The Slippery Legal Slope of Cartoon Porn

[gonzo]

Two out of the three Virginia judges involved with Dwight Whorley's case say cartoon images depicting sex acts with children are considered child pornography in the United States. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that 'it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists.'"

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...40251&from=rss

[tony404]

we are going after cartoons now because all of the actual child pornographers who use real children are all in jail and there are no more of them right?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by tony404

we are going after cartoons now because all of the actual child pornographers who use real children are all in jail and there are no more of them right?

Yeah right.

The real nuts and bolts stuff that actually catches child pornographers doesn't make for good news copy and doesn't get judges names in the papers.

[RawAlex]

Isn't Virginia one of those places where it is legal to marry blood relatives?

[Trixie]

Ugh. Free speech takes another hit because we need a scapegoat for all the real crimes we're too lazy/stupid/cheap to prevent/solve/prosecute.

And of course it's next to impossible to see what they're actually talking about because then you're a dirty bastard, too. I do think if someone leaves that stuff around where a kid can see it/find it (not on the internet where parents should be making sure their kids aren't surfing porn) they should be prosecuted for SOME kind of a crime; I don't think having the material or creating it should be criminal, but I do agree with some people who argue that if it's made accessible --even through neglect-- to a child then you've (obviously) done at the very least a very shitty thing. There are so many mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account.

I actually find myself on the fence about things like this where someone writes violent stuff about raping, mutilating & killing real life people & gets prosecuted for it:
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forum/topic90709.htm

I wish they'd find a way to make stronger stalking laws and let stuff like that fall under that category if the situation warrants it instead of using obscenity, CP, etc.

Tricky & worrisome stuff from all angles.

[Fausty]

^^ call me old-fashioned, but I still have this quaint attraction to making an effort to connect "crimes" with actual victims. The victims in child porn are very clearly the underage participants in the filming itself - no matter what other arguments or considerations there may be, they are harmed by participating in the creation of the footage. Every criminal categorization of that footage from there forward rests on that original wrong that was done to make it.

Who are the victims in virtual pornography? The virtual children who don't exist? Is it also child abuse or neglect if Bugs Bunny has an episode where a crying baby isn't fed? If we can have "virtual" child porn prosecutions, then logically we should have virtual child neglect, virtual truancy, and virtual rape (oh wait, as Trixie said we have already seen virtual rape prosecutions). Does this make us virtually safer, to protect these virtual people from virtual crimes?

An argument can be made that allowing people to wallow in the "prurient" images of virtual child porn is likely to cause them to eventually act out on those images and harm actual, real, physical children. First, I don't know of any hard evidence backing that claim. Second, and more fundamentally, that rush to embrace thoughtcrime leaves us wondering why OTHER images that have been shown to lead to higher rates of crime aren't also criminalized. Like, oh I don't know. . . 24/7 broadcasts of violence and hatred on the mainstream TeeVee stations that every study shows has a de-sensitizing effect on youngsters and leads to more actual violence down the road. But, of course, that would mean making Fox News into criminal material and we know THAT won't happen.

The concept of virtual child porn creeps me out as much as anyone - maybe more so because I have 100% confidence that in the very near future it will be possible to create not just "canned" virtual child porn but real-time, MMO-on-steroids scenario enactment. How about virtual child porn/snuff scenarios, with the "virtual victim" screaming for mercy? It's horrific stuff, it is going to be happening very soon, and making it criminal opens the door to wholesale trampling of any semblance of logical coherence in our criminal statutes and the eradication of any shreds of respect for personal privacy when there is nobody being hurt by one's actions (other than patterns of electrons).

Recently a very popular PC game came under fire because it implemented a "hack" to prevent players from killing (virtual) children. The same players can set off a tactical nuclear weapon in an inhabited city - but not shoot a child in the head with a (virtual) gun. Apparently this somehow shows how much we "care" for real children. I remain unconvinced - sanctimony has never been an effective substitute for real responsibility.

Fausty

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Fausty

^^ call me old-fashioned, but I still have this quaint attraction to making an effort to connect "crimes" with actual victims. The victims in child porn are very clearly the underage participants in the filming itself - no matter what other arguments or considerations there may be, they are harmed by participating in the creation of the footage. Every criminal categorization of that footage from there forward rests on that original wrong that was done to make it.

Who are the victims in virtual pornography? The virtual children who don't exist? Is it also child abuse or neglect if Bugs Bunny has an episode where a crying baby isn't fed? If we can have "virtual" child porn prosecutions, then logically we should have virtual child neglect, virtual truancy, and virtual rape (oh wait, as Trixie said we have already seen virtual rape prosecutions). Does this make us virtually safer, to protect these virtual people from virtual crimes?

An argument can be made that allowing people to wallow in the "prurient" images of virtual child porn is likely to cause them to eventually act out on those images and harm actual, real, physical children. First, I don't know of any hard evidence backing that claim. Second, and more fundamentally, that rush to embrace thoughtcrime leaves us wondering why OTHER images that have been shown to lead to higher rates of crime aren't also criminalized. Like, oh I don't know. . . 24/7 broadcasts of violence and hatred on the mainstream TeeVee stations that every study shows has a de-sensitizing effect on youngsters and leads to more actual violence down the road. But, of course, that would mean making Fox News into criminal material and we know THAT won't happen.

