UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[butchersapron]

I don't know what lolita is?



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.

It's a work of art that portrays a paedo and his obsession. It's quite safe from prosecution. (Now).

I don't know how that second para is a reply to my question.

 

[sim667]

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.

I gave you an answer, I can't think of any, except drugs laws, which is debatable still..... But if i download a pencil drawing of some weed, I wouldn't expect to be prosecute for it, because its not weed.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

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.

Is it? What about all the 'With intent' crimes? Going equipped, etc?

 

[butchersapron]

I gave you an answer, I can't think of any, except drugs laws, which is debatable still..... But if i download a pencil drawing of some weed, I wouldn't expect to be prosecute for it, because its not weed.

Ok, you gave me answer to me asking if the following is true:

the principle of a law is that there is a victim

can you repeat the answer please as i seem to have missed it. And generally doesn't cut it - it must be universal and there must be centuries of legal exegesis of it if it is the case.

Are there instances of law that concern intended victims - future-crime we might call it?

 

[sim667]

It's a work of art that portrays a paedo and his obsession. It's quite safe from prosecution. (Now).

I don't know how that second para is a reply to my question.

At some point there must have been a decision about age of consent.....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is it? What about all the 'With intent' crimes? Going equipped, etc?

Well that's intent to create a victim, isn't it? Dodgy laws, too, mind, just as the sus laws were.

I agree with sim - generally speaking, if you can't identify a victim, I don't think there should be a crime.

 

[butchersapron]

At some point there must have been a decision about age of consent.....

At some point a law was passed yes. But what has that go to do with my response to you about the social production of taboos?

 

[sim667]

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.

Well their tolerance of the idea of a submissive woman culturally is higher, maid cafes were certainly a shock to me.

From what I gathered, again not saying im right, but my take on the way they sexualise things there is a lot more to do with submission and domination, pride and shame, and that side of things.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

At some point a law was passed yes. But what has that go to do with my response to you about the social production of taboos?

There isn't a seamless movement from social production of taboos to formal, impersonal legal codes. The one doesn't comfortably map onto the other, and once you are in the realm of impersonal legal codes, I do think different considerations need to apply. Law is black and white, for instance - it is binary: something is either lawful or not. And so binary systems to guide what might be illegal in a formal code such as absence/presence of a victim are a sensible approach.

 

[sim667]

Is it? What about all the 'With intent' crimes? Going equipped, etc?

My freind got done for going equipped to rob because he had a mag light, and a rubber glove in his festering shithole of a car.... But thats what I might, a poorly worded bit of legislation can lead to the most tenuous prosecutions.

 

[sim667]

There isn't a seamless movement from social production of taboos to formal, impersonal legal codes. The one doesn't comfortably map onto the other, and once you are in the realm of impersonal legal codes, I do think different considerations need to apply. Law is black and white, for instance - it is binary: something is either lawful or not. And so binary systems to guide what might be illegal in a formal code such as absence/presence of a victim are a sensible approach.

Law isn't black and white though is it, as butchers pointed out earlier in the thread, and killer b to me I think.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Law isn't black and white though is it, as butchers pointed out earlier in the thread, and killer b to me I think.

It is binary in the sense that something is either deemed legal or illegal. There are two possible judgements to be made by a court to a charge. So yes, it is black and white.

And there are lots of morally dubious things that the law says nothing about at most times - lying to people, cheating on a relationship, etc.

 

[sim667]

It is binary in the sense that something is either deemed legal or illegal. There are two possible judgements to be made by a court to a charge. So yes, it is black and white.

In the terms of an overall case with multiple legislation involved you can't have a charge of guilty or not guilty as they will be guilty of some parts of the case, and not in others.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Well that's intent to create a victim, isn't it? Dodgy laws, too, mind, just as the sus laws were.

I agree with sim - generally speaking, if you can't identify a victim, I don't think there should be a crime.

The law says it is but it isn't necessarily the case. As I'm sure loads of people are aware, it doesn't take much get a going equipped charge thrown at you.
I do think the verdict was really iffy, and generally speaking, I'd agree with you but I have no tolerance for nonces, and in this case, I think I would side with the judge.

My freind got done for going equipped to rob because he had a mag light, and a rubber glove in his festering shithole of a car.... But thats what I might, a poorly worded bit of legislation can lead to the most tenuous prosecutions.

Exactly... there doesn't have to be a victim, just the possibility of one, according to the people who make the rules.

 

[sim667]

So what I'm gathering overall is most people agree that someone who ONLY has manga depictions should be charged as though they are a peadophile....

And that is based on the fact that they "might" cause harm to a child, in the same way that its perfectly ok to prosecute someone on an "intent" charge, i.e. they might be going to commit a crime.

All we need now is for tom cruise to start bursting through windows to stop murders before they happen.

 

[bmd]

So what I'm gathering overall is most people agree that someone who ONLY has manga depictions should be charged as though they are a peadophile....

And that is based on the fact that they "might" cause harm to a child, in the same way that its perfectly ok to prosecute someone on an "intent" charge, i.e. they might be going to commit a crime.

All we need now is for tom cruise to start bursting through windows to stop murders before they happen.

But if you know it's a crime and continue in spite of that knowledge then you have made a choice. The fact that our society deems sex and children to be taboo is enough knowledge to inform you that those sexual images of a child will not be acceptable under the law.

 

[andysays]

Ok, you gave me answer to me asking if the following is true:



can you repeat the answer please as i seem to have missed it. And generally doesn't cut it - it must be universal and there must be centuries of legal exegesis of it if it is the case.

Are there instances of law that concern intended victims - future-crime we might call it?

