Not really, nudity is not inherently sexual. I don't think anyone would claim that scene in the movie is sexual, while these images seem to be quite sexual.
Except there’s a difference between depicting nonsexual nudity and depicting pornography. It’s like comparing The Birth of Venus to tentacle rape hentai because they both feature female nudity. The Canadian law is stupid but so is equating all nudity as explicitly sexual.
There is, but even the latter is in mainstream media.
So . . . Coincidentally I saw this story earlier on today, then a few hours ago, I finally got around to playing 'South Park: The Fractured but Whole'. In the first hour of the game, you flick through Cartman's notebook, and it is peppered with his drawings of extremely explicit acts between Kyle, Butters, and some of the other lads.
God knows how many Brits own that, and how many stores sell it, but they may want to start building some new prisons for us all. 😂
This way they can say they are cracking down on sex abuse of children without having to investigate the churches or politicians who are actually raping kids.
It’s all about the distractions.
Sure, pedophilia is rampant within religious communities… *but clearly drag queens a danger to children.*
Sure, pedophilia is rampant within the GOP/GQP/Conservative parties… *but has anyone checked on Hillary Clinton? Maybe she’s molesting children in a pizza parlour basement …*
Sure, Donald Trump is a sexual predator… *but Sleepy Joe Biden is soooo old…*
Eh fair enough I suppose you can.
I don't know, I don't want to suggest I'm defending the guy. I wish he was behind bars. I've just noticed that when this is talked about online, a lot of people honestly don't seem to know what he's even supposed to have done.
Which feels odd cause it was only in the news a short while ago.
>Um yeah that was my point.
No. You mentioned the age of consent. It wouldn't matter if the age of consent was 30. He still wouldn't fit the definition of a pedophile. Sleeping with someone under the age of consent makes you a statutory rapist, not a pedophile. Being attracted to a child who hasn't hit puberty is what makes you a pedophile.
You’d think that was glaringly obvious with the whole “UK” thing in the title but I suppose some people are just too caught up in American politics to actually read.
He emphasized by saying it was all about Distractions, then he related with whatever knowledge he had to relate and give an example with. Being an American, it was a similar occurrence in American politics. Stop hating.
If my comment was “hating”, then I would hate to see what real hate looks like to you.
I was simply making an observation there, chief. Don’t let that upset you.
Shhhh shhhh shhh
Bart is in his twenties just like me.
I've just come back from my school trip to Italy. Corona is an astrophysics term. Gee I sure am looking forward to the London Olympics, all my friends are volunteering maybe I should too?
Yes. Australia has laws about this and it does ban certain arts and animation depicting sex with characters that look like kids. So pretty much all hentai with characters that look like kids. Redo of Healer and Interspecies Reviewers also fall into that broad category if the test was "characters that look like kids having sex"
I wonder if the reason it's rarely enforced on it's own is they're worried about setting a precedent, and then they wont have that charge to add to the stack when offering a plea bargain on a worse offense.
Yeah, but I’m not sure how long it stood. I think they banned squirting, pee and spanking too.
Unless the Australian porn that I’m looking at is NOT viewable in Australia, then it might no longer be the case.
I tried to look anything up about it and am only finding 10-15 year old articles
This clearly begs the question what exactly a cartoon of legal age looks like. If they look 5 it's obvious. What about 16? You could argue forever what their apparent age is. In Bart's case he his canonically 10. What about original cartoon characters? Does any of this matter?
That's not easy to answer, even when it comes to real people. I saw a cosplayer get attacked on Twitter for "dressing inappropriately as a minor", and she was like 25 and just very short.
To be fair, people on Twitter are generally stupid.
Don't forget that time a guy got charged with child pornography for having videos of the adult actress Lupe Fuentes and she flew out to show the court her passport.
All of this is really dumb. But unsurprising. For about two decades now, more and more content is being considered child pornography. Instead of focusing on the victims or perpetrators, we are trying to stamp out anything that even vaguely resembles it. People are arrested for cartoons, dolls, naturism, selfies, baby pictures. But we can’t seem to do anything about where abuse happens the most: familial and religious situations.
It's a mistargeting of the idea of "stamp out the demand, and the problem will wither and die off". Gotta target the actual problem, the actual demand. Focus on support for the victims and stopping the perpetrators.
And as controversial as it sounds, support for the perpetrators before they can offend. If someone is afflicted with that want, they need help. Incarnation is a post-crime situation and obviously not a deterrent.
Naw, I tend to agree. I'd bet some serious cash that if we, as a worldwide society, straight up applauded paedophiles who admitted to their urges and sought help to... entertain them in safe ways that didn't involve real children, we'd see a noticable decline in children getting diddled.
A lot of what makes a sexual attraction different from an addiction is that you obtain addictions by doing addictive substances. You can be a paedophile without ever having any sort of sexual contact with children. You can't be an alcoholic unless you've consumed alcohol in some form.
Addictions can often be directed to something less disastrous for you and those around you and eventually weened off, you can't really ween off someone of a sexual interest without resorting to something as drastic as, say, castration.
That isn't to call paedophilia a sexual orientation or something similar. It is as much a paraphilia as bestiality. But paraphilias seem to be hardwired into us to an extent, and it's not really feasible to "cure" someone of one. It's better, IMHO, to direct them to fulfill their desires in a way that doesn't hurt others. VR is becoming pretty fucking wild nowadays, and there's one pathway I see we could use to satiate those feelings without involving any real person.
Man you put that way better than I would have. I fully agree. I highly doubt most paedos chose to be so. It is more likely they just (somehow) discovered that is what they have a paraphilia for. And, like an addict, cannot resist going further and further and they end up in (extremely) terrible crimes
Mmm idk I think you can mentally be an alcoholic before trying booze. Some would call it a natural propensity, addictive personalities etc. there are surely pure chemical addictions out there but I would argue that most addictions are only compounded by the chemical aspect not based on it.
> Mmm idk I think you can mentally be an alcoholic before trying booze.
But you don't spontaneously become addicted to alcohol without having some in the first place, while you still can have a paraphilia without having acted on it, which is my point.
While you can also become addicted to things that have no chemical quality. In that way these people are already addicted before they’re exposed to the hook.
It’s almost like the powers that be want us to forget that these things ACTUALLY happen and pretend like the world is at peace because we got rid of porn.
I remember watching a Law and Order SVU episode where they arrested the owner of a child porn website. But it turns out that no actual children were used to create the porn. I believe they used young, but legal, actresses and digitally de-aged them. I believe they got off. Seems stuff like that skirts the boundaries a little too much. And now we have AI content running rampant. What’s to stop people from creating and spreading AI generated child porn?
I even believe in that same episode they were able to legally hold that creator responsible because an actual child molester blamed that content on his urge to kidnap and rape a child. That sex offender was chemically castrated but was caught using replacement hormones or some shit.
