UK man sentenced for having manga images of children

[captainmission]

No no no, we've been through this already....

He hasn't put children at risk with the regard to manga style images, because no children were involved in the making of the images.

I'm not talking about the issue of other things, I'm specifically talking about the anime images, in the same way that you could say playing a game where you drive a car over a speed limit, you are vicariously doing something you know is against the generally accepted stance of society, but you are not actually undertaking it.

Though in it's production manga style child rape images may not involve the abuse of a specific child, ownership and distribution of such images is deemed normalise and encourage peadophiles in sexually abusing child.

Though breaking the speed limit may not involve injury of a specific individual, the behaviour is deemed a risk and criminalised a such.

In both cases the justification for criminalising the act is for potential harm the act could cause.

Now if you don't think that the production, ownership or distrubtion of illustrated or composite child rape images increases the risk of sexual assault of children then say so. I'm quite happy for the law to err on the side of caution in this case.

 

[sim667]

A paedo pic would be a photograph of a child... they are realistic because they are photographs of actual children.

A drawing of a CGI image that depicts a child is not an image of a child, it is an interpretation of a child, it does not depict an actual physically existing child. It is a fallcy of someones imagination, made up, the child does not exist.

A manga image will by default never be the same as a photograph, it can't physically be without using a lens and light to capture a moment in time. For these drawings there is no actual proof that a moment has happened where a child was forced to sit in a sexually exploitative situation in front of a camera.

 

[articul8]

It should be.

Hmm - I can see how contributing animated representations of children being sexually abused contributes to an ecology of image-exchange which can endanger real children.

I'm not sure you can say the same about representations of thousand-cock monsters?

 

[sim667]

He has not even once been done for having manga images. He has been done twice for having images of sexual abuse of children. The thread title is wrong and a contribution to his defence. It's just an art style people don't get. I've done nothing wrong.

The thread title isn't wrong, the images are manga style, as clearly stated in all the articles, except the reference to earlier style of images which are tom raider themed.

THERE ARE NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN INVOLVED

 

[butchersapron]

A paedo pic would be a photograph of a child... they are realistic because they are photographs of actual children.

A drawing of a CGI image that depicts a child is not an image of a child, it is an interpretation of a child, it does not depict an actual physically existing child. It is a fallcy of someones imagination, made up, the child does not exist.

A manga image will by default never be the same as a photograph, it can't physically be without using a lens and light to capture a moment in time. For these drawings there is no actual proof that a moment has happened where a child was forced to sit in a sexually exploitative situation in front of a camera.

This is why your thread title is wrong. It's pretty bad.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

A paedo pic would be a photograph of a child... they are realistic because they are photographs of actual children.

A drawing of a CGI image that depicts a child is not an image of a child, it is an interpretation of a child, it does not depict an actual physically existing child. It is a fallcy of someones imagination, made up, the child does not exist.

A manga image will by default never be the same as a photograph, it can't physically be without using a lens and light to capture a moment in time. For these drawings there is no actual proof that a moment has happened where a child was forced to sit in a sexually exploitative situation in front of a camera.

That's why the term 'pseudo-photograph' is employed. It prevents abuse of one of the good laws.

 

[sim667]

Ok so thread title should be "Man sentenced for posessing manga images". Still doesn't change the fact he's had no physical images of children and has be prosecuted of what he's been thinking about.

 

[sim667]

That's why the term 'pseudo-photograph' is employed. It prevents abuse of one of the good laws.

They fabricated a term to legitimise passing a law basically

 

[captainmission]

A drawing of a CGI image that depicts a child is not an image of a child, it is an interpretation of a child, it does not depict an actual physically existing child. It is a fallcy of someones imagination, made up, the child does not exist.

Are we really moving into semiology 101?

 

[butchersapron]

The thread title isn't wrong, the images are manga style, as clearly stated in all the articles, except the reference to earlier style of images which are tom raider themed.

THERE ARE NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN INVOLVED

Do you think he was prosecuted for having manga images? If so then you don't know what's going on here.

Your shouty insistence that there was no photo used is utterly irrelevant.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok so thread title should be "Man sentenced for posessing manga images". Still doesn't change the fact he's had no physical images of children and has be prosecuted of what he's been thinking about.

What was he prosecuted for? What was the actual charge. Now do this slowly because it might blow your mind.

 

[Citizen66]

A paedo pic would be a photograph of a child... they are realistic because they are photographs of actual children.

A drawing of a CGI image that depicts a child is not an image of a child, it is an interpretation of a child, it does not depict an actual physically existing child. It is a fallcy of someones imagination, made up, the child does not exist.

A manga image will by default never be the same as a photograph, it can't physically be without using a lens and light to capture a moment in time. For these drawings there is no actual proof that a moment has happened where a child was forced to sit in a sexually exploitative situation in front of a camera.

It sounds a deeply unpleasant pastime and probably encourages and perpetuates that sort of offending. I wouldn't be in a hurry to defend it in the name of thought crimes or defending art tbh.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

They fabricated a term to legitimise passing a law basically

No, they did their best to close a loophole that sick bastards would otherwise use as a defense.

 

[8115]

Nobody knows for sure that it normalises and encourages child abuse. It might very plausibly give people who are so inclined an outlet for their urges. Be a bit scientific people!

Anyway it seems like the images weren't just manga so this whole debate is pointless.

 

[Pickman's model]

They fabricated a term to legitimise passing a law basically

while your position is beguiling to the unthinking, i would hope you'd engage brain before posting so frequently on this subject in future.