The concept of virtual child porn creeps me out as much as anyone - maybe more so because I have 100% confidence that in the very near future it will be possible to create not just "canned" virtual child porn but real-time, MMO-on-steroids scenario enactment. How about virtual child porn/snuff scenarios, with the "virtual victim" screaming for mercy? It's horrific stuff, it is going to be happening very soon, and making it criminal opens the door to wholesale trampling of any semblance of logical coherence in our criminal statutes and the eradication of any shreds of respect for personal privacy when there is nobody being hurt by one's actions (other than patterns of electrons).

Recently a very popular PC game came under fire because it implemented a "hack" to prevent players from killing (virtual) children. The same players can set off a tactical nuclear weapon in an inhabited city - but not shoot a child in the head with a (virtual) gun. Apparently this somehow shows how much we "care" for real children. I remain unconvinced - sanctimony has never been an effective substitute for real responsibility.

Fausty

Save the Children seems to be a great outcry when you want attention and/or cash.
Look at Sally Struthers
ASCAP
Steve Hirsch
...

[Trixie]

Speaking of all the tv stuff that everyone gets away with, just the other day at lunchtime we saw a chick in her car sipping on a glass of wine behind the wheel driving (Real Housewives of Atlanta). There was no commentary about it, no "look how bad it is!", no warning --- nothing. In fact, I wouldn't even have noticed it if Delia hadn't pointed it out. Drinking and driving actually KILLS people, but you see that shit on television all the time.

On the same program the chick's kids tell their mom that second-hand smoke kills (as she's smoking in the same room with them). She gets into her daughter's face and BLOWS THE SMOKE INTO HER FACE. Her kid's, like, ten or something. I'm not suggesting it should be illegal to show those things on tv, but it does seem clearly WORSE than someone describing or illustrating doing fictional harm to people.

The double standards are grossly irrational and don't help protect anybody.

[gonzo]

Must have been a Dunwoody housewife.

Originally Posted by Trixie

Speaking of all the tv stuff that everyone gets away with, just the other day at lunchtime we saw a chick in her car sipping on a glass of wine behind the wheel driving (Real Housewives of Atlanta). There was no commentary about it, no "look how bad it is!", no warning --- nothing. In fact, I wouldn't even have noticed it if Delia hadn't pointed it out. Drinking and driving actually KILLS people, but you see that shit on television all the time.

On the same program the chick's kids tell their mom that second-hand smoke kills (as she's smoking in the same room with them). She gets into her daughter's face and BLOWS THE SMOKE INTO HER FACE. Her kid's, like, ten or something. I'm not suggesting it should be illegal to show those things on tv, but it does seem clearly WORSE than someone describing or illustrating doing fictional harm to people.

The double standards are grossly irrational and don't help protect anybody.

[EmporerEJ]

Free speech is absolute.
Unpleasant sometimes, uncomfortable sometimes, but it's either free, or it's not.
You can't get a "little bit pregnant."

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Free speech is absolute.
Unpleasant sometimes, uncomfortable sometimes, but it's either free, or it's not.
You can't get a "little bit pregnant."

Let us know if you ever get to experience it, would you Emp?

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Free speech is absolute.
Unpleasant sometimes, uncomfortable sometimes, but it's either free, or it's not.
You can't get a "little bit pregnant."

A pretty notion, but one that does not hold water.

Please consider yelling "fire" in a crowded room. All you did was speak.

Please consider calling Obama a "fucking worthless piece of shit n---er" on tv or radio. it's just speech.

The right to free speech not only isn't an absolute, except that it absolutely stops where it starts infringing on others.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

A pretty notion, but one that does not hold water.

Please consider yelling "fire" in a crowded room. All you did was speak.

Please consider calling Obama a "fucking worthless piece of shit n---er" on tv or radio. it's just speech.

The right to free speech not only isn't an absolute, except that it absolutely stops where it starts infringing on others.

The fact that you put three hyphens in nigger about says it all, really.

[RawAlex]

you would be correct sir. It's nagger, in case you are wondering.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

you would be correct sir. It's nagger, in case you are wondering.

lol

[Fausty]

Indeed, the emphasis in the founding documents of the USA on freedom of speech (and assembly) sits squarely in the world of politics. Constraints on speech - particularly political speech - have often gone hand in glove with authoritarianism and other forms of rigid governmental control. The guys in white wigs were deeply leery of a government without anyone to oppose it, and one area they felt introduced an important balance to governmental power was freedom of speech (with some limitations).

Interestingly, the right to post anonymous political rants (i.e. handbills) was also deeply respected by the founding patriarchy - so much so that it was discussed as something worth specifically including in the Bill of Rights. Puts a bit of a different spin on the role of anonymous internet trolls in modern political discourse, eh?

Fausty

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Free speech is absolute.
Unpleasant sometimes, uncomfortable sometimes, but it's either free, or it's not.
You can't get a "little bit pregnant."

Free speech is not in question here. It's about whether paintings or drawings can be deemed to be real and prosecuted as such.

Alex says it best. "The right to free speech not only isn't an absolute, except that it absolutely stops where it starts infringing on others." It's a pity they don't carry it through. Like stopping people smoking in films, stop violence, stop allowing kids to upload movies of them beating up other kids.

They target child picture porn because it's an easy target.

With this judgement where does it stop?