swedish courts convicts man for cartoon images of underage pornography. - Page 2
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 277
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post
    If you show pictures of someone planting a bomb or hijacking a plane, does that reinforce in a terrorist's mind that he is part of an accepted subculture?
    context.

    If the pictures are on a site that is targetted to terrorists, encourage terrorist activity and praise acts of terrorism, then yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post
    If paedophiles enjoy such materials, what business is it of the rest of society? There are no victims. One can indeed even argue that such pictures might be a form of sexual release for paedophiles which they would otherwise have to seek from real children.
    One can argue it yes, but one cant prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post
    If this issue makes you uncomfortable, you are not very anti-censorship. ;-)
    You're wrong. The issue makes me uncomfortable because it tests the limits of my anti-censorship stance. You're very presumptious.

    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post
    It seems to me pretty clear: there were no victims. Thus no crime has been committed. Moral disgust simply doesn't come into it. In Victorian Britain they locked up Oscar Wilde because people were morally disgusted with him. Today we shake our heads and feel all superior, but then go and do precisely what Wilde's society did to him.
    see my last post.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    421
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 191 Times in 102 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    depictions of consensual sex with 17 year olds isnt what's concerning me or anybody else who objects here.
    Well, it really depends where you live. Some places the age of consent is 18, some it's 16, some it's 14, and some it's 12....

    And, no, the case IS about 17 year olds. If you have pictures of a 17 year old (depending where you live), even drawn, depicted in sexual acts...you can face punishment (and people have, for having porn stars be under-age, 17).

    If you are saying "well, anyone under 16 is what is REALLY wrong!"...well... that is your personal random opinion (not what is on the books). Either you are breaking the law and can be punished for it, or you are not. Sex with people age 12-18 is happening all over the world all the time and most of it is a non issue because it is legal there.

    If the human centipede or the Saw movies used child actors, we would have a problem. Funnily enough, nobody makes movies like that depicting children as the victims.

    Children need more protecting than adults do, and that should be well established.
    So... are you trying to say the consentual sex of a 17 year old is a worse crime than brutal murder and torture of someone? Having only pictures which depict the act (fake or not) is punishable in only one of those instances....((I would imagine it would be the worse crime which is punished for depicting it...but it isn't.)

    I'm personally more afraid of people who get their jollies watching people get cut up and horribly tortured before death than of someone who finds a 17 year old girl attractive and wants to have consentual sex. I really don't get how society is "ok" with the horrible horrible act of brutal abuse and torture / murder....yet the act of consentual sex with someone under a random legal age sets everyone into a frenzy (so much, that simply depicting it is punished!).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ivory_Oasis For This Useful Post:


  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    cant we?

    an illustration of a naked child isnt pornography because its purpose isnt necessarily sexual. Art galleries are full of naked unidentifiable kids (well usually we know when its jesus), nobody cares.
    That's what you think! In America, there have already been numerous cases of people having been prosecuted for cutesy pictures of their kids in the bathtub or skinny dipping in a lake. Society has become so rampantly paranoid over kiddie molesters that it is indeed nowadays impossible to tell whether ANY pictures of children are "safe." As I mentioned in a previous post, in Britain you can prosecuted even for pictures of fully clothed children.

    an illustration of a child having sex with an adult/robot/supervillain/demonic tentacle/whatever is usually less ambiguous and a much much darker shade of grey.
    Indeed. But there is still no victim. I can't imagine why we should get our panties in a bunch over such pictures. If you don't like them, don't look at them. That's how simple it is.

    I wouldnt equate nazism to the fact that society doesnt quite understand how to deal with the mass distribution of images that twenty years ago nobody would admit to creating.
    Society doesn't have to "deal with it." There are no victims. It's just a bunch of pictures. There's nothing to "deal with."

    A year or two ago, a Danish newspaper published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. All over the world, Muslims were morally disgusted and went batshit about it. In the west, we acted all superior about it and told them "but it's just pictures." And what about free speech? And how can a mere cartoon image harm anyone?

    Well, we should ask those same questions now.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


  6. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    Sorry, I think this is a bit of a strawman argument kind of thing.

