presuming that the production and use of drawn child abuse porn does three things:

1. Contributes to the overall market for all child abuse porn;
2. Normalises/legitimates the behaviour of those viewing the images;
3. Normalises/legitimates the idea of children being available to adults as objects of sexual abuse.

Personally I place the interests of the potentially at risk group above those of the individual. And given the persistent character of the image searching in this case and the opportunity to legally persue the indicvidual responsible and publicise (as a deterent) that pursuit, I think the prosecution is warranted.

Moreover, I also think it is quite legitimate for us as a society to agree on this sort of balance between individual and group protections.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Taboos are a result of cultural grooming...... not because they're right or wrong.

Cultural grooming? You mean we don't come to them through collective experience of and reflection on what is damaging to society and the individual - we're led to them by the nose by an elite whose interests it serves? Ok, who groomed society to dislike paedophilia?

 

[trashpony]

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

See post #82 and 84.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

There's no legal, ethical or moral jump if what the images represent is something illegal. The arstechnica article states "images of young girls" (by which they obviously mean "cartoons"), not cartoons of fully-developed females with strangely childlike faces (as with Shippou-Sensei 's dakimura. The images clearly represent sexual contact with young girls, with little or no ambiguity. They therefore serve the same purpose for a paedophile as does photographic representations of sexual contact with young girls.

 

[sim667]

I hadn't seen those posts..... but as far as

post 82 - unless its proved that it has been created this way there is no certainty.

post 84 - I'd missed totally. Fair Do's

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

You're missing the difference between pastiche (a fully-developed female in school uniform is something very different in fact and in image to a young girl in school uniform) and reality.

 

[sim667]

There's no legal, ethical or moral jump if what the images represent is something illegal. The arstechnica article states "images of young girls" (by which they obviously mean "cartoons"), not cartoons of fully-developed females with strangely childlike faces (as with Shippou-Sensei 's dakimura. The images clearly represent sexual contact with young girls, with little or no ambiguity. They therefore serve the same purpose for a paedophile as does photographic representations of sexual contact with young girls.

But I wouldnt say that 99% of the manga I've ended up watching (because of freinds etc), the age of the girls depicted is questionable. So to be on the safe side, shouldn't all sexualised manga/manga style/hentai whatever you want to be called be made illegal..... just a blanket ban.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Liberalism.

 

[sim667]

You're missing the difference between pastiche (a fully-developed female in school uniform is something very different in fact and in image to a young girl in school uniform) and reality.

Physically it is, for psycholgically indulging your desires using imagination, they're exactly the same. You don't ask a woman to dress up in a school uniform, because you like her prefect badge, you ask her to do it so you can roleplay your mind into thinking your sleeping with a schoolgirl.

(when I say you, i don't mean you, or me, the whole concept of a sexy school uniform is just fucking weird).

 

[ViolentPanda]

But I wouldnt say that 99% of the manga I've ended up watching (because of freinds etc), the age of the girls depicted is questionable. So to be on the safe side, shouldn't all sexualised manga/manga style/hentai whatever you want to be called be made illegal..... just a blanket ban.

Most of what I've seen and read featured females who were fully developed (given my caveat about their blank, childlike faces), and therefore the sexual content (if any) represented consensual adult sex. The law doesn't have much of a problem with that, and rightly so - a blanket ban would be meaningless, and would diminish resources available to target currently-illegal cartoons.

 

[sim667]

But in your opinion they're of age despite their childlike faces. It doesn't matter if they are or aren't of age, because they're not real. I on the other hand think that most of them look underage (in what I've seen).

Yet by saying that some manga is is bad and some is ok, you allow people access to films like one I saw where a monster with a thousand cocks works it's way round a city whilst simultaneously raping girls..... Why is that not banned?

 

[trashpony]

Physically it is, for psycholgically indulging your desires using imagination, they're exactly the same. You don't ask a woman to dress up in a school uniform, because you like her prefect badge, you ask her to do it so you can roleplay your mind into thinking your sleeping with a schoolgirl.

(when I say you, i don't mean you, or me, the whole concept of a sexy school uniform is just fucking weird).