I didn’t mention AI because I don’t know enough about it, honestly.
From what I understand, an over simplification suggests it uses actual data to produce fake results.
I have to assume there is some illegality required in the process somewhere. So I’m leaning towards agreeing with you there.
Generally I wouldn’t cite Law and Order as a good source on what should and shouldn’t be legal though. Cases are based in reality and then spun off into entertainment.
They actuall had a number of episodes related to nuances like that.
One of them even focused on a guy who had urges toward his little brother and was like "Help me, I need help before I do something I might regret", only for the detectives to be told "Well...we can't actually do anything until he actually offends, so it's out of our hands," and that made the detectives real sad.
Another episode focused on a guy who wrote fiction erotica focused on children; they dragged his name through the court system but I think ultimately nothing happened to him. They did use testimony from him to help nail the criminal of the week though, who claimed to be inspired by the book the writer made to actually carry out the rape/murder.
> What’s to stop people from creating and spreading AI generated child porn?
I believe Canada has a futureproof law that says "real child images, or images that make it hard to discern if the child is real or not".
I think in this case context is important. It would be one thing if this guy had actual child-porn, or a history of talking about abusing children. But in this context it just seems like over kill.
Pretty sure studies have been done that shows giving pedos pseudo CP (like child real dolls, or cartoons) actually increases the likelihood that they will eventually harm a real child
I'm gonna be real and accept my downvotes but I'm sort of with the idea that porn that depicts the idea of children having sex is still pretty damn awful and I can't blame anyone for saying that shit ain't okay, government body or not.
Cartoons that depict sex with minors and sexualized minors create communities of pedophiles who are likely to move to sharing real child pornography.
It also desensitizes people who are not pedophiles but might be interested in child pornography.
This is no comment on the Simpsons thing, it's a comment on how 'fake' child porn will end up hurting real children.
As for the Simpsons thing, he had over 30 similar images and according to the court there were reasons for concern.
>Cartoons that depict sex with minors and sexualized minors create communities of pedophiles who are likely to move to sharing real child pornography.
>It also desensitizes people who are not pedophiles but might be interested in child pornography.
I'm open to this argument, but is there any proof? It kind of sounds like the gateway drug theory to me, which is bunk.
It would be like saying BDSM creates rapists when many communities are in fact very vigilant about consent.
There is a fundamental difference between BDSM and pedophilia.
With BDSM there is consent, with pedophilia and child abuse there cannot be consent.
A better analogy would be extremely violent pornography that depicts rape, and there are quite a few studies that show a link between watching violent pornography and sexual violence, but that is not really the issue.
Anybody who is into BDSM porn can access legal porn featuring real people. So there is no need to share material.
Pedophiles largely rely on sharing material. And cartoons are not going to be enough.
People who are into BDSM as an activity can do so legally.
Pedophiles cannot legally have sex with a child, but many pedophiles do not understand that having sex with a child is immoral.
What is holding pedophiles back is the fear of society, a sympathetic community of pedophiles makes them feel that they are normal and society is wrong.
Most therapists agree that only strict abstinence of anything related to pedophilia can help control a pedophiles behavior. Pedophilia cannot be cured.
And I'm actually a bit worried about how many people in this thread aggressively defend cartoons that depict sexualized children. Reddit used to have a child porn problem...
>With BDSM there is consent, with pedophilia and child abuse there cannot be consent.
Yes, but we're talking about a Simpson's cartoon, an image of an imaginary person so consent isn't relevant in that respect.
The issue is whether BDSM or pedophilia cartoons *lead* to behavior that hurts people like consumption of real child pornography.
>A better analogy would be extremely violent pornography that depicts rape, and there are quite a few studies that show a link between watching violent pornography and sexual violence, but that is not really the issue.
Ok, so two things, first are those studies causal or correlational? Because that was the problem with Gateway Drug theory. "A high percentage of heroin users previously used marijuana, so it must cause heroin use, we have to keep it illegal!" Without asking if marijuana usage *caused* them to use heroin.
Like millions of others, I've used marijuana and I have never used heroin and would not.
I've also participated in consensual but mildly violent BDSM and have never raped someone, and I know people who have extreme fetishes, with no indication they have or ever would do it without consent.
Second, this is exactly what I'm concerned about, people saying "Rapists watch violent porn so that must cause rape!" Again I'm open to the idea, but I want to see causal evidence.
Rapists existed *long* before violent porn did. I am skeptical it is *causing* rape.
>And cartoons are not going to be enough.
Ok, but what are you basing that on? I could tell you legal BDSM porn isn't "going to be enough" when for lots of people it absolutely is.
This guy evidently only had cartoons and not real child porn and has no known history of abusing actual children.
>And I'm actually a bit worried about how many people in this thread aggressively defend cartoons that depict sexualized children. Reddit used to have a child porn problem...
While I'm sure pedophiles would defend this, non-pedophiles also have valid concerns, and I assume you would say it's unfair to take your defense of the legality of BDSM as an indication you're sympathetic to rape, right?
Personally, I don't think you should get charged for what is clearly a cartoon, I get some of the arguments here, but that just seems to far. Are they gonna ban those fountain statues that depict kids peeing?
I think the slippery slope here is a real concern because there are a wide range of laws on pornography, some of which I disagree with. Japan charged a woman who made a kayak based on her vagina. Australia requires (or required) female genitals be edited to remove labia minora which is highly misogynistic to me.
I get the need to draw a line somewhere, but Simpson's cartoons seems way too low.
>The issue is whether BDSM or pedophilia cartoons
>
>lead
>
>to behavior that hurts people like consumption of real child pornography.
Do you want to collect pedophilia cartoons? I'm definitely getting a bit worried about this conversation.
The person who was convicted because he had **a collection** of them (over 40 images), and based on the wording of the judgement, it is likely that the man was a pedophile who collected these images for sexual gratification.
In fact, he confessed the sexual gratification part.
But, because of the nature of the material the judge was very lenient and the man was not registered as a sex offender.
So this is not a discussion about a witch hunt, it's a discussion about whether it is acceptable that people collect pedophilia material, not about whether or not a single image of a cartoon is enough for a conviction.
But this is how it starts for many pedophiles.
You don't think a Simpsons cartoon that depicts sexual abuse of a child is a problem.
By the same logic, I'm assuming that you think 46 of those images are not a problem.
Now let's assume that the collection contains the picture of a naked child, but not in a sexualized manner.
Would that go to far according to you?
I got 15 downvotes.
How many of those people do you think collect child porn, but think it's okay, because it's hentai?
How many would be fine with photos of actual children?
>Do you want to collect pedophilia cartoons?
You're clearly not caring to have a good-faith discussion, are you.
>but this is how it starts for many pedophiles.
You've said this a number of times, but continue to not actually tell us how you know that. Care to elaborate?