    Judge Dredd comics have never to my knowledge depicted children being raped, and although they might infer it happened to a character, or occurred within the timeline of a story, I've never seen the rape of a child or the sexualisation of a minor become the focus of a single panel in Judge Dredd.
    So what? The books depicted heinous crimes against humanity, and no one cared. I.e. society is fine with pictures of crimes.

    Find me an example that depicts naked children in a sexual fashion, that is considered acceptable, and use that.
    Well, no, the whole point is that it is perfectly legal to draw a picture of ANY crime at all, except this one particular category. In fact, you don't even have to draw pictures of criminal acts. Draw a picture of a child masturbating (not an illegal act) or two underaged kids having sex (not an illegal act in most jurisdictions) and you can ALSO get prosecuted. Thus not only is there no victim involved, in many cases there wouldn't be a victim even if the picture depicted a real event. But this is more offensive than images of people blasting each other to bits?

    I think not. This whole paranoia has nothing to do with "protecting children." It has everything to do with mere prudishness.

    Nabokov's lolita, was a comment on the natue of paedophilia and the weakness of the paedophile who was ultimately corrupted by the minor, and not the other way around. It wasnt a page by page account of sex with a minor. this analogy doesnt hold up either.
    This one brings up an interesting question. The book has twice been made into a movie, of which I saw the second one. It contained quite graphic scenes of an adult having sex with a minor. Now of course, we can argue that the film has artistic merit. As you point out above, it clearly wasn't a porn movie. But I wonder: what if someone possesses stills from that film, of all the sex scenes, so that the context and therefore the artistic point is stripped away? Quite possibly you could be prosecuted for that too. Once again we don't know, because it will depend on how prudish the prosecutor is.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


  8. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Im sorry, I have a real objection to the depiction of kids as a masturbatory tool.

    If that makes me a nazi, then im a fucking nazi.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    Oscar Wilde is a poor example. If what youre saying is that in fifty years, we will all be watching movies about child rape, and paedophilia wont be a crime, then we truly do have a problem.

    This isnt moral disgust, that implies that my objection to the sexual exploitation of children is merely based on my own morality, as if im somehow unenlightened and there is a greater train of thought that makes it acceptable.
    No, what I'm saying is that we cannot prosecute people because we don't like them. There has to be a victim. That is the only reasonably objective way in which we can define a crime. If we force children to play in porn movies, those children are being victimized, whether it happens now or in fifty years, and thus it seems likely that child porn involving real children will remain illegal, as indeed it should.

    Pictures from an artist's imagination do not harm anyone. It doesn't matter what it is that they depict. They cannot harm anyone. If you find them disgusting, just don't look at them. What's so difficult about that?

    Incidentally, many of Wilde's lovers were underaged, by modern standards...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


  11. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post
    No, what I'm saying is that we cannot prosecute people because we don't like them. There has to be a victim. That is the only reasonably objective way in which we can define a crime. If we force children to play in porn movies, those children are being victimized, whether it happens now or in fifty years, and thus it seems likely that child porn involving real children will remain illegal, as indeed it should.

    Pictures from an artist's imagination do not harm anyone. It doesn't matter what it is that they depict. They cannot harm anyone. If you find them disgusting, just don't look at them. What's so difficult about that?

    Incidentally, many of Wilde's lovers were underaged, by modern standards...
    taking illegal drugs is considered victimless too, yet in the end you are funding a criminal organisation by buying most drugs.

    distributing, marketing and profit of the depiction of child sex, whether illustration or not, is participating in and possibly funding a market that exploits both children and those who are mentally ill and want to have sex with them.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    context.

    If the pictures are on a site that is targetted to terrorists, encourage terrorist activity and praise acts of terrorism, then yes.
    In this particular case, to make the analogy hold, the context would be the hard drive of a private citizen, that held thousands of pictures of all manner of things, and the person in question would be a translator of such comics by profession. I don't think you'd want him prosecuted, or consider him a danger to anyone.