 

[Citizen66]

The thread title isn't wrong, the images are manga style, as clearly stated in all the articles, except the reference to earlier style of images which are tom raider themed.

THERE ARE NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN INVOLVED

It says in the article that butchers linked to that images of actual children had been superimposed onto the realistic looking scenes.

 

[butchersapron]

They fabricated a term to legitimise passing a law basically

Or used a neo-logism to reflect changing times.

 

[sim667]

What was he prosecuted for? What was the actual charge. Now do this slowly because it might blow your mind.

I can't even re-iterate what I've said again, I've explained it so many different ways....

 

[sim667]

Are we really moving into semiology 101?

A drawing is by definition semiology..... its not a pipe, its a drawing/painting of a pipe.... It seems butchers can't grasp this idea..... a wee bit of basic art theory

 

[butchersapron]

I can't even re-iterate what I've said again, I've explained it so many different ways....

You can re-iterate it, You can't expand on or justify it. That's where you are going wrong.

You're wasting 7 peoples time now.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

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.

As others have mentioned, secondary crimes are a possibility and probability.
Edwin Schur and Hugo Bedau write about laws regarding victimless crimes. .. “some of these laws produce secondary crime, and all create new ‘criminals’ any of whom are otherwise law-abiding citizens and people in authority.”

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.

Good lord
He thought he was showing his knob to a child but it was only cgi so that's ok???
Seriously? Do you think any of that is ok?

A paedo pic would be a photograph of a child... they are realistic because they are photographs of actual children.
A drawing of a CGI image that depicts a child is not an image of a child, it is an interpretation of a child, it does not depict an actual physically existing child. It is a fallcy of someones imagination, made up, the child does not exist.
A manga image will by default never be the same as a photograph, it can't physically be without using a lens and light to capture a moment in time. For these drawings there is no actual proof that a moment has happened where a child was forced to sit in a sexually exploitative situation in front of a camera.

Are you seriously trying to say that watching a realistic image of a child being raped is ok?

No, they did their best to close a loophole that sick bastards would otherwise use as a defense.

Spot on...

Nobody knows for sure that it normalises and encourages child abuse. It might very plausibly give people who are so inclined an outlet for their urges. Be a bit scientific people.

Scientific? It might give people the desire to experience the real thing too.. scientific argument doesnt work because society can't afford to "repeat experiments" of this nature if there's any risk of abuse to a child.

 

[butchersapron]

A drawing is by definition semiology..... its not a pipe, its a drawing/painting of a pipe.... It seems butchers can't grasp this idea..... a wee bit of basic art theory

Wow. Did you really just post that? Wow. Basic art theory. Ok

 

[sim667]

It sounds a deeply unpleasant pastime and probably encourages and perpetuates that sort of offending. I wouldn't be in a hurry to defend it in the name of thought crimes or defending art tbh.

Im not defending it, fucker can rot if he's causing an issue to kids as far as im concerned.

The fact is unavoidable though, he's not causing an issue to kids, or at least no-one can prove he is, whilst thousands upon thousands of people who have images of real children are left unprosecuted because police don't have the manpower/can't be bothered to track them, as I posted in the bbc article in this thread.

Ignore thousands of people who have helped cause psycholgocial damage to hundreds of kids, but its ok, because this guy like likes cartoon porn we'll have him incase he does something .

 

[butchersapron]

Def ignore them.

 

[comrade spurski]

Context is everything.
Do the cartoons/drawings seek encourage, normalise or support the sexual abuse of children? Yes...therefore he is guilty of producing images of child abuse.
To turn this into some version of an art debate is fucking ridiculous.

Thoughts are in your head, drawings aren't...therefore this ain't a thought crime...

 

[8115]

Then why isn't Trainspotting or GTA illegal?

I mean personally I probably think, yes make those cartoons illegal. But there are arguments on both sides.

 

[sim667]

Good lord
He thought he was showing his knob to a child but it was only cgi so that's ok???
Seriously? Do you think any of that is ok?
.

Are you talking about the australian bloke or the english bloke?

The australian bloke though it was a real child and proactively tried to solicit sex over a webcam.... Nothing about that is ok.

The english bloke downloaded manga and tomb raider-esque images.... They are not actual images of actual children. I don't think the idea of it is ok, its clearly that he wanted to fap over kids, but he has been prosecuted over imagining a situation that hasn't actually happened.

Are you seriously trying to say that watching a realistic image of a child being raped is ok?

No. But if you think a manga image is a realistic image (or a tomb raider style image..... I mean it will look like fucking minecraft, all blocks) then you may need help.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Im not defending it, fucker can rot if he's causing an issue to kids as far as im concerned.

The fact is unavoidable though, he's not causing an issue to kids, or at least no-one can prove he is, whilst thousands upon thousands of people who have images of real children are left unprosecuted because police don't have the manpower/can't be bothered to track them, as I posted in the bbc article in this thread.

Ignore thousands of people who have helped cause psycholgocial damage to hundreds of kids, but its ok, because this guy like likes cartoon porn we'll have him incase he does something .

Where do you stand on the laws regarding incitement of racial hatred? Do you think they're a bit daft because there's no actual victim? It's just words and thoughts? Words and thoughts don't hurt people?

 

[Citizen66]

A drawing is by definition semiology..... its not a pipe, its a drawing/painting of a pipe.... It seems butchers can't grasp this idea..... a wee bit of basic art theory

Bomb making instructions are just literature too.

 

[Spymaster]

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

So no possession offences then?

It's ok if I keep some grenades and handguns under the bed?