UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[sim667]

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

Passive aggressive labradors

 

[ViolentPanda]

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 former can feed the latter.
I mentioned earlier how some paedophiles display an escalation in offending behaviour. That includes an escalation in the activities depicted in pornography. Whether those images of activity are photographic or pictorial, they still feed the same urge, and may still promote a further escalation of offending.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Passive aggressive labradors

All labs are passive-aggressive. It's their reason for being, the deceptive grinning bastards!

 

[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.

Without knowing what proportion of the 30,000 had used drawn/graphic child abuse porn, then I don't see how you can write your first sentence.

As for the second sentence I've highlighted this would only be true if:

1. there is no capacity to discrimintae between art and govermental self interest;

2. there is no capacity to judge actions on a case by case basis.

All in all I think you are massively over egging the pudding; no doubt for laudable reasons, but over egging all the same.


Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

Through psychological evaluation.
However, the fact of only viewing animated child pornography might be a fairly blatant act of self-protection, given the divergence of national laws on this field, and it would be necessary to assess any such behaviour with the pertaining laws in mind.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The judge said

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

In purpose and in use, it isn't - there's no difference in the "end-use", so to speak.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Well, it presumes innocence in the absence of evidence contrariwise. The presence of evidence doesn't set the presumption of innocence aside, but it does allow the evidence to be assessed, and if necessary, a case made.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Which is why such jobs are increasingly filled on a rotating basis in criminal agencies. 3-4 month "tours of duty" are becoming usual, and that way of thinking is slowly becoming received wisdom on the "frontline" of child protection, too (rightly so, IMO, given that a tiny minority of frontline works have evolved to offending themselves due to the trauma of their work).

 

[ViolentPanda]

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..

It was repeatedly shut down because the insurers of the galleries/exhibition spaces didn't want even the possibility of getting sued down the road if someone who attended an exhibition could make a plausible argument that the photos set them on a path to raping children.
It's all about the dollars nowadays. Art comes a distant second to commerce.

 

[sim667]

Without knowing what proportion of the 30,000 had used drawn/graphic child abuse porn, then I don't see how you can write your first sentence.

As for the second sentence I've highlighted this would only be true if:

1. there is no capacity to discrimintae between art and govermental self interest;

2. there is no capacity to judge actions on a case by case basis.

All in all I think you are massively over egging the pudding; no doubt for laudable reasons, but over egging all the same.


Cheers - Louis MacNeice

It would be a very telling stat to see, I would put money on the ratio being quite low, especially with the prevalence of things like for I bet actual child abuse photos are a piece of piss to get. I watched that 24 hours in custody about noncing the other day, from what I could tell the bloke had literally been using a wildcard search for photos with a certain acronym in the file name and then the images were on ftp servers.


There is very little ability to discounted between art and government council interest, hence why there's been many issues over the years. Sally Mann had a show that was images of her own children, that got closed down, for example.

The problem is that if you say "oh well ok, judge on a case by case basis" you can't set example of what is and what isn't legal illegal. The levels of imagery that were shown earlier in the thread, some of the images my cousin and my mum send me of my second cousin would theoretically fall under those characteristics, yet does that mean my mum, me and my cousin could possibly be criminalised for sharing family photos? I haven't actively been seeking those photos, but I'm please to see how my second cousins are growing up.

 

[sim667]

It was repeatedly shut down because the insurers of the galleries/exhibition spaces didn't want even the possibility of getting sued down the road if someone who attended an exhibition could make a plausible argument that the photos set them on a path to raping children.
It's all about the dollars nowadays. Art comes a distant second to commerce.

So it's that line again "may lead to child exploitation".

It's the wider scale that we need to think about what is being criminalised here.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It would be a very telling stat to see, I would put money on the ratio being quite low, especially with the prevalence of things like for I bet actual child abuse photos are a piece of piss to get. I watched that 24 hours in custody about noncing the other day, from what I could tell the bloke had literally been using a wildcard search for photos with a certain acronym in the file name and then the images were on ftp servers.


There is very little ability to discounted between art and government council interest, hence why there's been many issues over the years. Sally Mann had a show that was images of her own children, that got closed down, for example.

The problem is that if you say "oh well ok, judge on a case by case basis" you can't set example of what is and what isn't legal illegal. The levels of imagery that were shown earlier in the thread, some of the images my cousin and my mum send me of my second cousin would theoretically fall under those characteristics, yet does that mean my mum, me and my cousin could possibly be criminalised for sharing family photos? I haven't actively been seeking those photos, but I'm please to see how my second cousins are growing up.

Do you think that you could have the capacity to discriminate between art and govermental self interest? Do you think that you could have the capacity to judge actions on a case by case basis? From your posts on this thread the answer to the first question surely has to be yes. If you can do it then why not other people, lots and lots of other people...the rest of us?


Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

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).

And here you're absolutely wrong - "reality" doesn't matter, representation is what matters, both before the law and psychologically. Simply saying "they're not real" misses the point of what is being represented - the sexual abuse of children.
We're not talking about examples of material where there's any dubiousness as to whether young children are being represented or not - the images of the children don't have breasts or other signs of pubertal development. We're talking about images that blatantly represent, graphically and explicity, the rape of young female children.

 

[ViolentPanda]

All I can do is take you word for it

Or you could actually research the issue of child sex offending, as I did. It's not a very nice subject to research, mind you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Been there, done that!

 

[Dr_Herbz]

The law says...
For an offence under section 1 PCA 1978 the prosecution has to prove:

That the defendant deliberately and/or knowingly either made, took, or permitted to be taken, distributed or showed indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs.