    You're wrong. The issue makes me uncomfortable because it tests the limits of my anti-censorship stance. You're very presumptious.
    And your "anti-censorship" stance has apparently failed the test. You aren't anti-censorship. You oppose censorship only when it is applied to things YOU happen to like, or feel more or less neutral about. But whenever things that you DON'T like get censored, you don't seem to mind so much. (And of course, in this case, it wasn't even mere censorship - a person got prosecuted and might well have his life ruined.)

    If you are truly anti-censorship, that means you will defend ANYONE'S right to free speech and expression, including people you vehemently disagree with, and including even people whom you find disgusting. That is what free speech MEANS. Once we take away that right from someone, not because he harmed anyone, but simply because we find what he says disgusting, then we no longer have free speech.

    Now it is actually okay with me if you oppose free speech. But do us a favour and at least be honest about it. You can't claim to oppose censorship when it is clear that you actually support it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    421
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 191 Times in 102 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    Im sorry, I have a real objection to the depiction of kids as a masturbatory tool.

    If that makes me a nazi, then im a fucking nazi.
    We get that I think most people object to it...

    I object to people who hit eachother in sex acts, or who do things with bodily waste, or who depict things like incest....

    But, I draw the line at trying to punish people only when there is a victim or abuse. Basically, I think people should be free to do whatever they feel like in the privacy of their home as long as no one elses freedoms are being stepped on.

    So, while I think it is really sick and wrong to enjoy watching people get murdered in movies like "Saw"... it isn't my business to punish people for making or seeing it (as long as it isn't real and no one is actually being harmed or abused).

    I think that is main issue here... a large portion of society wants to punish people for acting in ways they don't like (ignoring the entire issue of if anyone is being harmed, which should be the KEY issue to consider). It's why sodomy was illegal for so long and why gay marriage is still illegal.

    Yup, depictions of underage sex is pretty gross. But then again, so is people who have sex with bodily fluids or need violence / rough play to get off. Human sexuality in general is pretty gross....

    But, if no one is being exploited or abused, why do I care? And more importantly, why do you?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Ivory_Oasis For This Useful Post:


  16. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post
    what if someone possesses stills from that film, of all the sex scenes, so that the context and therefore the artistic point is stripped away? Quite possibly you could be prosecuted for that too. Once again we don't know, because it will depend on how prudish the prosecutor is.
    If the actress in the sex scenes was a minor, I think it should be criminal.

    and if she were underage, and someone were to put those stills up on a website designed for wanking, I would want to see prosecutions.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    421
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 191 Times in 102 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    taking illegal drugs is considered victimless too, yet in the end you are funding a criminal organisation by buying most drugs.

    distributing, marketing and profit of the depiction of child sex, whether illustration or not, is participating in and possibly funding a market that exploits both children and those who are mentally ill and want to have sex with them.
    Don't japanese have a lot of underage fetish sex cartoons? >< I'm pretty sure that money isn't funneled back to underground child slave camps... just artists in dark rooms and strange minds and too much time lol.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    421
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 191 Times in 102 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    If the actress in the sex scenes was a minor, I think it should be criminal.

    and if she were underage, and someone were to put those stills up on a website designed for wanking, I would want to see prosecutions.
    Actually, it is illegal even if the actress was 50. All that matters is what she was being DEPICTED as. If the film was clear that she was meant to be underage and made to fit the part.... it counts as child pornography.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivory_Oasis View Post
    I'm personally more afraid of people who get their jollies watching people get cut up and horribly tortured before death than of someone who finds a 17 year old girl attractive and wants to have consentual sex. I really don't get how society is "ok" with the horrible horrible act of brutal abuse and torture / murder....yet the act of consentual sex with someone under a random legal age sets everyone into a frenzy (so much, that simply depicting it is punished!).
    The fact that those violent movies are so popular tells me that LOTS of people get their thrills from such images. Not sure whether we should be scared of such people, because it would mean we have to be scared of almost everyone. ;-)

    Whatever the case may be, this particular case isn't about people getting murdered or children having sex. It's about fictional pictures of non-existing people, and the question is whether such images should be illegal.