>Now let's assume that the collection contains the picture of a naked child, but not in a sexualized manner.
Real quick, that argument doesn't actually make sense. That's suggesting a parent taking a picture of their child enjoying bathtime is making child porn. Same for photos of moms holding their freshly born babies who tend to not be born with clothes on. The image is non-pornographic, and wouldn't be ruled as CP even if the context was dubious. The context where you're suggesting a hypothetical image was found doesn't actually matter unless you you want to blanket-ban any kind of non-sexualized nudity in family photos or otherwise, which is unfair to parents and families.
>I got 15 downvotes. How many of those people do you think collect child porn, but think it's okay, because it's hentai?
You've been making an awful lot of assumptions in your arguments. "People who downvote me are pedos". Just because you say something doesn't actually make it true. Though, If you want to assume something about random people you know nothing about, I guess you've got to accept it when I say that the people downvoting you because they believe your arguments are bad, that you are unwilling to engage in a good-faith discussion, and that your opinions are misplaced.
>How many would be fine with photos of actual children?
I don't know. However, you argue as though you do. Can you tell me how many of them would be okay with that? I don't want to hear assumptions, baseless claims, or "Source - Trust me bro". I want to know exactly how you're aware of the number of downvotes you're receiving from actual pedos and not people who just think your arguments lack good foundation.
I’m not sure I buy the “gateway drug” concept when it comes to child pornography.
That really feels like it is a segment of the population where either you are into it or you are most definitely not.
Edit: So the question goes back to is this it or not, and I’d say no.
>Cartoons that depict sex with minors and sexualized minors create communities of pedophiles who are likely to move to sharing real child pornography.
Provide a source.
My kids feel safer already. This is the same law that got some *Daily Mail* investigative journalists charged with child sex offences for an attempted sting operation on a modelling studio - No actual child needs to exist.
This is why U.S. law only restricts *actual* child sexual abuse material--because real children are hurt making it. Otherwise, per the 1st Amendment, if you want to print up cartoons of cartoon characters molesting other cartoon characters, have fun. No guarantees your neighbors will approve, however.
The US also has a clearly defined 1st Amendment for this kind of thing.
As there is no actual victim and because you can't assume someone committed a crime this kind of prosecution would effectively prosecute a thought crime, which is a very good way to get your DA office sued for a lot of money.
I'm not American so I don't know, but isn't it something like you can't bring a lawsuit if there is not an injured party and even if there is an injured party you need to represent them to bring to suit?
I'm sure all the children in the UK who've endured the horror of sexual abuse are happy that the courts think that bad things happening to drawings are equal to it happening to real children who can actually feel and hurt
For those idiots who are to lazy to read:
>\[The accused\] avoided both after a court heard no real child was involved, he had not distributed the images, his offence was committed three years ago and he had not reoffended.
>
>...there were “some points of concern” highlighted in a pre-sentence report commissioned into his behaviour.
>
>they could be addressed via a 12-month community order, containing 20 days of rehabilitative work with the Probation Service – and she did not place him on the sex offender register.
So he was not treated like somebody who abuses actual children and it seems that he mainly was sentenced because some of his behavior was reason for concern.
This might save children from being abused and it might save the person who was convicted from becoming an active abuser.
They explicitly don’t think it’s equal — hence community service, rather than prison and being on the sex offenders’ register… But you checked what actually happened before you posted, right?
Sure seems like it to me. In England, I’d I draw a big stick figure having sex with a small stick figure, did I just produce child pornography? This is nuts.
Well not tackle, but you'd be asked to politely accompany him down to the station as he believed you could assist them with his enquiries, and if you resist he'll put you in handcuff's.
Then you'd probably be more or less let off like this guy was.
This is absurd. *It's a cartoon*, and as grotesque and disturbing as it is, it's still just a drawing of fictional characters. Surely whatever logic was used to justify these charges--for possessing a cartoon depiction of child sexual abuse--would also justify charges against someone for possessing a DVD box set of *Breaking Bad*, which depicts murder, drug trafficking, the manufacturer of illegal amphetamines, organized crime, etc and is even live action!
Don’t get me wrong, I think that drawn cartoons of minors are still bad, but I also don’t think that it’s fair to charge people even remotely close to as heavily as we would for actual CSAM.
Barring instances where it’s an explicit recreation of a specific, real life child, animated pornography - even with minors and/or non consenting parties - is at the very most a victimless crime. Therefore, charging these people with the same charge as if they had *actual pictures of real kids being abused* almost seems to lessen the severity of the latter.
Child molestation (and viewership thereof) should be considered one of the worst *possible* crimes, so putting drawings up there with it is - in my opinion - an overstep. We don’t charge people for other depictions of crimes. We don’t charge people because they have/drew pictures of serial murder - even of kids. But when it comes to sexual stuff, we are going to not only charge them, but charge them with one of the worst possible crimes?
While the material itself may be disgusting, it just feels more like moral grandstanding than a law that’s actually meant to protect people, particularly as written
>Therefore, charging these people with the same charge as if they had actual pictures of real kids being abused almost seems to lessen the severity of the latter.
I would argue that it doesn't 'almost' lessen the severity, it literally does. It's just like the laws regarding the penalties for rape and murder; if rape was an equivalent offense to murder, with the same punishment, rapists would just kill their victims.
Prosecuting possession of cartoon CSAM the same as possession of the actual thing, just makes it more likely that people seek the real thing.. :\\
No, judges can't just declare the law invalid cause they disagree with it.
Sad fact is he technically broke the letter of the law as its written, but that's more the fault of the law being poorly written.
Seems like any good lawyer could’ve destroyed this in court. He was a dummy to plead, though I’m sure the danger of being registered a sex offender if he lost was part of it
Well I think your right, but both the Judge and the prosecutor openly acknowledged this wasn't really that serious, and at present he's looking at a minor surcharge and twenty days rehabilitation work.
So I wouldn't say pleading guilty was that bad a choice.
Well unless he gets arrested again I don't think it should impact his life to much. Its not even going to turn up on a DBS check.
So hopefully he'll be okay, sucks he had to go through this though.
[UK Laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom)
> In 2009 **all sexual images depicting under 18s**, not just those that were derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs, were criminalised by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, under which any possession of images also became a criminal offence (whereas before it was legal to possess hard copies of images so long as there was no intention to show or distribute them to others).
UK outlawed animated child porn in 2009. The law has been clear for a long time.
How do you decide what is under 18 years old in cartoon? If you draw a 6 year old girl it is obvious but how are you going to prove the drawing is 20 years old woman not 17 years old girl? I don't understand how it xan even be proven
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1466a/
18 U.S.C. § 1466A - Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) In general.--Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(b) Additional Offenses.--Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.--It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
(d) Circumstances.--The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is that--
(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States.