The Act defines a "pseudo-photograph" as "an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph"

I don't know how photo-realistic the images were, but to be honest, I don't care. The nonce had already been done for possessing real photographs of children, so he tried to circumvent the law by using manga to depict the children.

Fuck him... and fuck that shite that puts child heads on adult bodies and makes cartoon porn out of it, so nonces can wank over it and pretend they're not nonces.

 

[DotCommunist]

is hentai considered acceptable in japan or is it viewed same as here, anyone know?

 

[SpookyFrank]

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

No, but this guy hasn't been done for intentions or thoughts has he?

 

[likesfish]

is hentai considered acceptable in japan or is it viewed same as here, anyone know?

Its fairly acceptable men can read explict manga on the tube and nobody complains apprantly
But the japanese seem to have a diffrent set of rules.
A lot of their sex industries wont let foreigners indugle because they dont know the rules or wont acceot the limits. They have just about made real actual child porn illegal.

 

[sim667]

Do you think that you could have the capacity to discriminate between art and govermental self interest? Do you think that you could have the capacity to judge actions on a case by case basis? From your posts on this thread the answer to the first question surely has to be yes. If you can do it then why not other people, lots and lots of other people...the rest of us?


Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I'm not saying that I can, what I am saying is that the individual has not created a victim, the principle of a law is that there is a victim. What this legislation is doing is envoking an issue to set a precedent to ban further art and literature which is deemed as undesirable. The people who make the judgement are only making the judgement within the remit of that legislation, i.e. this law says this, are they guilty, yes/no? It doesn't ask the question should this be illegal, given the fact that this is nothing more than a thought crime by an artist and a viewer.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Who is the victim of this crime?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not saying that I can, what I am saying is that the individual has not created a victim, the principle of a law is that there is a victim. What this legislation is doing is envoking an issue to set a precedent to ban further art and literature which is deemed as undesirable. The people who make the judgement are only making the judgement within the remit of that legislation, i.e. this law says this, are they guilty, yes/no? It doesn't ask the question should this be illegal, given the fact that this is nothing more than a thought crime by an artist and a viewer.

Is the bolded true?

if it is it's fairly easy to say that it damages society. Society is the victim - all of us. We're all victims if we have to live in a society that normalises rape/images of rape of children.

 

[sim667]

And here you're absolutely wrong - "reality" doesn't matter, representation is what matters, both before the law and psychologically. Simply saying "they're not real" misses the point of what is being represented - the sexual abuse of children.
We're not talking about examples of material where there's any dubiousness as to whether young children are being represented or not - the images of the children don't have breasts or other signs of pubertal development. We're talking about images that blatantly represent, graphically and explicity, the rape of young female children.

Ok but by that argument, its illegal to cause harm to an animal, yet you're allowed to create depictions of harming an animal.

Totally different precedent, but exactly the same issue, the difference between doing something morally wrong, and pretending to do something which is morally wrong.

 

[DotCommunist]

Its fairly acceptable men can read explict manga on the tube and nobody complains apprantly
But the japanese seem to have a diffrent set of rules.
A lot of their sex industries wont let foreigners indugle because they dont know the rules or wont acceot the limits. They have just about made real actual child porn illegal.

i seem to recall a case some years back where a bloke here was done for depictions of simpsons characters (lisa and bart) having sex. So this isn't a new prosecution is it.

 

[sim667]

Its fairly acceptable men can read explict manga on the tube and nobody complains apprantly
But the japanese seem to have a diffrent set of rules.
A lot of their sex industries wont let foreigners indugle because they dont know the rules or wont acceot the limits. They have just about made real actual child porn illegal.

I could be wrong on this, but the jist of what I understand when I visited is that indulgence in 'play' is tolerated in order to surpress real world urges. I think women tend to be massively sexualised by the odd man who can't control their urges in Japan, for example the odd womens only carriage, and warnings about upskirt photographers, and I think they're trying to have a give and take approach to combatting this, where as in the UK we just ban everything and line people up to point and shout "eurgh, nonce!!!" in the hope that will eventually challenge peoples mental health issues.

 

[sim667]

i seem to recall a case some years back where a bloke here was done for depictions of simpsons characters (lisa and bart) having sex. So this isn't a new prosecution is it.

Surely bart and lisa should be age of consent by now, the show started in 1989

 

[sim667]

Is the bolded true?

if it is it's fairly easy to say that it damages society. Society is the victim - all of us. We're all victims if we have to live in a society that normalises rape/images of rape of children.

Generally speaking, even in the case of drugs laws because of how they are produced, shipped etc (those are the only ones I could think of).

 

[butchersapron]

Generally speaking, even in the case of drugs laws because of how they are produced, shipped etc (those are the only ones I could think of).

Is that a yes or a no? Come on, it's part of the basis for your position - you need to know it it's true or not and to be able to say why if you want that position to be discussed seriously.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I could be wrong on this, but the jist of what I understand when I visited is that indulgence in 'play' is tolerated in order to surpress real world urges. I think women tend to be massively sexualised by the odd man who can't control their urges in Japan, for example the odd womens only carriage, and warnings about upskirt photographers, and I think they're trying to have a give and take approach to combatting this, where as in the UK we just ban everything and line people up to point and shout "eurgh, nonce!!!" in the hope that will eventually challenge peoples mental health issues.

Yeah, it's a mistake to think that such things are widely accepted as normal in Japan. They're not. Most people disapprove strongly. The argument over tolerating play in order to suppress real world urges is an important one, I think. It's not obvious that men wanking over cartoon images of children increases risks to real children.

 

[sim667]

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?

I don't know what lolita is?

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?

At some point british culture must have decided on an age of consent etc. Afterall in some parts of the world there are child brides which are still culturally acceptable there.