    Humans sure have a dark side to them. That is why violent movies are popular. And I can guarantee you that the majority of men are sexually attracted to teenagers too, whether they want to admit it or not. That may or may not be a good thing, or "unnatural" or whatever. But I think when we start criminalizing mere pictures, we are on the edge of far greater darkness than anything depicted in the Saw movies. Just ask the people who survived the Third Reich...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivory_Oasis View Post
    We get that I think most people object to it...

    I object to people who hit eachother in sex acts, or who do things with bodily waste, or who depict things like incest....
    I dont know why you'd object to thte activities of consenting adults. Im concerned with those who arent developed enough to truly be considered as consenting partners.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivory_Oasis View Post
    But, I draw the line at trying to punish people only when there is a victim or abuse. Basically, I think people should be free to do whatever they feel like in the privacy of their home as long as no one elses freedoms are being stepped on.
    I agree with this, but the distribution and acquisition of such materials takes it outside the home, and the internet cannot be considered private in this regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivory_Oasis View Post
    So, while I think it is really sick and wrong to enjoy watching people get murdered in movies like "Saw"... it isn't my business to punish people for making or seeing it (as long as it isn't real and no one is actually being harmed or abused).

    I think that is main issue here... a large portion of society wants to punish people for acting in ways they don't like (ignoring the entire issue of if anyone is being harmed, which should be the KEY issue to consider). It's why sodomy was illegal for so long and why gay marriage is still illegal.

    Yup, depictions of underage sex is pretty gross. But then again, so is people who have sex with bodily fluids or need violence / rough play to get off. Human sexuality in general is pretty gross....

    But, if no one is being exploited or abused, why do I care? And more importantly, why do you?
    I think its dangerous to start using things that were once considered unacceptable and are now considered to be acceptable as examples here.

    Effectively Im being told that sex with children, and the rape of children , is only unacceptable because of current draconian way of thinking, and that one day society will judge us poorly and call us narrow minded because we objected to it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    Im sorry, I have a real objection to the depiction of kids as a masturbatory tool.

    If that makes me a nazi, then im a fucking nazi.
    Yes, indeed. And that's perfectly okay. You have the right to your political opinions, whatever they may be. But do not try to convince me you are actually very liberal and open minded and so on. It reminds me of the people here in South Africa who used to tell me they are not racists at all, "as long as the k*ffirs know their place."

    But let me not talk politics. If memory serves, it is actually not allowed on this board. I think though that the free speech issue goes beyond politics, and the reason I get so worked up about it here is because it directly affects all artists, especially visual artists.

    We simply cannot let a bunch of prudes tell us what we are or are not allowed to draw, or what pictures we are even allowed to look at. Society can place some reasonable limits on where and how such images are distributed, e.g. to prevent children from being exposed to violent or age-inappropriate sexual imagery. And in the case of pictures that cause almost universal moral outrage, e.g. rape of children or torture of animals, we can perhaps argue that it should be illegal to freely post such images in public places where people are not given a reasonable choice about whether they see them or not. This would include publicly visible web pages.

    But if people choose to draw such images and send them around privately to friends, or put them on websites where you are first explicitly warned about what you will see in there, then I cannot imagine why it should be any of my or anyone else's business.

    Free speech is one of the very central pillars of a civilized society. Without it we are heading for disaster. Furthermore, it is one of those things that are like pregnancy: you either are or you are not. If you are in favour of free speech only for people you like, then you are in fact not in favour of it at all.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Ewww.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Two Listen For This Useful Post:


  24. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I heard you can get arrested if you get some pictures developed at a store and there's one of you in a bathtub with like your 3 yr old kid, or if they're at the beach running around with just their diapers, is this true??

    Edit: Nevermind, brainvds answered it already, wow I thought that was just a myth

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    the only argument for the posession of drawn illustrations of children having sex, created as masturbatory aides, is that the owner cannot be considered to be an active paedophile because of his 'thoughts and fantasies' and I accept that.

    I remember somebody was prosecuted because he wrote a story about raping kids, that he kept in his room, hidden, until the police found it on an unrelated search for firearms.
    He was the wrong guy implicated in the firearms case, but was charged for the material he'd written for his own personal use, anyway.