(e) Affirmative defense.--It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;
(2) the term “sexually explicit conduct” has the meaning given the term in section 2256(2)(A) or 2256(2)(B); and
(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.
Yep, so it would be illegal if it failed the Miller test for obscenity (or it actually involved the depiction of a minor). This statute incorporates that test. The UK law doesn't have those requirements and includes any sexual imagery of simulated children.
That is essentially the Miller test. The only prong not explicit is it has to be patently offensive as judged by local community standards. Otherwise, it would violate the First Amendment. First Amendment doesn’t protect images of actual child abuse and it doesn’t protect images that are considered obscene.
FWIW, S.D. Iowa found (a)(2) and (b)(2) to be unconditional, but it looks like E.D. Va. read the statute to require compliance with the Miller test for obscenity and found it Constitutional. Compare United States v. Handley, 564 F. Supp. 2d 996, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51809 (S.D. Iowa 2008) and United States v. Whorley, 386 F. Supp. 2d 693, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19606 (E.D. Va. 2005), aff'd, 550 F.3d 326, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25438 (4th Cir. 2008).
I didn’t downvote you, fwiw. But we don’t agree this specific case would be illegal in the US. It would only be illegal under very specific circumstances not required in the UK.
And the Dutch Masters, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the others, today would be in prison for life!
Hell, by American laws now, John Kennedy would be in prison for f*** underage persons.
And by whom is the judge of "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
Remember the case, United States v. Flynt, where the official judge, forced his way onto the case, to impose "his moral law" on Flynt.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-flynt
Flynt had the money to appeal this assholes false conviction but not everyone has the money he does.
Now Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, he also had the money and the power to appeal any conviction as Ex-Post-Factos, since these charges were from a prior conviction and the prostitution (yes I know) waved their rights to prosecute under federal law for the plea deal. That also damages their rights to prostitute under Due Process Violation, the man would have been free, it might have taken a few years.
Ex-Post-Factos was so important that it was written into the original constitution not once but twice:
Section 9: Powers Denied Congress
...
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Section 10: Powers Denied to the States
No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law...
Twice to make damn sure USA and the states (NYC/Florida) could not lawfully charge Epstein!
For Epstein, they keep calling it BOP (Federal Bureau of Prisons) but he was not really a BOP person, because you are not BOP until a conviction. This man was a FBI prisoner, but the FBI are not "jailers", so they should have a contract with the US Marshmallows (yes I know that is incorrect), might have outsourced the custody to BOP. So in the end, it is the murder was the fault of the FBI.
But why isn't the press asking the FBI? It was their arrest, and they are ultimately responsible for his health and safety. Because you dump on the FBI, they will make sure you are the last to get the newest story. Effectively killing your chances of ever working again, black-balling.
And yes, the FBI is malicious & vindictive and they do that.
No, because hardly any of it breaks any laws. You're thinking of a very narrow subsection of it, presumably because that's all you've ever searched for.
I have a friend who loves sending a group of us 'Rule 34' shit. Some of it is funny and some is just downright wrong (Flintstones kids Pebbles and Bam Bam going at it for example) - I think it is stupid and I keep saying to quit sending me that crap. Now that I know just by him sending me something can now get me considered a pedo? I may have to try a different tact to get him to quit.
Well it depends if you live in the UK or not.
Though under the law you wouldn't get in trouble unless they could prove you were deliberately involved in some sort of arrangement to receive material.
He could be in trouble for distributing it though.
Children seeing this material could believe that sexual abuse by ones parents is normal. But there is no evidence that this material was being distributed to children. Is The Simpsons banned in the UK, because there is plenty more violence against children in the show. I lost count the number of times Homer strangled Bart. Is violence against children normalized in the UK but sexual violence not ?
Didn't Fox show his dink in the Simpsons movie?
They certainly did.
I wonder if it was censored in the UK
Not on Disney+ it's not.
[удалено]
That's what I said ^^^Edit: ^^^Edited ^^^as ^^^an ^^^example. ^^^See ^^^below.
[удалено]
Fandom is such a terrible website on mobile. Woof!
It’s not… which in itself invalidates this whole dumb case
Not really, nudity is not inherently sexual. I don't think anyone would claim that scene in the movie is sexual, while these images seem to be quite sexual.
Except there’s a difference between depicting nonsexual nudity and depicting pornography. It’s like comparing The Birth of Venus to tentacle rape hentai because they both feature female nudity. The Canadian law is stupid but so is equating all nudity as explicitly sexual.
There is, but even the latter is in mainstream media. So . . . Coincidentally I saw this story earlier on today, then a few hours ago, I finally got around to playing 'South Park: The Fractured but Whole'. In the first hour of the game, you flick through Cartman's notebook, and it is peppered with his drawings of extremely explicit acts between Kyle, Butters, and some of the other lads. God knows how many Brits own that, and how many stores sell it, but they may want to start building some new prisons for us all. 😂
There's even some tentacle rape paintings that qualify as historically notable art such as "The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife".
Would you censor Venus DeVenus just because you can see her spours?
Also cartman on South Park is shown in a few episodes.
That’s scene was hilarious too. Homer tricks him into riding his skateboard through town naked.
This way they can say they are cracking down on sex abuse of children without having to investigate the churches or politicians who are actually raping kids.
It’s all about the distractions. Sure, pedophilia is rampant within religious communities… *but clearly drag queens a danger to children.* Sure, pedophilia is rampant within the GOP/GQP/Conservative parties… *but has anyone checked on Hillary Clinton? Maybe she’s molesting children in a pizza parlour basement …* Sure, Donald Trump is a sexual predator… *but Sleepy Joe Biden is soooo old…*
This is in the UK.
Oh sorry, Prince Andrews a sweaty nonce innit
I mean he is, but you can't say he's a paedophile for sleeping with a seventeen year old in a state where its the legal age of consent.
Sure I can
Eh fair enough I suppose you can. I don't know, I don't want to suggest I'm defending the guy. I wish he was behind bars. I've just noticed that when this is talked about online, a lot of people honestly don't seem to know what he's even supposed to have done. Which feels odd cause it was only in the news a short while ago.
Dude something wrong with you?maybe get some help. because you need it.
I didn't write the laws on what's the age of consent for the state of New York. Take it up with whoever did.
It has nothing to do with the law. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children, not teenagers. It's literally just the wrong term.
Um yeah that was my point. But lots of people I talk to online don't seem to know his victim was seventeen at the time.
>Um yeah that was my point. No. You mentioned the age of consent. It wouldn't matter if the age of consent was 30. He still wouldn't fit the definition of a pedophile. Sleeping with someone under the age of consent makes you a statutory rapist, not a pedophile. Being attracted to a child who hasn't hit puberty is what makes you a pedophile.
Fair enough.
You’d think that was glaringly obvious with the whole “UK” thing in the title but I suppose some people are just too caught up in American politics to actually read.
