Forum - View topicNEWS: U.S. Appeals Court Declines to Hear Dwight Whorley's Case
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nekusagi
 Posts: 49 |
|
|||||||
|
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I hope Whorley's counts for lolicon get cleared. He's a disgusting, despicable human being, yes, but owning pornographic DRAWINGS of children is the least of his crimes and adding them to his charges/record is the LEAST of any of his offenses. I believe he should have them removed from his record, and I think it's unfortunate he's not getting this chance at justice.
On the other hand, I really wish Handley would have appealed his case. Whorley's case is going to set a precedent for all future rulings, and if another Handley, with a perfectly clean record, is arrested for say, torrenting an underage doujin, and DOES try to appeal the case, they'll be going up against a past ruling against a legit creep. @Mokona: Agree completely with your point about fanfiction. On the Pokemon forums I'm a member of, there is a member who shall remain unnamed, who a few years ago wrote a particularly disgusting (and infamous) piece of lemon fic involving Ash and May (both 10), one that went on, in graphic detail, for 10 chapters. I won't dispute this guy is an utter creep on the forums- of the jerk variety, not the pervert variety- but would I ever wish arrest on him for writing this? Not ever. And like Bricken's posts (I love reading FFF), it's of the "so bad it's good variety", so I occasionally pull it up for lulz. Does viewing this make me a sick pervert who should be locked away and put on the sex offender registry? Hardly. I'm reminded of the LJ Strikethrough, a few years ago, when whole accounts (mostly fanfiction comms) were deleted due to complaints they hosted "child pornography". This is far more serious, however. We're in a situation where the lines of what is and isn't pornography are blurred. And unless more people start speaking up, more innocent people could start losing their rights and having their lives ruined. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||||
|
[quote="tygerchickchibi"]
I'm not in that mix. The line I'm given is zp's. real child porn has always been around, but the people buying deserve to lurk in dark alleys or pay way too much vs easy internet access. It's a black market item that needs to remain hard to aquire. Sadly, the net is full of shots of people's kids these guys can have their sick little fantasies about. It shouldn't be easy to be a child molestor.
So when do we get to the thought police busting people for "lusting" after people in their heads? Watch a rape on tv & the cops carry you away as an accomplice? Drawn art which does not use a live model should not be considered evil. If I were to draw a child being ripped to shreds by a dog after the dog savaged the child, I should not be considered a criminal (Granted, I'm stick-figure art at best). My thoughts are free. If I save a picture of a child to my computer (Not that I'd bother), I should not have to say why I did it, not what I plan to do with it. This is the America I thought I lived in. Not some paranoid realm where monsters lurk around every corner planning to deflower your precious darlings. Watch a Little Rascals short for god's sake. Yes, children have always fallen victim to predators, but that was how it was in those days. Kids roaming around with little-to-no parental supervision & they more-often-than-not survived to become adults. I was given the "Don't talk to strangers" warnings. Whenever a kid DID fall victim, my mom repeated the warning, suggesting that kid wasn't warned or didn't listen. Our parents protected their precious children by warning those precious children to exhibit common sense & not jump in cars or go off with some person they didn't know because the person offered candy. Whorley should not be looking at time on drawn art. He should only be convicted of commiting actual crimes (like possessing nude of of children.) I can't count how many naked pix I have of my daughter. She was a little nudist. I'd send her into the fenced back yard to play, look out 5 minutes later & she was running around naked, her clothes in a pile, being adorable, so I'd take a picture. There's one I adore because she was in the tub as the water was filling & giggling her head off, so I took the picture, but the expression is so primal-innocent, sweet, beautiful-I never look past the face, but she is totally naked. I am not a child molestor. I really don't want to believe I have to destroy pictures of my own child because they're "Child porn". I also don't put those pix online where pervs can somehow access a private photo account & download them. There are valid reasons to have pictures of naked children. Do we need to make taking a picture of one's own child a crime? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
otto117
Posts: 17 |
|
|||||||
|
Nekusagi, your view of Whorley is a bit unfair. In fact, Whorley's only crimes were (1) in 1999, receiving child porn, (2) in 2004, accessing nude images (not child porn) and lolicon, and also exchanging a few fantasy emails (all the basis for his current conviction on multiple grounds). He was a shut-in and suffers severe deformities. Actually, downloading "obscene" images from Fractal Underground Studio was the WORST of his crimes, not the least. In any case, his case is OVER. ( (If you do a search for those images, you too can violate federal law.) There's nowhere to go now but the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court will NOT accept certiorari on the lolicon issue. It's done.
Next: Handley pleaded guilty. As part of his guilty plea he agreed NOT to appeal. Why? Because he pleaded guilty to possession, and the court already ruled (in 2008) that the possession section is unconstitutional. So he's pleading guilty to a fiction, but that saves him from a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least 8 years. Handley's guilty plea is not much of a precedent. Moreover, the government has seen what the opposition looks like and it may actually think twice before going after another defendant like Handley, since it almost had to face the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and its experts, who may have secured an acquittal - who knows? However, there IS a precedent in Handley's case from 2008, a ruling by the District Court that the possession part of the statute (paragraph (b)) is unconstitutional, but the receipt part of the statute (paragraph (a)) is constitutional. Two Circuit Courts of Appeal have confirmed the constitutionality of 1466A (a) (receipt, accessing, viewing, etc.). Wait, there's more: Whorley was convicted under both 1461 and 1466A. There is only one sound argument under which to challenge the constitutionality of Section 1466A, and that is to attack its modified "Miller" standard. However, that still leaves section 1461. Lolicon is just as illegal under 1461 as 1466A. The main difference between these two sections is the sentencing requirements. Section 1466A treats cartoons the same as real child pornography. 1461 does not. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Lothar
 Posts: 67 |
|
|||||||
So since Chi from Chobits isn't a person, but rather a robot that may had been manufactured less than 18 years prior to her appearance in a sexually explicit doujinshi, would her depiction be legal? My take: NOT LEGAL if a "reasonable person" unfamiliar with Chobits thinks that Chi herself is a person under 18. LEGAL if, say, a screw or bolt is coming out of her head during the sex act, hence characterizing her as a piece of machinery. ............................................... I'm going to love the next stage in the evolution of child porn law. "Is it illegal to depict a humanoid robot that physically looks like he or she is an under 18 person in a sexual situation? Well that depends if the robot character in question has self-cognizance." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
tygerchickchibi
 Posts: 1478 |
|
|||||||
|
[quote="CCSYueh"]
No, I was talking about the other guy. =0 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Bell02
 Posts: 168 |
|
|||||||
I get what you are saying, but the problem with that is a person going to ban violent television programs, games, and literature for believing that it will create real world murders? I'm not one to believe that the opposite can also happen and actually drive pedophiles to not sexually assault children due to their needs being meet by the cartoon characters. As how many people all there in this world that pop a cap in somebody's brain through a computer monitor and not desire to do it in real life?! That was basically my reasoning, and that probably just goes back down to the original censorship debate that always occurs. I guess one other belief I have that would shape this opinion is that I don't think everyone can just turn into a pedophile, and the people may just born or conditioned that way. (Of course, by saying that I don't want to say it should be legal. I mean a psychopath shouldn't get away with murder) So I think a pedophile will do it anyways, anime porn or not. (Also, if you are wondering why I cut down your post. I'm not disagreeing with you on it, I basically said what you said in lesser characters; that I agree that that should be illegal) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
tyciol
 Posts: 134 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||
A similar concern applies to century-old vampire characters in a variety of anime (Miyu, Rosario, Mina Tepes, Evangeline McDowell) or centuries-old biblical beings (Demon Lord Etna, Flonne) or thousand-year old aliens (Washu) who also look young. They are certainly similar to humans and in many cases, can even produce offspring with them. In other cases, humans can even become angels/demons/vampires. The android question is also something that can be flipped on it's head, like in regards to cyborgs. Star Trek The Next Generation's Data for example, becomes partly human at one point, via organic material. Or, in regards to the age of an Android, what about the opposite of Chii, an android who looks young but is very old? Juno in Element Hunters, for example, ranges from a few decades to a few dozen millenia old, depending on how you interpret the confusing ending. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
|||||||
|
This thread and discussion died off a year ago, you may want to stick with discussions on current topics instead of reviving long dead ones.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group