    He was cleared, and I agree with this.

    If he'd put the story up on the internet for other people to wank to, that would be very different. Then he would be catering to a market of paedophiles, active or not.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    taking illegal drugs is considered victimless too, yet in the end you are funding a criminal organisation by buying most drugs.
    Well, no, the most popular drugs by far are alcohol, tobacco and coffee, and you don't fund any criminal organizations by buying them. The fact that you are funding criminal organizations when you buy illegal drugs is of course a good reason why all drugs should be legal. It is indeed once again a victimless crime. But I would suggest that it is a topic for another thread.

    distributing, marketing and profit of the depiction of child sex, whether illustration or not, is participating in and possibly funding a market that exploits both children and those who are mentally ill and want to have sex with them.
    Er, no, if the pictures come from an artist's imagination, they do not exploit children, and therefore they have nothing to do with a market that does exploit children. By analogy, in many places in the world children are sold into slavery, or forced to fight as soldiers. Now if you draw pictures of children in chains or wielding AK47s, you are not participating in the market for child slavery or soldiering.

    As for funding such things, that it kind of irrelevant, because you could use your salary as director of the Anti-child Porn League to secretly fund kiddie porn, and that would not mean we should ban the League on the grounds that it funded kiddie porn.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


  28. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    If the actress in the sex scenes was a minor, I think it should be criminal.

    and if she were underage, and someone were to put those stills up on a website designed for wanking, I would want to see prosecutions.
    In other words, you think individual frames from a legal film can be illegal? I would be interested to hear some other opinions on this; hopefully other participants in this thread will also weigh in.

    If memory serves, the actress in Lolita was a minor, but for the most explicit sex scenes they used an adult body double. Of course you can't really tell from the scenes themselves.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post
    In other words, you think individual frames from a legal film can be illegal? I would be interested to hear some other opinions on this; hopefully other participants in this thread will also weigh in.

    If memory serves, the actress in Lolita was a minor, but for the most explicit sex scenes they used an adult body double. Of course you can't really tell from the scenes themselves.
    stop dancing with the subtext.

    If the movie is legal, then stills are legal, and there shouldnt be a problem.

    If the actress is a minor, and she is naked and simulating sex in that movie, then it should be illegal.

    If the stills depict a body double who is of age, then the hypothetical guy who made the edits, is wanking to an adult. done.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivory_Oasis View Post
    Actually, it is illegal even if the actress was 50. All that matters is what she was being DEPICTED as. If the film was clear that she was meant to be underage and made to fit the part.... it counts as child pornography.
    But Lolita wasn't an illegal film. In fact, it is very highly regarded by the critics. This is of course because it had "artistic merit." On the whole, the film didn't promote sex with minors (if anything, it did the exact opposite) and the sex scenes were in the context of a meaningful story, and clearly not designed to merely titillate.

    But the question now is this: what if you make stills of the sex scenes, and you enjoy those stills outside of their original context? Do they then become illegal porn? Is it desirable that stills from a legal movie should be illegal?

    It is something of a side issue to the main point of this thread, but it struck me as an interesting question.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


  32. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    116
    Thanks
    217
    Thanked 83 Times in 28 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This thread is kind of getting argumentative ... : /

    Didn't SouthPark have a episode with an adult lady sleeping with a minor? Kick the baby?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2nuk...eature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRSR...eature=related

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Malaysia o/`
    Posts
    759
    Thanks
    976
    Thanked 1,048 Times in 277 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Seriously, you guys.

    CP is gross. Loli/shotacon is gross. Pedophilia is gross. Lots of fetishes are gross.

    But they can beat off to all the drawn porn they want, as long as no actual children are involved.



    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to crossmirage For This Useful Post:


  35. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    I heard you can get arrested if you get some pictures developed at a store and there's one of you in a bathtub with like your 3 yr old kid, or if they're at the beach running around with just their diapers, is this true??