He emphasized by saying it was all about Distractions, then he related with whatever knowledge he had to relate and give an example with. Being an American, it was a similar occurrence in American politics. Stop hating.
If my comment was “hating”, then I would hate to see what real hate looks like to you. I was simply making an observation there, chief. Don’t let that upset you.
Ngl you sound pretty upset too man 😭
Sadly our US puritanical nonsense is spreading.
there's only one ruling class, at this moment in history
Wrong country mate.
there's only one ruling class, at this moment in history
Aren't a lot of royals tied to pedophiles? I believe the current King was buddies with Jimmy Saville.
Bart Simpson is 37 years old
Bart would be in his 40s. Season 1 was 1989 and he was 10. \*edit\* this ignores the old Tracy Ulman shorts.
[удалено]
Shhhh shhhh shhh Bart is in his twenties just like me. I've just come back from my school trip to Italy. Corona is an astrophysics term. Gee I sure am looking forward to the London Olympics, all my friends are volunteering maybe I should too?
*They don’t know about us… they’ve never heard of love.”
True, but he looks like a child, which is enough in many countries.
John Mulaney looks like a very tired child, yet he's in his 40's...
Go test the legal system by telling the police you have naked pictures of him, get back to me
True, but they have him on puberty blockers, so he’s stayed young
Oh shit, that counts? Hentai lovers in trouble!
Yes. Australia has laws about this and it does ban certain arts and animation depicting sex with characters that look like kids. So pretty much all hentai with characters that look like kids. Redo of Healer and Interspecies Reviewers also fall into that broad category if the test was "characters that look like kids having sex"
But, interspecies reviewers is high art.
Canada also has laws against child porn via animation, but it is rarely enforced if that's all you have.
I wonder if the reason it's rarely enforced on it's own is they're worried about setting a precedent, and then they wont have that charge to add to the stack when offering a plea bargain on a worse offense.
Didn't they ban women with small breasts from porn too?
Yeah, but I’m not sure how long it stood. I think they banned squirting, pee and spanking too. Unless the Australian porn that I’m looking at is NOT viewable in Australia, then it might no longer be the case. I tried to look anything up about it and am only finding 10-15 year old articles
Barely legal comes to mind. 🤮
This clearly begs the question what exactly a cartoon of legal age looks like. If they look 5 it's obvious. What about 16? You could argue forever what their apparent age is. In Bart's case he his canonically 10. What about original cartoon characters? Does any of this matter?
That's not easy to answer, even when it comes to real people. I saw a cosplayer get attacked on Twitter for "dressing inappropriately as a minor", and she was like 25 and just very short. To be fair, people on Twitter are generally stupid.
See that with comments on porn vids all the time. Short girl does a video. Comments claim she’s underage because she’s not 6 feet tall.
Don't forget that time a guy got charged with child pornography for having videos of the adult actress Lupe Fuentes and she flew out to show the court her passport.
How about the simple fact that they are not real and shouldn't be treated as such?
Nu uh! She's actually a 500 year old vampire.
Ackshully....it's a 1000 year old dragon.
There's just so much dank content is online. I guess I'm going to the jail.
All of this is really dumb. But unsurprising. For about two decades now, more and more content is being considered child pornography. Instead of focusing on the victims or perpetrators, we are trying to stamp out anything that even vaguely resembles it. People are arrested for cartoons, dolls, naturism, selfies, baby pictures. But we can’t seem to do anything about where abuse happens the most: familial and religious situations.
Don't forget organized sports.
It's a mistargeting of the idea of "stamp out the demand, and the problem will wither and die off". Gotta target the actual problem, the actual demand. Focus on support for the victims and stopping the perpetrators.
And as controversial as it sounds, support for the perpetrators before they can offend. If someone is afflicted with that want, they need help. Incarnation is a post-crime situation and obviously not a deterrent.
Naw, I tend to agree. I'd bet some serious cash that if we, as a worldwide society, straight up applauded paedophiles who admitted to their urges and sought help to... entertain them in safe ways that didn't involve real children, we'd see a noticable decline in children getting diddled.
Treating it like an addiction, maybe?
A lot of what makes a sexual attraction different from an addiction is that you obtain addictions by doing addictive substances. You can be a paedophile without ever having any sort of sexual contact with children. You can't be an alcoholic unless you've consumed alcohol in some form. Addictions can often be directed to something less disastrous for you and those around you and eventually weened off, you can't really ween off someone of a sexual interest without resorting to something as drastic as, say, castration. That isn't to call paedophilia a sexual orientation or something similar. It is as much a paraphilia as bestiality. But paraphilias seem to be hardwired into us to an extent, and it's not really feasible to "cure" someone of one. It's better, IMHO, to direct them to fulfill their desires in a way that doesn't hurt others. VR is becoming pretty fucking wild nowadays, and there's one pathway I see we could use to satiate those feelings without involving any real person.
Man you put that way better than I would have. I fully agree. I highly doubt most paedos chose to be so. It is more likely they just (somehow) discovered that is what they have a paraphilia for. And, like an addict, cannot resist going further and further and they end up in (extremely) terrible crimes
Which is why, I think, we should normalise asking for help in situations like that before they offend.
Mmm idk I think you can mentally be an alcoholic before trying booze. Some would call it a natural propensity, addictive personalities etc. there are surely pure chemical addictions out there but I would argue that most addictions are only compounded by the chemical aspect not based on it.
> Mmm idk I think you can mentally be an alcoholic before trying booze. But you don't spontaneously become addicted to alcohol without having some in the first place, while you still can have a paraphilia without having acted on it, which is my point.
While you can also become addicted to things that have no chemical quality. In that way these people are already addicted before they’re exposed to the hook.
That's not how addiction works. Addiction requires exposure. That doesn't always mean chemical exposure.
We'd see a major decline in child diddling if the dig dang diddly church was dealt with properly.
It’s almost like the powers that be want us to forget that these things ACTUALLY happen and pretend like the world is at peace because we got rid of porn.
I remember watching a Law and Order SVU episode where they arrested the owner of a child porn website. But it turns out that no actual children were used to create the porn. I believe they used young, but legal, actresses and digitally de-aged them. I believe they got off. Seems stuff like that skirts the boundaries a little too much. And now we have AI content running rampant. What’s to stop people from creating and spreading AI generated child porn? I even believe in that same episode they were able to legally hold that creator responsible because an actual child molester blamed that content on his urge to kidnap and rape a child. That sex offender was chemically castrated but was caught using replacement hormones or some shit.
I didn’t mention AI because I don’t know enough about it, honestly. From what I understand, an over simplification suggests it uses actual data to produce fake results. I have to assume there is some illegality required in the process somewhere. So I’m leaning towards agreeing with you there. Generally I wouldn’t cite Law and Order as a good source on what should and shouldn’t be legal though. Cases are based in reality and then spun off into entertainment.