But then that is policing your mind. It's not about the psychology, it's about normalising it and fuelling the child rape industry (and it's rape - there is never ever consent involved)

 

[sim667]

But then that is policing your mind. It's not about the psychology, it's about normalising it and fuelling the child rape industry (and it's rape - there is never ever consent involved)

If it's so rare that one person has been prosecuted twice under the law which was made as a safeguard then the argument that it normalises child rape industry is negated.

After all I did post a link with the police saying they don't even have the manpower to police the actual child rape industry, yet they're happy to push for a prosecution of someone who has simulated imagery.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But I wouldnt say that 99% of the manga I've ended up watching (because of freinds etc), the age of the girls depicted is questionable. So to be on the safe side, shouldn't all sexualised manga/manga style/hentai whatever you want to be called be made illegal..... just a blanket ban.

Most of what I've seen and read featured females who were fully developed (given my caveat about their blank, childlike faces), and therefore the sexual content (if any) represented consensual adult sex. The law doesn't have much of a problem with that, and rightly so - a blanket ban would be meaningless, and would diminish resources available to target currently-illegal cartoons.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If it's so rare that one person has been prosecuted twice under the law which was made as a safeguard then the argument that it normalises child rape industry is negated.

After all I did post a link with the police saying they don't even have the manpower to police the actual child rape industry, yet they're happy to push for a prosecution of someone who has simulated imagery.

So the child abuse porn industry is sufficiently normalised to be too big to effectively police and yet part of that industry (the drawn/graphic child abuse porn part) should not be understood as having contributed to that nornmalisation?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[sim667]

Most of what I've seen and read featured females who were fully developed (given my caveat about their blank, childlike faces), and therefore the sexual content (if any) represented consensual adult sex. The law doesn't have much of a problem with that, and rightly so - a blanket ban would be meaningless, and would diminish resources available to target currently-illegal cartoons.

All I can do is take you word for it

 

[butchersapron]

I feel the thread title could do with changing - UK man sentenced for having images of sexual abuse of children would be more accurate. Or are we think someone who was done for having photographs of abuse on their laptop was done for having a hard drive?

 

[ska invita]

I feel the thread title could do with changing - UK man sentenced for having images of sexual abuse of children would be more accurate. Or are we think someone who was done for having photographs of abuse on their laptop was done for having a hard drive?

theres a difference between a photo and a drawing which your post seems to dismiss
-a photo captures a real event, an event which is in itself a crime. owning the picture is to support the crime.
-a drawing in and of itself hurts no one. the upset seems to be that it might inspire criminal action.
im uncomfortable abut the ruling. its right on the line, but i think the ruling might just be on the wrong side of it

 

[butchersapron]

theres a difference between a photo and a drawing which your post seems to dismiss
-a photo captures a real event, an event which is in itself a crime. owning the picture is to support the crime.
-a drawing in and of itself hurts no one. the upset seems to be that it might inspire criminal action.
im uncomfortable abut the ruling. its right on the line, but i think the ruling might just be on the wrong side of it

Is that the cavalry i see coming over the hill

Have a read of the thread mate. What do you think we're discussing? And what has that post got to do with my post you replied to?

 

[sim667]

So the child abuse porn industry is sufficiently normalised to be too big to effectively police and yet part of that industry (the drawn/graphic child abuse porn part) should not be understood as having contributed to that nornmalisation?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Well on the basis of two prosecutions of one man, I don't think anyone can claim that manga style depictions of children have contributed the the much wider spread, (or shall we say revealing of) the child sex industry. After all we've only just started uncovering large scale child abuse rings at the highest levels of authority, from periods where I very much doubt much generalised manga was available in the UK, rather than specialist sexual interest stuff.

The point being is that actually what this ha the potential to do is criminalise anyone who uses art or literature that is distasteful to a government agenda, and because we're having such a kneejerk reaction after the saville investigations, rushing to prosecute anyone involved in the child sex industry and criminalising what can be considered gateways to desire for realistic child sex images, that proper discussion isn't being held with regards as to whether stuff like this should still be illegal if there is no victim.

To see that the police in one investigation are finding 30,000 odd people with child sexual abuse images but only have the ability to prosecute 600 odd properly surely suggests that open dialogue needs to be had with regard to mental health treatment rather than criminalisation, even I can see that and I went to a school that has a questionable child abuse history relating directly to some of the freinds I attended with.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Pfft. It's like being licked to death by Labradors!!