Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
Porn Prosecution - Getting Worse...
- Thread starter Selena_Kitt
- Start date
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,689
The world will be made good and pure no matter what the cost. 
off2bed
Disambiguator
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Posts
- 16,104
No, but all the other people who posses drawings of kiddie porn are as pure as the wind driven snow, right?
I'm ambivalent about drawings being illegal, but they do indicate what's in someone's mind. Your thoughts are private until you put them on paper or on the internet for others to download.
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
Where did you read that in my statement?
Why don't you go back the the GB, where I'm sure your brand of "intelligence" is appreciated.
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
Yeah, I know... I just don't like the idea of them using this as precedent, kwim?
And they will.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
This whole case revolves around children people. We don't do kids, either so let's not start claiming that some slippery slope has started.
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
cartoon children. There's quite a bit of difference.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Wrong. This case does not revolve around children.
The slope that has started to slide is that he got convicted of possessing renditions of imaginary sex with imaginary children.
Granted, the creep had real child porn too, and should rightfully be convicted of that. Kiddie porn has a victim - the abused kid.
But cartoons? To equal that child with pornography is to denigrate victims of actual sexual child abuse. It is telling them "your suffering is no wose than that of this drawn character - who doesn't exist". The judges should be ashamed of themselves.
Last edited:
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
Sorry, but as an elementary school teacher, I am perhaps understandably less tolerant of his fevered imagination, even in cartoon form.
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
I understand, but I also think it IS a slippery slope. Imagination shouldn't be legislated. Thinking about a crime isn't a crime.
Unless we've slipped into a 1984-like alternate universe...
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Liar has already spoken for me, exactly. Cartoons don't suffer.
Miss_Misaki
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Posts
- 556
They can be drawn to LOOK like they are, but that doesn't mean that they're real either, lol.
I agree with the OP on this one. As a kid, I myself was molested, and I have very strong feelings about such matters. However, that doesn't give me or anyone else the right to tell someone what they can and can't think about. Likewise, I can't dictate what someone can and can't express through art, especially since no one is harmed in that art piece's creation. Now, if the drawings were of actual children, it would be different.
That raises a good question. Let's say that this person had taken non-pornographic pictures of children and used them as references to draw their likenesses in sexual situations. How would you all feel about it then? Is that any more wrong than simply creating characters for the art?
I'm not quite sure, myself... but I'll bet there's a law about it.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
I don't see a lot of difference between imagining a sex act and drawing it and imagining that same act and writing about it. If it is illegal to draw a picture of a man raping a child, why shouldn't it also be illegal to draw a picture of that man raping an adult woman or even having consensual sex with his own daughter? From there, it's not much of an extension to prosecuting somebody for writing about those same things. That's how slippery slopes work, you know.
Selena_Kitt
Disappearing
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 12,336
I don't see a lot of difference between imagining a sex act and drawing it and imagining that same act and writing about it. If it is illegal to draw a picture of a man raping a child, why shouldn't it also be illegal to draw a picture of that man raping an adult woman or even having consensual sex with his own daughter? From there, it's not much of an extension to prosecuting somebody for writing about those same things. That's how slippery slopes work, you know.
From drawing... to writing... to thinking...
and when we've all got the chips implanted in our heads....
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,689
If the 'slippery slope' worked the way it's believed to we never would have come down from the trees.
I mean, why bother. All it would take is one instance of ape-like behaviour and then bam! We're scrounging for fruit again.
I mean, why bother. All it would take is one instance of ape-like behaviour and then bam! We're scrounging for fruit again.
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
I don't see a lot of difference between imagining a sex act and drawing it and imagining that same act and writing about it. If it is illegal to draw a picture of a man raping a child, why shouldn't it also be illegal to draw a picture of that man raping an adult woman or even having consensual sex with his own daughter? From there, it's not much of an extension to prosecuting somebody for writing about those same things. That's how slippery slopes work, you know.
Exactly. that's why I was wondering whatever happened in the Frank McCoy case where he was arrested for WRITING about underage sex.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Slippery branches.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
I do not feel that's intrinsically wrong, but, of course my hindbrain rings a warning bell real loud at the idea of this guy getting close to kids......
That raises a good question. Let's say that this person had taken non-pornographic pictures of children and used them as references to draw their likenesses in sexual situations. How would you all feel about it then? Is that any more wrong than simply creating characters for the art?
I'm not quite sure, myself... but I'll bet there's a law about it.
But as someone who has spent twenty years, now, juggling my mommy identity with my sexual needs, I know that people can compartmentalise their motivations.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
People of normal intelligence and emotional equilibrium can. Pedophiles don't qualify.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
He draws children, ergo he's a pedophile, ergo he is not normally intelligent or balanced. If he were normal, he wouldn't draw children.
I don't like tautology.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
In this case he's a convicted pedophile and child abuser. It ain't tautology, it's established fact. The saddest part is that even those convicted pedophiles who want to stop, can't. I mean, they may be able to control their urges but the damned urges can't be irradicated. Let there be more neurological research into this problem and less legal fulmination.
G
Guest
Guest
As far as I can tell, he's still awaiting trial.
However, if you look toward the end of the linked article, the man in question was also convicted for ...sending and receiving obscene e-mails describing the sexual abuse of children.
