| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
Stark700
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Posts: 11762
Location: Earth
|
 Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:46 pm
|
 |
|
|
Oh wow, somewhat speechless about this.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
walw6pK4Alo
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 9322
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:49 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Prosecutor Hedvig Trost argued during the proceedings that the images could be used to coerce a child into performing sexual acts, noting that "And even a drawing could be of a real child. A photo depicting a real child could have been used to make the drawing. It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not." |
Yes, and I murder real human beings when I play Call of Duty.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Chagen46
Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 4377
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:54 pm
|
|
|
|
Not this bullshit again.
Drawings. Are. Not. Real. People.
Why do so many judiciary systems have trouble realizing this?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
tuxedocat
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 2183
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:00 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Lundström has translated more than 80 volumes in two series for the publisher Bonnier Carlsen in the last decade. However, after the Uppsala ruling in June 2010, Bonnier Carlsen ended its working relationship with Lundström.
|
WTF! Shouldn't they be going after the publisher for this? Wasn't the guy working for this Bonnier Carlsen?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
ScruffyKiwi
Joined: 25 Oct 2010
Posts: 707
Location: New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:01 pm
|
|
|
| Chagen46 wrote: | | Not this bullshit again.
Drawings. Are. Not. Real. People.
Why do so many judiciary systems have trouble realizing this? |
Quite frankly it doesn't matter. Like simulated rape videos, lolicon images are just illegal in most western countries and you have to get over it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Cecilthedarkknight_234
Joined: 02 Apr 2011
Posts: 3820
Location: Louisville, KY
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:03 pm
|
|
|
| Chagen46 wrote: | | Not this bullshit again.
Drawings. Are. Not. Real. People.
Why do so many judiciary systems have trouble realizing this? |
I agree however with you chagen, however we don't know what material he was arrested for. If the scanlator was busted for doing some of rustles work then I can understand that frame of mind, from a mainstream person. Look up his art-work some time to see what i am talking about.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
chrisb
 Subscriber
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 638
Location: USA
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:06 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: | | On Tuesday, Björn Sellström, a criminal inspector of Sweden's National Bureau of Investigation's child pornography unit, wrote in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper that the images should not be considered pornography, noting that he was "doubtful of how a conviction would benefit those children who are actually suffering from real abuse which is being documented." |
Finally someone said it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Zin5ki
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 6680
Location: London, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:12 pm
|
|
|
|
With respect to the legal expenses this trial will doubtlessly accrue, one wonders whether an analogue to the CBLDF exists within the court's jurisdiction.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
TarsTarkas
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 5925
Location: Virginia, United States
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:16 pm
|
|
|
| Quote: | | On Tuesday, Björn Sellström, a criminal inspector of Sweden's National Bureau of Investigation's child pornography unit, wrote in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper that the images should not be considered pornography, noting that he was "doubtful of how a conviction would benefit those children who are actually suffering from real abuse which is being documented." |
This says it all. The Swedish government is proceeding anyway, because it wants to set a precedent. By succeeding, they can bend laws to their interpretation, and receive affirmation for their interpretation from a court of law.
Which is why our federal government went after Handley, even after discovering they were in error about actual child pornography, and also prosecutor disdain for actually admitting they made a mistake.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Chagen46
Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 4377
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:29 pm
|
|
|
| TarsTarkas wrote: |
| Quote: | | On Tuesday, Björn Sellström, a criminal inspector of Sweden's National Bureau of Investigation's child pornography unit, wrote in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper that the images should not be considered pornography, noting that he was "doubtful of how a conviction would benefit those children who are actually suffering from real abuse which is being documented." |
This says it all. The Swedish government is proceeding anyway, because it wants to set a precedent. By succeeding, they can bend laws to their interpretation, and receive affirmation for their interpretation from a court of law.
Which is why our federal government went after Handley, even after discovering they were in error about actual child pornography, and also prosecutor disdain for actually admitting they made a mistake. |
Okay, this case is stupid but we REALLY don't need the Libertarian tin foil hat "GOV'MENT OUT TO GET US" conspiracy theories.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Surrender Artist
Joined: 01 May 2011
Posts: 3264
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:30 pm
|
|
|
| TarsTarkas wrote: |
| Quote: | | On Tuesday, Björn Sellström, a criminal inspector of Sweden's National Bureau of Investigation's child pornography unit, wrote in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper that the images should not be considered pornography, noting that he was "doubtful of how a conviction would benefit those children who are actually suffering from real abuse which is being documented." |
This says it all. The Swedish government is proceeding anyway, because it wants to set a precedent. By succeeding, they can bend laws to their interpretation, and receive affirmation for their interpretation from a court of law. |
I'm not sure if that's really an applicable rationale in this case. Sweden is a civil law jurisdiction. Civil law tradition holds that only the legislature can make laws, so precedent tends not to be as binding in jurisdictions that use it rather than Common Law.
I don't know the particulars of Swedish judicial practice, but if I had to make a competing guess, it would be that the Swedish prosecutors think that they can win and don't want to miss a chance to put another mark in that column.
Otherwise, I believe that Mr. Sellström is right. Things like this always feel more like misdirected moral panic than trying to correct harm.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Yttrbio
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 3670
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:34 pm
|
|
|
| walw6pK4Alo wrote: |
| Quote: | | Prosecutor Hedvig Trost argued during the proceedings that the images could be used to coerce a child into performing sexual acts, noting that "And even a drawing could be of a real child. A photo depicting a real child could have been used to make the drawing. It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not." |
Yes, and I murder real human beings when I play Call of Duty. |
Strictly speaking, the analogy would be that Call of Duty animations could have been made by murdering people in motion capture suits, and you can't really prove that it wasn't, so...
| Quote: | | During the trial, Lundström's laywer brought in several expert witnesses, including University of Gävle comics researcher Johan Höjer. "These are not real people," Höjer said. |
An interesting theory...
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Kougeru
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 5577
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:41 pm
|
|
|
| ScruffyKiwi wrote: |
| Chagen46 wrote: | | Not this bullshit again.
Drawings. Are. Not. Real. People.
Why do so many judiciary systems have trouble realizing this? |
Quite frankly it doesn't matter. Like simulated rape videos, lolicon images are just illegal in most western countries and you have to get over it. |
Because the laws are always right in western countries? Oh wait..they're not always right at all. Such as gay marriage. And in some middle eastern countries it's illegal for women to do pretty much anything....definitely doesn't make it right just because it's a law somewhere in the world. this is about kids being harmed or not harmed
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FinalArcadia
Joined: 16 May 2012
Posts: 15
Location: Southern USA
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:54 pm
|
|
|
|
This is really the stupidest thing I've ever seen. There's nothing better for the Supreme Court in Sweden to be hearing than this case? Nothing more urgent, pressing, or, you know, SERIOUS?
He could use the pictures to coerce kids? He could probably do that with candy, too. Is candy illegal to have now as well?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Mad_Scientist
 Subscriber
Moderator
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 3013
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:00 pm
|
|
|
| FinalArcadia wrote: | | This is really the stupidest thing I've ever seen. There's nothing better for the Supreme Court in Sweden to be hearing than this case? Nothing more urgent, pressing, or, you know, SERIOUS?
He could use the pictures to coerce kids? He could probably do that with candy, too. Is candy illegal to have now as well? |
Actually, given that his conviction was upheld by the lower court, I'd say it is quite important for the Supreme Court to hear the case. That is of course assuming they intend to overturn his conviction.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