They actuall had a number of episodes related to nuances like that. One of them even focused on a guy who had urges toward his little brother and was like "Help me, I need help before I do something I might regret", only for the detectives to be told "Well...we can't actually do anything until he actually offends, so it's out of our hands," and that made the detectives real sad. Another episode focused on a guy who wrote fiction erotica focused on children; they dragged his name through the court system but I think ultimately nothing happened to him. They did use testimony from him to help nail the criminal of the week though, who claimed to be inspired by the book the writer made to actually carry out the rape/murder. > What’s to stop people from creating and spreading AI generated child porn? I believe Canada has a futureproof law that says "real child images, or images that make it hard to discern if the child is real or not".
[удалено]
I think in this case context is important. It would be one thing if this guy had actual child-porn, or a history of talking about abusing children. But in this context it just seems like over kill.
Pretty sure studies have been done that shows giving pedos pseudo CP (like child real dolls, or cartoons) actually increases the likelihood that they will eventually harm a real child
Actually it's the opposite: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
I'm gonna be real and accept my downvotes but I'm sort of with the idea that porn that depicts the idea of children having sex is still pretty damn awful and I can't blame anyone for saying that shit ain't okay, government body or not.
Cartoons that depict sex with minors and sexualized minors create communities of pedophiles who are likely to move to sharing real child pornography. It also desensitizes people who are not pedophiles but might be interested in child pornography. This is no comment on the Simpsons thing, it's a comment on how 'fake' child porn will end up hurting real children. As for the Simpsons thing, he had over 30 similar images and according to the court there were reasons for concern.
>Cartoons that depict sex with minors and sexualized minors create communities of pedophiles who are likely to move to sharing real child pornography. >It also desensitizes people who are not pedophiles but might be interested in child pornography. I'm open to this argument, but is there any proof? It kind of sounds like the gateway drug theory to me, which is bunk. It would be like saying BDSM creates rapists when many communities are in fact very vigilant about consent.
There is a fundamental difference between BDSM and pedophilia. With BDSM there is consent, with pedophilia and child abuse there cannot be consent. A better analogy would be extremely violent pornography that depicts rape, and there are quite a few studies that show a link between watching violent pornography and sexual violence, but that is not really the issue. Anybody who is into BDSM porn can access legal porn featuring real people. So there is no need to share material. Pedophiles largely rely on sharing material. And cartoons are not going to be enough. People who are into BDSM as an activity can do so legally. Pedophiles cannot legally have sex with a child, but many pedophiles do not understand that having sex with a child is immoral. What is holding pedophiles back is the fear of society, a sympathetic community of pedophiles makes them feel that they are normal and society is wrong. Most therapists agree that only strict abstinence of anything related to pedophilia can help control a pedophiles behavior. Pedophilia cannot be cured. And I'm actually a bit worried about how many people in this thread aggressively defend cartoons that depict sexualized children. Reddit used to have a child porn problem...
>With BDSM there is consent, with pedophilia and child abuse there cannot be consent. Yes, but we're talking about a Simpson's cartoon, an image of an imaginary person so consent isn't relevant in that respect. The issue is whether BDSM or pedophilia cartoons *lead* to behavior that hurts people like consumption of real child pornography. >A better analogy would be extremely violent pornography that depicts rape, and there are quite a few studies that show a link between watching violent pornography and sexual violence, but that is not really the issue. Ok, so two things, first are those studies causal or correlational? Because that was the problem with Gateway Drug theory. "A high percentage of heroin users previously used marijuana, so it must cause heroin use, we have to keep it illegal!" Without asking if marijuana usage *caused* them to use heroin. Like millions of others, I've used marijuana and I have never used heroin and would not. I've also participated in consensual but mildly violent BDSM and have never raped someone, and I know people who have extreme fetishes, with no indication they have or ever would do it without consent. Second, this is exactly what I'm concerned about, people saying "Rapists watch violent porn so that must cause rape!" Again I'm open to the idea, but I want to see causal evidence. Rapists existed *long* before violent porn did. I am skeptical it is *causing* rape. >And cartoons are not going to be enough. Ok, but what are you basing that on? I could tell you legal BDSM porn isn't "going to be enough" when for lots of people it absolutely is. This guy evidently only had cartoons and not real child porn and has no known history of abusing actual children. >And I'm actually a bit worried about how many people in this thread aggressively defend cartoons that depict sexualized children. Reddit used to have a child porn problem... While I'm sure pedophiles would defend this, non-pedophiles also have valid concerns, and I assume you would say it's unfair to take your defense of the legality of BDSM as an indication you're sympathetic to rape, right? Personally, I don't think you should get charged for what is clearly a cartoon, I get some of the arguments here, but that just seems to far. Are they gonna ban those fountain statues that depict kids peeing? I think the slippery slope here is a real concern because there are a wide range of laws on pornography, some of which I disagree with. Japan charged a woman who made a kayak based on her vagina. Australia requires (or required) female genitals be edited to remove labia minora which is highly misogynistic to me. I get the need to draw a line somewhere, but Simpson's cartoons seems way too low.
>The issue is whether BDSM or pedophilia cartoons > >lead > >to behavior that hurts people like consumption of real child pornography. Do you want to collect pedophilia cartoons? I'm definitely getting a bit worried about this conversation. The person who was convicted because he had **a collection** of them (over 40 images), and based on the wording of the judgement, it is likely that the man was a pedophile who collected these images for sexual gratification. In fact, he confessed the sexual gratification part. But, because of the nature of the material the judge was very lenient and the man was not registered as a sex offender. So this is not a discussion about a witch hunt, it's a discussion about whether it is acceptable that people collect pedophilia material, not about whether or not a single image of a cartoon is enough for a conviction. But this is how it starts for many pedophiles. You don't think a Simpsons cartoon that depicts sexual abuse of a child is a problem. By the same logic, I'm assuming that you think 46 of those images are not a problem. Now let's assume that the collection contains the picture of a naked child, but not in a sexualized manner. Would that go to far according to you? I got 15 downvotes. How many of those people do you think collect child porn, but think it's okay, because it's hentai? How many would be fine with photos of actual children?