    Edit: Nevermind, brainvds answered it already, wow I thought that was just a myth
    There have been many such cases, Googling around, this was the first one that came up:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2244168/posts

    In this case, as indeed in many of the others, the charges were eventually dropped, or the people found not guilty in court. But people have their lives destroyed even if the charges are dropped or they are found not guilty. It costs them a fortune on legal fees, they get fired from their jobs, they are hounded out of their community, etc. etc. all because of a bunch of crazy, paranoid prudes who cannot tell the difference between a picture and a criminal act.

    On another forum I had a conversation with a bloke who is an art teacher. His own art consists mostly of stylized nudes. I asked him why he doesn't put those up on a website. He told me that if his pupils Google his name they might find such a site, and then he might get fired from his job. That is the level of madness society has reached now.

    On the ARC's website they relate the tragic case some years ago of an art teacher that got fired because he suggested to some of his most talented pupils that they attend life drawing classes.

    This whole issue is of great importance to visual artists, and it is no longer merely a theoretical thing. All over the planet artists are now the victims of absurd censorship and indeed even criminal prosecutions.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


  37. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by crossmirage View Post
    Seriously, you guys.

    CP is gross. Loli/shotacon is gross. Pedophilia is gross. Lots of fetishes are gross.

    But they can beat off to all the drawn porn they want, as long as no actual children are involved.

    I dont object to this image, because that isnt even a human child.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  38. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    stop dancing with the subtext.

    If the movie is legal, then stills are legal, and there shouldnt be a problem.
    Er, YOU are the one who said such images should be illegal, but I think you perhaps just misunderstood my message. I was talking about the film version of Lolita, which was perfectly legal. I think you perhaps thought I was referring to stills from an illegal porn film.

    The point was that some of the scenes in Lolita would in fact have been thoroughly illegal had they been made on their own, without the artistic context of the film, and that raised the interesting question of whether it should be illegal to possess only those sex scenes, outside of the context of the film.

    If the actress is a minor, and she is naked and simulating sex in that movie, then it should be illegal.
    Fair enough, and I would agree.

    If the stills depict a body double who is of age, then the hypothetical guy who made the edits, is wanking to an adult. done.
    Ah, but the issue is more complex than this. What if the person who enjoys those stills have never in fact even seen the movie, and got them from a friend? I.e. he now possesses images of sex with a minor, outside of the context of an art film. Now you could argue that the actress was after all an adult. The problem is this: in most jurisdictions it is already illegal to possess images of sex scenes where you CLAIM the people involved are minors. I.e. if you get two actors in their mid-twenties, but who LOOK like they are fifteen, and you have them act in your porn movie, that film will be considered child porn and you can get a long term sentence for it.

    Now what you seem to be arguing is that if I use an adult actor in a porn scene, and I portray that adult as a child, and use an adult that LOOKS like a child, that is okay. But if I draw a picture of that same scene from my imagination, it is not. I.e. my movie will be legal, but its storyboard won't be.

    Can you see how absurd it gets? One has to put aside one's moral outrage when making laws, and think the issues through very carefully. History is full of examples of well-meant laws that ended up causing disastrous harm to the very societies they were supposed to protect.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  39. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    383
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 283 Times in 74 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brianvds View Post

    Ah, but the issue is more complex than this. What if the person who enjoys those stills have never in fact even seen the movie, and got them from a friend? I.e. he now possesses images of sex with a minor, outside of the context of an art film. Now you could argue that the actress was after all an adult. The problem is this: in most jurisdictions it is already illegal to possess images of sex scenes where you CLAIM the people involved are minors. I.e. if you get two actors in their mid-twenties, but who LOOK like they are fifteen, and you have them act in your porn movie, that film will be considered child porn and you can get a long term sentence for it.
    Im not debating the nuances of the law in different locations. Im sure its very silly in a lot of places. Im talking about whether it should be legal to distribute material, that is not ambiguous, and clearly depicts a child in a sex act, and for the purpose of sexual gratification. (i.e its not some cherubim humping a serpent in the garden of eden, making a comment about religion and the repression of sexuality)

    i seem to be getting a lot of gray areas thrust upon me here, Im not sure im trying to advocate the misinterpretation or overzealous application of the law.

