Forum - View topicNEWS: U.K. Man Sentenced for Prohibited Images of 'Manga' Children
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Minami-Asakura
Posts: 104 |
|
|||||||
Animelover12313 has the mentality of a ...I dunno really, I dont see even little kids thinking as retarded as him By his logic: Who guarantees that a cooking knife sold and x store cannot be used to kill someone? Who guarantees that a car some sicko buys wont be used to ram people? Who guarantees the saw a sicko buys wont be used to chop your head? And we can keep on going with the retarded logic of WHAT IF scenarios infinitely.
Precisely, you can have random people attacking videogames or hollywood because of violence and strong sexual content "can influence some sickos" but anything more, definitely not (and rightly so of course) Rules sentencing people because of the bad influence of Hollywood or vieogames? Not happening, behind them are the same powerful people creating the laws... But with sex, you know how the western world has double, triple, or quadruple morality towards that, and one of the best images you can give to the public is the vision that you are "protecting children" more so from possible future "child predators" even if we are talking imaginary children, every excuse to scream we are "protecting children" is great and has influence over the ignorant masses. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Tony K.
 SubscriberModerator  Posts: 11388 Location: Frisco, TX |
|
|||||||
|
Deleted a couple of posts for over-quoting.
Don't want your posts deleted? Then don't over-quote. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Minami-Asakura
Posts: 104 |
|
|||||||
 Nice, deleting posts about the journalism perspective here, censorship¡, NO, over-quoting!
Ah, wonderful laws and rules. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Megiddo
 Posts: 8360 Location: IL |
|
|||||||
|
Over-quoting in a huge annoyance. If someone cannot spend the few seconds it takes to crop out bulk unneeded text that is being quoted then the the post deserves to be deleted.
Last edited by Megiddo on Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
818941
|
|
|||||||
|
I apologize for breaking that rule if I did, but how convenient that a post criticizing this site was one to be deleted.
|
||||||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11513 |
|
|||||||
Yeah, I didn't get that part. Are you and BB proposing that there be no images or photos of minors of any sort permitted anywhere at any time because someone, somewhere, might be masturbating to them? Because I guarantee you someone is. Which I guess makes BB complicit in promoting child porn since he showed that image of Baby Trunks to the pervs as well as the normals (whose fantasy lives can apparently be trusted not to spill over into reality). This is why Coppertone changed their logo with the little girl and the dog, like that was going to deter anyone so inclined. This is just the next phase. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Tuor_of_Gondolin
 Posts: 3524 Location: Bellevue, WA |
|
|||||||
Repost it, only without the excessive quoting. Problem solved. Then you can move on to your next tale of victimization. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
glgunblade
Posts: 21 |
|
|||||||
|
Just reread the coroners and justice act. It makes no mention of schoolwear or any kind of wear. The only thing I see about exposing if it focused purely on the genitals and it was solely for the purpose of sexual arousal with no narrative context. Breasts don't count. Your highschool dxd is safe.
The judge should have made no mention about whatever the character was wearing. I have my thoughts on the subject but I hate typing by mobile which is what I'm typing on now. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Hawkwing
 Posts: 317 Location: Sweden |
|
|||||||
What the actual fudge? That link was bizarre and depressing to read, especially when you compare this trival fictional child porn case to this gang. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Minami-Asakura
Posts: 104 |
|
|||||||
Sir. The law is ALWAYS interpreted. The next judge can very well charge with CP with HighShcool D  if he interprets that naked underage individuals constitute CP in his own view and interpretation.
Remember when talking about laws interpretation is key, that is the key to a successful defense or to bury someone. The laws is created always in such a manner, it is always up for interpretation, its never taken as its literally written or you cannot hope that because one judge interpret it one way or another and or omitted this or that your are safe. That is why with a skilled lawyer you can be the worst criminal and if he/she makes a good interpretation of the law in your favor, then you will get away with it. You will always see this is the case with the rich and powerful most of the time. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Randomfart
Posts: 44 |
|
|||||||
Before making a post like this, think for a second about the reason for the existence of said material. "Police seized Hoque's computer containing 288 still and 99 "prohibited" moving images, none of which were real people, in June 2012. The images are classified as prohibited because they depict young girls, some in school uniforms, and some exposing themselves or engaging in sexual activity." Please explain to me why child porn related imagery that's only purpose is to serve as someones masturbating material (fictional or not) should be allowed to exist? Do you feel uncomfortable that it violates your freedom to masturbate to sickening shit? And if so, why does this make you uncomfortable? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
FenixFiesta
Posts: 2581 |
|
|||||||
Because using the same logic someone could be charged for that particular crime in the UK by having the Visual Novel Saya no Uta which itself is more than just "spank material". It is not about one asshole who is indeed a paedophile, it is about when someone who is not a pedophile and is honestly trying to enjoy a work of fiction that coincidently features an animated character that resembles a young child in an interpretably erotic pose. Hell, ZZ gundam might get you thrown in Jail in the UK for a 5 second segment of El Peo Ple running naked out of a bathtub. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
818941
|
|
|||||||
First of all, "young girls" =/= child porn. A drawing of a 16-year-old isn't a drawing of a child. Second, even if it were drawings of prepubescent children, it still is drawings. This lady: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuwwmpLHo4 who is a police commissioner dedicated specifically to fighting child pornography online and off, in an interview (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#cite_note-71) has said it best - the law cannot punish the intention of offense. A loli comic is exactly the same as a gore porn comic or a murder mystery novel, they all are depictions of violence that do not involve any real people, therefore they are all legal. The law concerns itself with people who exist, not with people who don't. The latter is thoughtcrime. Whatever sickening material that guy masturbates to, it's all in his head and in his head he can do whatever the damn he pleases. That's the italian law at least, excuse me for agreeing with a police commissioner I actually respond to rather than you. Last edited by 818941 on Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:00 pm; edited 3 times in total |
||||||||
Blanchimont
 Posts: 3531 Location: Finland |
|
|||||||
Once again, this is not a case of child porn, but drawn images. These have absolutely nothing in common with the implications of real live images of children engaged in sex acts. There's no victim, absolutely none. So as for your question, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't exist.
Because it violates basic freedom of expression for nothing but an arbitrary reason, of course it's going to make me uncomfortable. Guro, loli, vore, whatever fetish people may prefer, as long as there's no real live victims it won't harm anyone, simple logic.
...at this point the police should have dropped the case, if the system was just. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Touma
 Posts: 2651 Location: Colorado, USA |
|
|||||||
It should be allowed to exist because it does have a purpose, and there is nothing negative about that purpose. Somebody wanted to create it. Somebody wanted it to be created. Nobody is hurt buy it. Therefore it should be allowed to exist.
Yes.
The people who like them do not consider them to be sickening shit. There is a lot of it that I find to be disgusting, and when I see it I just move on to something else.
It makes me uncomfortable because it feels like some people want far too much control over others. And those people are quite often not qualified or competent to exercise that control and do not understand the possible consequences of their laws. It makes me uncomfortable because I lot of things that I do like could be prohibited by these laws, even though the laws were not intended to prohibit those things. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group