In addition to the "going equipped" that's been mentioned, there is also conspiracy to commit... which may have individual intended-but-not-actual-victims.

But the basic principle of criminal prosecution is that society in the "person" of the Crown or another manifestation of the state is the victim, as far as I'm aware. It's deliberately seperated or divorced from any individual actual victim

 

[trashpony]

So you're arguing that if someone runs their photos through photo editing software so that they're not actually real photos of real children any more, then the people who buy those images from them haven't done anything wrong.

Okay we don't know that's what happened here but we don't know that hasn't happened either. We simply don't know.

 

[sim667]

But if you know it's a crime and continue in spite of that knowledge then you have made a choice. The fact that our society deems sex and children to be taboo is enough knowledge to inform you that those sexual images of a child will not be acceptable under the law.

Oh yeah, obviously..... but we're clearing not setting boundaries out well enough.....

 

[butchersapron]

My freind got done for going equipped to rob because he had a mag light, and a rubber glove in his festering shithole of a car.... But thats what I might, a poorly worded bit of legislation can lead to the most tenuous prosecutions.

Nonetheless recognises crimes where it cannot point to a victim - right?

So what I'm gathering overall is most people agree that someone who ONLY has manga depictions should be charged as though they are a peadophile....

And that is based on the fact that they "might" cause harm to a child, in the same way that its perfectly ok to prosecute someone on an "intent" charge, i.e. they might be going to commit a crime.

All we need now is for tom cruise to start bursting through windows to stop murders before they happen.

They were prosecuted for crimes they had committed. Not future crimes. Though the law already allows for prosecution for future crimes.

Now, you may disagree with the law - that's fine, just clearly say so. Don't argue that it is a law based on future-crime though. It's not. And this is where you seem to be getting rather confused.

 

[sim667]

So you're arguing that if someone runs their photos through photo editing software so that they're not actually real photos of real children any more, then the people who buy those images from them haven't done anything wrong.

Okay we don't know that's what happened here but we don't know that hasn't happened either. We simply don't know.

Im not arguing that at all.... you're just trying to put words in my mouth

On this point anyone see about that aussie dude that's been arrested as he was tricked into get his knob out on a webcam as he thought he was talking to a child....it was actually a CGI 9 year old.

 

[bmd]

Oh yeah, obviously..... but we're clearing not setting boundaries out well enough.....

I realise you've made a mistake in the post so to clarify do you mean clearly?

 

[butchersapron]

Oh yeah, obviously..... but we're clearing not setting boundaries out well enough.....

It's not about the law btw - it's about this and other wrong 'uns motivations. They will hide under you and use an art defence - it's quite easy to disentangle them from that with a little bit of effort rather than talking about the law.

 

[trashpony]

Im not arguing that at all.... you're just trying to put words in my mouth

On this point anyone see about that aussie dude that's been arrested as he was tricked into get his knob out on a webcam as he thought he was talking to a child....it was actually a CGI 9 year old.

But these are highly realistic images. Almost indistinguishable from real photos. What is the difference?

 

[sim667]

Nonetheless recognises crimes where it cannot point to a victim - right?

Eh? I don't understand the question....

They were prosecuted for crimes they had committed. Not future crimes. Though the law already allows for prosecution for future crimes.

Im not debating whether he was guilty of the crime he was charge with, I'm debating whether the law has a place in making a thought crime illegal beyond the reaches of just sexual exploitation as well, political dissidence for example, and the further reaching implications of what we can and can't look at on t'internet.

 

[captainmission]

Speeding is a crime. Most people that speed don't intend to kill or injure anyone, nor does speeding result in death or injury in the vast majority of case. So in most cases it won't result in a specific victim or come from the intent to cause harm by the perpetrator. But laws against speeding reduce the risk of injury to society as a whole.

Are speed restrictions thought crimes?

 

[sim667]

But these are highly realistic images. Almost indistinguishable from real photos. What is the difference?

How do you know?

Manga images are nothing like photographs.....

 

[sim667]

Speeding is a crime. Most people that speed don't intend to kill or injure anyone, nor does speeding result in death or injury in the vast majority of case. So in most cases it won't result in a specific victim or come from the intent to cause harm by the perpetrator. But laws against speeding reduce the risk of injury to society as a whole.

Are speed restrictions thought crimes?

No, speeding restrictions are restrictions.

A computer game on the other where you take control of a car and can speed... BAN THIS SICK FILTH!

Or even a youtube video of someone speeding.

 

[butchersapron]

Eh? I don't understand the question....


Im not debating whether he was guilty of the crime he was charge with, I'm debating whether the law has a place in making a thought crime illegal beyond the reaches of just sexual exploitation as well, political dissidence for example, and the further reaching implications of what we can and can't look at on t'internet.

The law recognises there are crimes where it cannot point to a victim. Your claim was the very principle of law was a victim that could be pointed to.

And so, by definition you are talking about this crime. And you're seeking to define it as a thought crime on the basis of there being no victim and so a massive legal change. The reality is that a) it's not a thought crime - it's a crime about what has already been done b) thought-crime is a well established part of the law and c) yes law and society does and should take account of motivations and intentions - it's precisely why we are able to judge the same act to be right and wrong dependent on context. Your position is that we can't - which is historically wrong, empirically wrong and also reduces society to law rather than ongoing interpretation of law and discussion abut law is produced. It's pretty authoritarian and dogmatic - it's actually exactly how degenerate art was persecuted in the past. There's this and all that's ok - then there's that and all that is wrong.

 

[butchersapron]

How do you know?

Manga images are nothing like photographs.....

Forget manga -that's just the blokes defence. Manga is not relevant.