    let me ask you, do you think its acceptable to have a website that depicts drawn images of children who appear as young as six, being forced into sex acts with adult men and women, and also machines and other 'things'

    I would ask why, but i guess im going to be told something about a guy who posted his kid on facebook and got arrested.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  40. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    116
    Thanks
    217
    Thanked 83 Times in 28 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    let me ask you, do you think its acceptable to have a website that depicts drawn images of children who appear as young as six, being forced into sex acts with adult men and women, and also machines and other 'things'
    I think that material would be inappropriate. It could be disturbing to others and I would categories it with the same sensitivity as perhaps other violent materials. A warning label might be needed and shouldn't be shown openly...really depends on the context.

    As nice as it would to wipe certain disagreeable topics from the face of the earth. It still falls under freedom of speech. As long as it doesn't present a clear and present danger to another or a real living being. That's why shows like South Park is able to get away with "killing Kenny" thousand of times or kick the baby... It's a very touchy subject and I'm sure there's going to be some historical or cultural aspect to why these things are created. What's acceptable one part of the world will be taboo to others.

    My two cents

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  41. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    177
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 79 Times in 54 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ExiledRed View Post
    Im not debating the nuances of the law in different locations. Im sure its very silly in a lot of places. Im talking about whether it should be legal to distribute material, that is not ambiguous, and clearly depicts a child in a sex act, and for the purpose of sexual gratification. (i.e its not some cherubim humping a serpent in the garden of eden, making a comment about religion and the repression of sexuality)

    i seem to be getting a lot of gray areas thrust upon me here, Im not sure im trying to advocate the misinterpretation or overzealous application of the law.
    With this issue, the whole thing is one big grey area... ;-)

    let me ask you, do you think its acceptable to have a website that depicts drawn images of children who appear as young as six, being forced into sex acts with adult men and women, and also machines and other 'things'

    I would ask why, but i guess im going to be told something about a guy who posted his kid on facebook and got arrested.
    Nope, I for one have the courage of my convictions and can give you a straight answer to your question, which is this: As long as no real children were victimized, and as long as reasonable precaution is taken to warn visitors about what they will see in that website, I think it should be one hundred percent legal.

    As for why I think it should be legal, I would say that we do not need a reason why anything at all should be legal. We only need reasons why things should NOT be legal. If we cannot find any such reasons, then the thing in question should be legal. Personally I cannot see any reasonable reasons why something where there isn't a victim should be illegal.

    Now there is one grey area here, and that would be things that one could argue are bad for society in general. E.g. websites with hate speech against Jews, or public execution of criminals, or that sort of thing. Personally I am very uncomfortable with the idea of banning even hate speech. Perhaps one can make an argument that some things should be banned "for the public good." But if we want to do that we have to be consistent in our arguments. There are already LOTS of things that we can show beyond doubt to be bad for the public in general, that are perfectly legal. Other such things are legal but controlled (e.g. violent movies.)

    In the case of sexualized images of children, I think the best solution will be to exercise legal controls over them, e.g. controlling where they may be posted, under which circumstances etc. A blanket ban on them achieves little more than to drive them underground where we can't control them at all anymore, and where, worst of all, their price then skyrockets and they create a criminal underworld where none previously existed. We don't need to speculate on this: it has happened many times before, with every single thing that society tried to control by banning it. It happened with alcohol prohibition, it is happening with the prohibition on drugs, and it has indeed happened before when adult porn was illegal: ban it, and you end up with sicker stuff than you would have had if you merely exercised some reasonable control.

    Anyway, I have a busy week coming up, so I might not be able to participate in this thread until next week, and by then it might be a dead thread.

    In summary, that Sweden would prosecute a man for harmless images that he possessed in private and that were apparently actually part of his job, makes me seriously wonder how liberal a society Sweden really is. I thought the Scandinavians were far ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to running a civilized, liberal society. I used to envy the people who live there. Now I think I am perhaps after all better off here in South Africa, where people are every bit as backward, but at least the police are too incompetent to actually do anything about it...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  42. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brianvds For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •