/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 391370)
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 139811176834.png - (114.53KB , 320x240 , bart.png )
391370 No. 391370

Cumbrian man accused of having Bart Simpson porn

Published at 14:12, Monday, 31 March 2014

>A man has appeared in court accused of possessing pornographic cartoons, including one showing Bart Simpson having sex with his mother.
Expand all images
>> No. 391372
File 139811244698.png - (275.88KB , 618x474 , simpsons.png )

Simpsons cartoon rip-off is child porn: judge

December 8, 2008

>In a landmark finding, Justice Michael Adams today upheld a decision convicting a man of possessing child pornography after the cartoons, depicting characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie engaging in sex acts, were found on his computer.

>The magistrate had said that had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.

>However, he was fined $3000 and required to enter into a two-year good behaviour bond in respect to each of the charges.
>> No. 391374
File 139811301762.jpg - (7.32KB , 300x191 , powerpuff bath time.jpg )

Man Admits to Cartoon Porn, Now Sex Offender

29 Jan 2010

>An Australian man has admitted to having pornographic images of cartoon characters, including those from The Simpsons and The Powerpuffs Girls, and now must register as a sex offender.

>In January 2008 police went to Milner's house after receiving a tip about disturbing material. Milner did not allow the police to search his computer at first, but later handed over the machine. Police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine's recycle bin.

>Milner told police he downloaded the images to show them to his friend "because he believed they were funny," according to the newspaper report. The images depicted figures from The Simpsons, The Powerpuff Girls and The Incredibles in sexually explicit positions.
>> No. 391375
File 139811383019.png - (427.82KB , 640x480 , ben10.png )

Possession of animated cartoon porn is grounds for investigation and seizure: VA Law Enforcement

Published 2013

>Richmond Detective Kevin Hiner says, he uses animated child pornography as a marker.

>"If we have a cyber tip come in and we see a lot of animated child porn that is a huge indicator that they are probably looking at real child pornography and that will start our investigative process," Hiner said.

>Detective Hiner said, while he and his colleagues won't arrest someone for possessing cartoon kiddie porn alone, officers are being trained to use animated child pornography to protect your kids.
>> No. 391376
File 139811605939.jpg - (132.82KB , 425x500 , venezuelan_woman_big7910.jpg )
So the moral is:

Don't be stupid online. Don't "like" rule34 groups on Facebook. Don't reveal any personal information to anyone if you collect or draw this stuff. If someone asks where you live, say you live in Venezuela or Bolivia, because they're anti-Western so you'd be less likely to be investigated. If you have an account profile on a site like HF or paheal, use one of those country's flags as your avatar and put "¡Bienvenido!" in your account description.
>> No. 391384
>The magistrate had said that had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.
>Had this broccoli his pocket been actual marijuana, he would have been jailed.
Mark my words, we're headed there.

That's not the fucking moral, the moral is that the judicial system is completely and willfully misinterpreting legal definitions because they're squicked out.
>> No. 391386
File 139814155546.png - (114.82KB , 370x268 , Nguyen1.png )
It's never been about protecting children; it's about punishing those society thinks are perverts. Facing criminal charges for mere possession of child porn without proof of distribution or connection to an actual molestation ring is exactly the same as facing criminal charges for possession of a picture depicting a murder. Because these go on a per-count basis (a length of sentence per illegal image/video) a person with a large collection might go to jail for longer than someone who actually raped a child.

In that case, I guess I'm going to jail for life for having this picture on my harddrive.
>> No. 391397
>It's never been about protecting children; it's about punishing those society thinks are perverts.

I think it's more likely that they genuinely want to protect children, but their rationale is "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
>> No. 391398
File 139821355583.jpg - (6.06KB , 246x205 , Imsenatorarmstrongandiapprovethismessage.jpg )
>> No. 391399
It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to actually protect and benefit kids, the fact that they aren't doing that is pretty strong evidence "protecting kids" is just the excuse.