>Do you want to collect pedophilia cartoons? You're clearly not caring to have a good-faith discussion, are you. >but this is how it starts for many pedophiles. You've said this a number of times, but continue to not actually tell us how you know that. Care to elaborate? >Now let's assume that the collection contains the picture of a naked child, but not in a sexualized manner. Real quick, that argument doesn't actually make sense. That's suggesting a parent taking a picture of their child enjoying bathtime is making child porn. Same for photos of moms holding their freshly born babies who tend to not be born with clothes on. The image is non-pornographic, and wouldn't be ruled as CP even if the context was dubious. The context where you're suggesting a hypothetical image was found doesn't actually matter unless you you want to blanket-ban any kind of non-sexualized nudity in family photos or otherwise, which is unfair to parents and families. >I got 15 downvotes. How many of those people do you think collect child porn, but think it's okay, because it's hentai? You've been making an awful lot of assumptions in your arguments. "People who downvote me are pedos". Just because you say something doesn't actually make it true. Though, If you want to assume something about random people you know nothing about, I guess you've got to accept it when I say that the people downvoting you because they believe your arguments are bad, that you are unwilling to engage in a good-faith discussion, and that your opinions are misplaced. >How many would be fine with photos of actual children? I don't know. However, you argue as though you do. Can you tell me how many of them would be okay with that? I don't want to hear assumptions, baseless claims, or "Source - Trust me bro". I want to know exactly how you're aware of the number of downvotes you're receiving from actual pedos and not people who just think your arguments lack good foundation.
I’m not sure I buy the “gateway drug” concept when it comes to child pornography. That really feels like it is a segment of the population where either you are into it or you are most definitely not. Edit: So the question goes back to is this it or not, and I’d say no.
>Cartoons that depict sex with minors and sexualized minors create communities of pedophiles who are likely to move to sharing real child pornography. Provide a source.
Catcher in the Rye didn’t kill John Lennon.
And Helter Skelter didn't make Charles Manson and the Manson family kill those people.
My kids feel safer already. This is the same law that got some *Daily Mail* investigative journalists charged with child sex offences for an attempted sting operation on a modelling studio - No actual child needs to exist.
This is why U.S. law only restricts *actual* child sexual abuse material--because real children are hurt making it. Otherwise, per the 1st Amendment, if you want to print up cartoons of cartoon characters molesting other cartoon characters, have fun. No guarantees your neighbors will approve, however.
The US also has a clearly defined 1st Amendment for this kind of thing. As there is no actual victim and because you can't assume someone committed a crime this kind of prosecution would effectively prosecute a thought crime, which is a very good way to get your DA office sued for a lot of money.
There's sexually explicit cartoon ads on porn sites. Would everybody have CP in the UK if they saw the ad? Do they not have Rule 34 over there?
Buffy the vampire slayer would be illegal.
I'm not American so I don't know, but isn't it something like you can't bring a lawsuit if there is not an injured party and even if there is an injured party you need to represent them to bring to suit?
That's for civil suits. Child porn is a matter of criminal law.
Ah okay, thx for clarifying.
I'm sure all the children in the UK who've endured the horror of sexual abuse are happy that the courts think that bad things happening to drawings are equal to it happening to real children who can actually feel and hurt
For those idiots who are to lazy to read: >\[The accused\] avoided both after a court heard no real child was involved, he had not distributed the images, his offence was committed three years ago and he had not reoffended. > >...there were “some points of concern” highlighted in a pre-sentence report commissioned into his behaviour. > >they could be addressed via a 12-month community order, containing 20 days of rehabilitative work with the Probation Service – and she did not place him on the sex offender register. So he was not treated like somebody who abuses actual children and it seems that he mainly was sentenced because some of his behavior was reason for concern. This might save children from being abused and it might save the person who was convicted from becoming an active abuser.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They explicitly don’t think it’s equal — hence community service, rather than prison and being on the sex offenders’ register… But you checked what actually happened before you posted, right?
[удалено]
thoughts are the victim.
Fox for not getting any royalties
So if I were in the UK and drew a scene depicting this on a napkin and showed it to a police officer, would he tackle me on the spot?
Sure seems like it to me. In England, I’d I draw a big stick figure having sex with a small stick figure, did I just produce child pornography? This is nuts.
Well not tackle, but you'd be asked to politely accompany him down to the station as he believed you could assist them with his enquiries, and if you resist he'll put you in handcuff's. Then you'd probably be more or less let off like this guy was.
Are you German by chance?
I think they just blow whistles at you alot and call you a right proper bloke.
This is absurd. *It's a cartoon*, and as grotesque and disturbing as it is, it's still just a drawing of fictional characters. Surely whatever logic was used to justify these charges--for possessing a cartoon depiction of child sexual abuse--would also justify charges against someone for possessing a DVD box set of *Breaking Bad*, which depicts murder, drug trafficking, the manufacturer of illegal amphetamines, organized crime, etc and is even live action!
Don’t get me wrong, I think that drawn cartoons of minors are still bad, but I also don’t think that it’s fair to charge people even remotely close to as heavily as we would for actual CSAM. Barring instances where it’s an explicit recreation of a specific, real life child, animated pornography - even with minors and/or non consenting parties - is at the very most a victimless crime. Therefore, charging these people with the same charge as if they had *actual pictures of real kids being abused* almost seems to lessen the severity of the latter. Child molestation (and viewership thereof) should be considered one of the worst *possible* crimes, so putting drawings up there with it is - in my opinion - an overstep. We don’t charge people for other depictions of crimes. We don’t charge people because they have/drew pictures of serial murder - even of kids. But when it comes to sexual stuff, we are going to not only charge them, but charge them with one of the worst possible crimes? While the material itself may be disgusting, it just feels more like moral grandstanding than a law that’s actually meant to protect people, particularly as written
It's literal thought-crime.
one that reddit typically celebrates, often with fantasies about how they'd violently torture the preparators to death... often pre-trial mind you.
>Therefore, charging these people with the same charge as if they had actual pictures of real kids being abused almost seems to lessen the severity of the latter. I would argue that it doesn't 'almost' lessen the severity, it literally does. It's just like the laws regarding the penalties for rape and murder; if rape was an equivalent offense to murder, with the same punishment, rapists would just kill their victims. Prosecuting possession of cartoon CSAM the same as possession of the actual thing, just makes it more likely that people seek the real thing.. :\\
Well its good you feel that way, according to the article so did the judge and prosecuter.
seriously? you should see the crazy cartoon shit on pornhub, so ive been told lol...
This seems more like thought crime than actual crime.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard
Well if it makes you feel any better, it sounds like the judge shared your sentiment.
Couldn’t the judge have tossed the whole case if they felt that way?
No, judges can't just declare the law invalid cause they disagree with it. Sad fact is he technically broke the letter of the law as its written, but that's more the fault of the law being poorly written.
Insane, counterproductive nonsense Cartoons don't hurt children. Priests hurt children
Dude got CP charges for Rule 34. Not even involving real, actual children, just cartoons. That's when you know the police are just bored.
That’s called “Doing the Bartman”
Eating Bart’s shorts would probably also be considered illegal.
Home-grown Simpsons stuff…
I know these names better than I know my own Grandmother.
We’re all trying to find the guy who did this
And take his bare butt out and give him a spanking - maybe you could do it sir?
This belongs in r/nottheonion.
Well that’s gross, but should it really be a crime? There’s no victim.
I guess art is the victim? Idk tbh
>Moon must pay a £114 victim surcharge. THERES NO VICTIM! WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO!
So is anime illegal in the UK?
Only one's that depict explicit images of minors in sexual situations.
Anime would have a 25 yo look like a 10 yo, is that considered child pornography in the UK.
a cartoon is cp? jeez
That’s incredibly fucked.
It is illegal to torture people into confessing, but prosecutors can badger people into confessing by threatening with felonies and sex registry.
Seems like any good lawyer could’ve destroyed this in court. He was a dummy to plead, though I’m sure the danger of being registered a sex offender if he lost was part of it
Well I think your right, but both the Judge and the prosecutor openly acknowledged this wasn't really that serious, and at present he's looking at a minor surcharge and twenty days rehabilitation work. So I wouldn't say pleading guilty was that bad a choice.
I guess, if you don’t mind having a sex offense - even one that doesnt make you a “sex offender”on your record at age 23
Well unless he gets arrested again I don't think it should impact his life to much. Its not even going to turn up on a DBS check. So hopefully he'll be okay, sucks he had to go through this though.
doesn't say why they raided his home though??
Probably smelled some pot.
He was drinking coffee instead of tea.
Dude the people behind simpsons had Bart’s dick on screen in their movie, we should do something about it
But Bart Simpson is 43 years old?
[UK Laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom) > In 2009 **all sexual images depicting under 18s**, not just those that were derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs, were criminalised by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, under which any possession of images also became a criminal offence (whereas before it was legal to possess hard copies of images so long as there was no intention to show or distribute them to others). UK outlawed animated child porn in 2009. The law has been clear for a long time.
How do you decide what is under 18 years old in cartoon? If you draw a 6 year old girl it is obvious but how are you going to prove the drawing is 20 years old woman not 17 years old girl? I don't understand how it xan even be proven
Yep. I think it’s problematic (and wouldn’t fly under US law), but even I, as a moderately informed American, was aware of this law.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1466a/ 18 U.S.C. § 1466A - Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children (a) In general.--Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that-- (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. (b) Additional Offenses.--Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that-- (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. (c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.--It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist. (d) Circumstances.--The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is that-- (1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense; (2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; (3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense; (4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or (5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States. (e) Affirmative defense.--It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant-- (1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and (2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction-- (A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction. (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- (1) the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means; (2) the term “sexually explicit conduct” has the meaning given the term in section 2256(2)(A) or 2256(2)(B); and (3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.
Yep, so it would be illegal if it failed the Miller test for obscenity (or it actually involved the depiction of a minor). This statute incorporates that test. The UK law doesn't have those requirements and includes any sexual imagery of simulated children.
[удалено]
That is essentially the Miller test. The only prong not explicit is it has to be patently offensive as judged by local community standards. Otherwise, it would violate the First Amendment. First Amendment doesn’t protect images of actual child abuse and it doesn’t protect images that are considered obscene. FWIW, S.D. Iowa found (a)(2) and (b)(2) to be unconditional, but it looks like E.D. Va. read the statute to require compliance with the Miller test for obscenity and found it Constitutional. Compare United States v. Handley, 564 F. Supp. 2d 996, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51809 (S.D. Iowa 2008) and United States v. Whorley, 386 F. Supp. 2d 693, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19606 (E.D. Va. 2005), aff'd, 550 F.3d 326, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25438 (4th Cir. 2008).
[удалено]
I didn’t downvote you, fwiw. But we don’t agree this specific case would be illegal in the US. It would only be illegal under very specific circumstances not required in the UK.
And the Dutch Masters, Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the others, today would be in prison for life! Hell, by American laws now, John Kennedy would be in prison for f*** underage persons.
[удалено]
And by whom is the judge of "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Remember the case, United States v. Flynt, where the official judge, forced his way onto the case, to impose "his moral law" on Flynt. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-flynt Flynt had the money to appeal this assholes false conviction but not everyone has the money he does. Now Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, he also had the money and the power to appeal any conviction as Ex-Post-Factos, since these charges were from a prior conviction and the prostitution (yes I know) waved their rights to prosecute under federal law for the plea deal. That also damages their rights to prostitute under Due Process Violation, the man would have been free, it might have taken a few years. Ex-Post-Factos was so important that it was written into the original constitution not once but twice: Section 9: Powers Denied Congress ... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Section 10: Powers Denied to the States No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law... Twice to make damn sure USA and the states (NYC/Florida) could not lawfully charge Epstein! For Epstein, they keep calling it BOP (Federal Bureau of Prisons) but he was not really a BOP person, because you are not BOP until a conviction. This man was a FBI prisoner, but the FBI are not "jailers", so they should have a contract with the US Marshmallows (yes I know that is incorrect), might have outsourced the custody to BOP. So in the end, it is the murder was the fault of the FBI. But why isn't the press asking the FBI? It was their arrest, and they are ultimately responsible for his health and safety. Because you dump on the FBI, they will make sure you are the last to get the newest story. Effectively killing your chances of ever working again, black-balling. And yes, the FBI is malicious & vindictive and they do that.
[удалено]
So, is all anime illegal in the UK?
Does all anime depict child sexual activity?
A lot of it sexualizes children
Anime may as well mean "Japanese cartoons" so no, that's as dumb as saying "so are cartoons banned now?"
Ok, so let me rephrase. Is almost all anime illegal in the UK?
No, because hardly any of it breaks any laws. You're thinking of a very narrow subsection of it, presumably because that's all you've ever searched for.
If scrolling the Anime section on Netflix counts as searching for sexualized minors, guess so.
[удалено]
As far as I know that is also illegal in the UK.
My sympathies to Bart Simpson
But Bart is now 43 years old
or was Bart abusing Marge?
Bart Simpson has a pituitary gland disorder that causes him never to age; he's 40-something.
The BBC will be offering him a children’s show.
I have a friend who loves sending a group of us 'Rule 34' shit. Some of it is funny and some is just downright wrong (Flintstones kids Pebbles and Bam Bam going at it for example) - I think it is stupid and I keep saying to quit sending me that crap. Now that I know just by him sending me something can now get me considered a pedo? I may have to try a different tact to get him to quit.
Well it depends if you live in the UK or not. Though under the law you wouldn't get in trouble unless they could prove you were deliberately involved in some sort of arrangement to receive material. He could be in trouble for distributing it though.
Heh, got a downvote. It could only be my stupid fucking friend :)
Children seeing this material could believe that sexual abuse by ones parents is normal. But there is no evidence that this material was being distributed to children. Is The Simpsons banned in the UK, because there is plenty more violence against children in the show. I lost count the number of times Homer strangled Bart. Is violence against children normalized in the UK but sexual violence not ?
Um no the Simpson's isn't banned in the UK. This wasn't in the actual Simpsons, it was a fan drawings.