Kids have been hurt because of stupid judge rulings like OP, thousands of children in Canada already have criminal records because of sexting with another kid.

That's not breaking a few eggs to make an omlette, that's setting the whole farm on fire to make an omlette.

fuck you firefox dictionary for trying to make me spell omlette with the hick retard spelling "omelet"
>> No. 391402
> complain about the valid form "Omelete"
> while misspelling "Omelette" twice
>> No. 391404
File 139825888824.jpg - (85.33KB , 848x540 , image.jpg )
>tfw furry
>these laws don't apply to us
>> No. 391407

That's a false comparison, because there isn't a market for pictures of murder in the same way there is for child pornography. Despite occasional hysterics and publics perception, nobody has ever found evidence of a snuff film produced for commercial purposes.

By obtaining child pornography, one is necessarily becoming part of the market that creates demand for child pornography, becoming complicit in the sexual abuse of the children used to create it. It also revictimizes the children involved, many of whom are now adults and have to live with the knowledge that pictures of their abuse are in perpetual circulation.

That's not to say that the laws or perfect or are always properly applied. But possession of child pornography absolutely should be a crime, and one strictly punished.
>> No. 391409
>there isn't a market for pictures of murder

It's called cape comic books, action blockbusters, and horror movies. Are you retarded?
>> No. 391417
Fucking finally. Can't believe anyone buys all that bullshit about "huh uh it's different, I totally don't mess with IRL CP".
>> No. 391418
> there isn't a market for pictures of murder
>nobody has ever found evidence of a snuff film produced for commercial purposes
lol this dude lives in a bubble made of money.

90% of our media is based on the concept of killing things:
Even Toy story has a few toys dying/being maimed horribly.

>complicit in the sexual abuse of the children used to create it
>revictimizes the children involved
Kids don't have to be abused to create marge fucking bart, that's the entire point of the thread. Bart is not a kid, he is a set of lines with color splashed in.

What's going on here is exactly equivalent to a man being called a murderer for watching itchy and scratchy take each other out.
The Best of Itchy and Scratchyyoutube thumb
Congrats, you're a murderer now too.
>> No. 391422

I believe you will find the retarded ones are you for not understanding the difference between a Hollywood blockbuster and a fucking snuff film.
>> No. 391425
I believe you will find the retarded one is you for not understanding the difference between rape and a fucking drawing.
>> No. 391426
File 139828040925.jpg - (209.57KB , 580x925 , image.jpg )

I think you will find that the retarded one is you for not realizing that my comment was very obviously in specific response to this statement:

>Facing criminal charges for mere possession of child porn without proof of distribution or connection to an actual molestation ring is exactly the same as facing criminal charges for possession of a picture depicting a murder.

And not a statement that cartoon porn should be considered CP. Which is not something I believe at all.
>> No. 391427
I think you will find that the sentence you quoted is related to the OP too closely for you to claim it's separate.

To reword it:
>Facing criminal charges for mere possession of "what the court considers child porn, and includes drawn shit like in OP" without proof of distribution or connection to an actual molestation ring is exactly the same as facing criminal charges for possession of a picture depicting a murder.
>> No. 391429

If that's how it was meant, the sentence was phrased poorly, or else is itself saying that the possession of cartoon pornography is equivalent to the possession of child pornography.
>> No. 391430
>the retarded one, is in fact, you
Sounds like you two aren't old enough to own porn anyway. Grow the fuck up.
>> No. 391434
>Hollywood blockbuster and a fucking snuff film.
So you'd be fine with a live action movie that acts out pedo rape?

Remember it must have closeups of the nudity and penetration, just like there are closeups of bullets exploding limbs and such, meaning no shitty late night program frottage.
>> No. 391435
I don't understand this latest argument.

Is somebody really saying that being in possession of CP, just that, should not be punishable by the law?
>> No. 391437
>By obtaining child pornography, one is necessarily becoming part of the market that creates demand for child pornography

Prove it.

Suppose the person anonymously downloaded it from a website that would have had that content anyway, with no monetary transaction involved. Suppose they really DID get a virus that downloaded it onto their computer. Suppose it was placed there by someone who had a vendetta and access to their computer. Suppose IT WAS A CHILD THAT TOOK A NAKED PICTURE OF HIMSELF/HERSELF.

The burden of the proof is supposed to be on the prosecution. That's one of the fundamentals of USA Law! Yet, here, it is assumed automatically that a person was involved in an act that has created a digital file, simply because they are in possession of that file. It's ludicrous. That was my point with the murder photo; just having the photo depicting someone being killed DOES NOT PROVE that the possessor was involved in that crime.

I'm not saying that possession of child porn should NEVER be a crime — it can add to related charges of molestation or distribution — just that is should be given the same legal scrutiny as any other crime instead of being singled out, and in some cases result in it not being a crime. If some dumb fuck neckbeard pervert is sitting in his basement fapping to pics of little girls he leeched off Tor, he isn't harming anyone. Masturbation is a proven release of sexual tension. If you take that away from him (and lolicon too) he might very well go rape some actual little girl.

(The laws regarding child porn are simply out-of-date. When they were made, there was no such thing as digital content. The only way to acquire it back in the 70's/80's was in the form of physical photographs or videotapes. This implied a DIRECT connection to the criminals who produced the content, because acquiring them meant being in physical content with a distributor or [hilariously] paying for them by ordering through the mail through a catalog. These types of contacts or transactions COULD have "created demand" for the industry, as you mentioned. However, with the usage of the internet and emergence of the "darknet", a person need not be monetarily or physically connected to the producers of the content to acquire it.

Actually, it's almost EXACTLY like the way laws regarding digital piracy are out-of-date. A person in possession of an illegal copy of a movie probably did not have any connection with the people who performed the illegal act of copying the files.)
>> No. 391438
Lisa Simpson is probably "older" than a lot of people that have porn of her.

think about that.
>> No. 391439
>If some dumb fuck neckbeard pervert is sitting in his basement fapping to pics of little girls he leeched off Tor, he isn't harming anyone. Masturbation is a proven release of sexual tension. If you take that away from him (and lolicon too) he might very well go rape some actual little girl.
>they're just pictures, what harm can they do?

Who took the pictures? Are you saying the victim isn't violated through the process of the pictures being taken? How is the demand for more of these pictures (the neckbeard requiring more variety for himself, thus new content) not harming anyone?

I'm going back to new baw where I can talk about fun virgins and webms and not have to worry about people trying to justify child porn
>> No. 391442
So, you just found by accident that a neighbor has CP on his computer.

Are you telling me you would perfectly OK with it? Be honest.
>> No. 391444
Not him, but for me it depends on the situation.

If it was clear that the guy recorded the material himself, I would definitely snitch.

If it was random, assorted stuff from the internet, and he's not a father, teacher or a person who works with children, and he does not comes across to me as somebody who's creepy, low IQ and low impulse control like the pedophiles you see on Dateline NBC... then I would be very hesitant to snitch.

I'm not a psychopath like most people from 4chan. I don't find any pleasure in ruining the lives of harmless people.

Anyway I don't know why we're discussing CP. Why would we care about CP? This is plus4chan... shouldn't our primary concern be the legal issues regarding pornographic CARTOONS? We have a /pco/ board and a good chunk of it could get the drawfags and people in possession of those cartoons into serious trouble with some law enforcement agencies.

>> No. 391446
>/bawpol/: "child pornography is harmless!"
burn this entire site
>> No. 391448

I almost certainly wouldn't watch it but so long as it's produced in a way that does not involve the actual sexual assault of children then yes. I would be okay with that existing and being legal.


You are either the dumbest fucking person on the planet or are a fucking disgusting piece of human filth. Or both!
>> No. 391449
How does
>harmless people
somehow mean
>"child pornography is harmless!"

Fucking moron.
>> No. 391450
I will never ever endorse pornography of minors.
I also can take notice when we start making full judgments on incomplete evidence.

This is a very very touchy subject and one wrong word can ignite so I'll try to be as plain as I can. I think making a judgment that someone who looks at fake porn must also look at the real stuff is a leap in logic. It's evidence, strong evidence, but not proof and I don't think it's right to condemn based only on that. Creepy and gross as I find it, It becomes a bit of a witch hunt. Judging based on the idea of a victim rather than a real exploited child.

Then there's the matter of sexual preference. How do we deal with those who have a sexual bias towards those who cannot legally consent? Some may say therapy and be done with it, but do we have any idea what that entails? These people are mentally wired to be attracted to a certain kind of person. How can that be changed any more than any other sexual preference? Are these people doomed to be predators, broken and afraid? Can anything be done to really help them at all?

These are important questions we need to deal with if we're going to get to the core of the problem. Writing them off as sickos, or pretending there is no victim only shoves the problem away so we don't have to think about it.
>> No. 391451
Something I saw on Upworthy (shut up I know) that gets along the lines of this thread so far:

>> No. 391463
That was an interesting listen. I don't think that allowing pornography to spread is a good idea, but maybe these automatic reporting to the police things can cool off, and we can get people some actual help for their urges.

Maybe make having the porn not an immediate felony charge or registry on some sex offender list, but instead like a misdemeanor if found, and getting people counseling for that stage, so it doesn't mean they can't go back into society when they get some treatment.

Or maybe /pol/'s right and it's just a big slippery slope for the future. I don't know, the system we have only seems to be benefiting prison groups, and those guys have enough power.
>> No. 391464
It's the same problem as with drug addiction: We treat people with these problems as if their mere existence are the problem, and that locking them up and forcing castration will somehow completely take care of the problem.

If, instead, we get them treatment they need to control their urges, it would go much further to help the problem than any amount of prison time. Mere possession of CP might be a fine or something, with the fine going to identifiable victims, and then getting them into a good psychiatrist, ideally paid for by the government, for a sort of probation and make that attendance required to keep them out of any deeper trouble.

Certainly investigate more as to where they got the images and if they produced the images themselves, but if it's just stuff they've been downloading then we can help them more than throwing them in prison with violent people, especially when the pedophile hasn't so much as attempted to get illicit images or touch a child him (or her) self.

Drawn CP should be a non-issue. No one was actually harmed in the creation of the images (as long as someone isn't using an actual kid to model off of), so despite literary value it should not be against the law at all. It might even be useful in encouraging those who deal in it to seek psychiatric help on their own, which is ideally low-cost or free for being a preventative measure. There's a huge "ick" factor there that I feel as well, but people are also grossed out by fried butter and fat chicks in thongs, yet there's no large call for their criminalization. Some people might see decriminalizing drawings as some sort of "enabling", but if it "enables" the pedophile to fully work out their urges then all the better. If it leads to getting actual CP, then we go back to the psych thing.

This will also make people more willing to come forward if they stumble upon it. As it stands, if you suggest to any law enforcement officer that you have seen a CP image, even if it was unintentional and you want to report those who had it, they'll first get a warrant (if that) to confiscate all of your electronics and try to charge you with something. Then, even if they finally admit your innocence, they probably won't care to go after whomever you tried to report (oh, and they'll keep your computer, because evidence.)

Of course, this is just one of the more obvious example of what is wrong with our judiciary branch and police departments, so likely nothing will be fixed with this until those larger issues begin to be addressed.
>> No. 391477
>one of the linked articles references that shitty 1 in 4 women, 1 in 6 men about *campus* rape
Goddamnit I wish people would stop using that as a one-stop citation for every discussion of sexual abuse, even ones that don't have to do with it.
>> No. 391480
>sanity in this thread
I thought it was gone for good. Thanks.
>> No. 391482
I recall a case like this in Canada and it was begrudgingly decided that since the pornography was drawn it didn't hurt any children and therefore was not illegal.
>> No. 391484
File 139844873451.jpg - (71.48KB , 321x306 , TheLaw_Mindwipe_Longyear.jpg )

Actually you are wrong, Tiki, or at least mistaken as to the country. The United States Supreme Court held that child pornography laws were centered around the victim and therefore "fake" cp such as drawn pictures, plays, movies, books, and other works of fiction where there is no victim did not fall under the jurisdiction of child pornography laws, and later attempts to expand those laws to include fake cp have been rejected on 1st Amendment grounds and failing the Miller Test (see Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 2002). Meanwhile, Canada has not struck down its more broad child pornography laws, and has been known for arresting U.S. comic book fans for materials found on their laptops (http://comicsalliance.com/u-s-citizen-arrested-in-canada-for-manga-on-laptop-faces-minim/).
>> No. 391485
Oh wow, that's at odds with everything as a citizen I've been told, but given your actual backing I'll say definitely especially since the case I'm thinking of revolved around being stopped at the boarder with such material.
>> No. 391486

I found a follow-up article from 2012, apparently it was settled out of court because the individual was worried if they lost they would be a registered sex offender, which makes it difficult to say whether there will be a case that goes to the Canadian court system. http://comicsalliance.com/canada-manga-child-pornography-case/

This particular excerpt shows just how Canadian authorities seem to view the subject:
"Saturday, I was surrounded by six officers, two watching me as the four others went page by page through my books looking for pornographic images and other evidence I was a sexual predator. How did this happen? I said a word which Canada Customs considers dirty: Manga. As soon as I declared that I had some of the japanese inspired comic books called manga, a Custom’s officer said, “That’s the stuff from Japan; there is some really obscene and filthy stuff.” No, I pointed out, these was printed in America and very mainstream. As more and more officers were called in, the six manga books I had were examined in detail. They were looking, they told me, for pornographic, obscene and adult material. “The age rating is on the back of each book.” (each manga book has ratings like 13+ or 15+ – mine were 13+). I was informed that I could have put different covers on or done anything else I could to get the pornography in and that if I spoke anymore, the books would be seized. So I stood there and watched my previously new books get examined page by page, thumbed through and pressed open because it was assumed if I read manga, that I was a sex offender."
>> No. 391487
You might have been remembering this?
Turned out badly for him.
>> No. 391488
Of course, mine didn't involve getting stopped at the border...

That reminds me of a thread from years ago on TotalFark where were were discussing anime and giving recommendations. After a few dozen posts some guy makes a post going apeshit and calling us all sorts of things. After calming him down and asking questions we learned he was part of some anti-CP taskforce/group or some such, and one of his cases involved someone who had a bunch of loli hentai. Apparently, that was his only experience ever with Anime of any sort, and from that single experience he thought it was representative of all anime, so he thought we were talking about exchanging CP (TotalFark is a more general discussion site, and even with a good number of geeks anime was a rare discussion.)

No clue what he thought about American cartoons.
>> No. 391490
Canada also bans discussing underage sex, so text based works like Nabukov can be confiscated and it goes into your criminal record.
>> No. 391574
Whats nex, cutting the hands of people that know how to draw??, its not like I draw good or anything... but 80% or so of my porn is animated, why do normies hate 2d so much!?
>> No. 391575
You will have to cut my hands if you think I will stop drawing.
>> No. 391581
Speaking of badly drawn loli porn, does anyone know whatever happened with Palcomix? There was a thread on 4chan's /co/ claiming that PALCOMIX IS KILL but among all the hollering I seriously couldn't get the gist of it. Did they get into some sort of legal troubles?

Delete post []
Report post