Swedish surpreme court: Manga drawings not child pronography

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:
He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage.

Then I suppose the Russian government was fully justified in repressing the opposition, anti-government rallies. After all, the country does not support such behavior.

Seriously, if you wanna go down that road, drawing lolicon will become the least of people's problems.

Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

Helmholtz Watson:

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:
He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage.

Then I suppose the Russian government was fully justified in repressing the opposition, anti-government rallies. After all, the country does not support such behavior.

Seriously, if you wanna go down that road, drawing lolicon will become the least of people's problems.

Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

Wait, what...how can you even be in this discussion yourself if you're opposed to even -thinking- about the topic?

I wanted to be generous and say that you mean: Thinking about committing sexual acts upon oneself with the aid of the material in question...but judging by your responses I get the feeling you'd rather any and all related material would be better off banned just because some people are offended by it, regardless of whether or not that group consists of quite a lot of people.

Society is not some kind of faceless unthinking blob that needs to be shielded from anything that might merely upset it. :/

Either way, doubleplus good work informant #362 Long Live Big Brother!

GothmogII:

Wait, what...how can you even be in this discussion yourself if you're opposed to even -thinking- about the topic?

I'm not saying people can't think about it, just that they should pass around material that depicts such behavior.

Blablahb:
Great, they just opened the door wide to make Sweden a harbour of child porn producers everywhere. It's an exceptionally incomprehensible decision that will make victims and potentially even cost lives.

From now on you'll be able to abuse a child, slap a photoshop layer over it to make it appear cartoonish and thus legalise the images, and potentially legally spread and sell images of the abuse. Actually, all of existing childporn could be 'cartoonified' like that and thus effectively be legalised in Sweden.

That translator should've been convicted, even if just to allow child pornography as a whole to be something one can fight. Any call on him not wanting to cooperate should've fallen on deaf ears on the grounds that he was looking at images of naked children having sex, translating undoubtably explicit texts, and it didn't ring a bell with him that it was wrong, thus making him guilty.
Furthermore, stimulating fantasies of sex with children is dangerous, leads to further enhancing such desires instead of burying them and thus to sexual abuse of children. How the court can weigh the interests of a foolish commercial translator heavier than the interests of the future victims of child abuse is something utterly beyond me.

Well Sweden, legally viewing, you've just become the world's nr 1 harbour for child porn, and your contribution to legally stimulating fantasies of sex with children will no doubt lead to many additional cases of child rape around the globe, congrats.

Time to convene an emergency session of parliament and make new laws I'd say.

I normally agree with you... but WTF?

If there was any evidence that looking at images encourages the act, that would be different. But there isn't. It's like saying I play GTA, so I want to go shoot innocent people.

Blablahb:
Great, they just opened the door wide to make Sweden a harbour of child porn producers everywhere. It's an exceptionally incomprehensible decision that will make victims and potentially even cost lives.

From now on you'll be able to abuse a child, slap a photoshop layer over it to make it appear cartoonish and thus legalise the images, and potentially legally spread and sell images of the abuse. Actually, all of existing childporn could be 'cartoonified' like that and thus effectively be legalised in Sweden.

That translator should've been convicted, even if just to allow child pornography as a whole to be something one can fight. Any call on him not wanting to cooperate should've fallen on deaf ears on the grounds that he was looking at images of naked children having sex, translating undoubtably explicit texts, and it didn't ring a bell with him that it was wrong, thus making him guilty.
Furthermore, stimulating fantasies of sex with children is dangerous, leads to further enhancing such desires instead of burying them and thus to sexual abuse of children. How the court can weigh the interests of a foolish commercial translator heavier than the interests of the future victims of child abuse is something utterly beyond me.

Well Sweden, legally viewing, you've just become the world's nr 1 harbour for child porn, and your contribution to legally stimulating fantasies of sex with children will no doubt lead to many additional cases of child rape around the globe, congrats.

Time to convene an emergency session of parliament and make new laws I'd say.

Show us these mythical photoshop skills that can make a live picture indistinguishable from cartoons.

Edit: And if they were indistinguishable they'd also be indistinguishable to the fans of that stuff, and at that point it'd be safer just to draw it instead of taking pictures since you'd be getting the same product.

...those of you that are responding to Blah's post need to remember Poe's Law. Please.

OT: Considering that the court only exempted the translator, it's not quite as relieving, but it's still nice to see that the guy won't be arrested just for doing his job.

brb, deleting my furry cub nazi tentacle dicknipples folder

Helmholtz Watson:

ReservoirAngel:

Should I be forced to pay my government 200 because of the erotic Merlin fanfiction that I wrote that one time? Or is that one okay?

Why would you be fined for that? You wrote a story about a wizard in England, yes? Why would that get you a fine?

ReservoirAngel:

You as a country are well within your rights to not support people drawing naked children. That's fine. But putting criminal charges on people who do is where it crosses over into "illogical" territory.

How is it illogical? Why does there have to be a victim for something to be against the law?

Because then you're punishing people even though they're not hurting anyone or putting someone in danger or violating anyone's rights. The act of punishing that person is thus immoral.

Helmholtz Watson:

ReservoirAngel:
So far I've provided you with one very logical answer that you've chosen to completely ignore: "Nobody is harmed, so why arrest or fine people for it?"

Because it is behavior that the country does not support, encourage or indorse.

Then don't encourage endorse or support it. Legalizing something is not the same as endorsing it. Hell in the U.S. we have sin taxes against cigarettes and government anti-smoking campaigns and it's still legal to smoke. You wanna claim our government is endorsing smoking?

Helmholtz Watson:

ReservoirAngel:

If someone draws, from their own imagination, a naked child, that is not a crime. Because no child was victimised. It's just one lonely weirdo using his own imagination. No harm, no foul. Nobody is a victim, no children are abused or harmed by what happened, so no criminal charges are necessary.

Thinking about it know, if he didn't distribute the material I could see your point. He's just a sick fuck that should be avoided. However, it if it distributed, I would go back to what I said earlier about the fine. He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage.

So you're just straight up endorsing thought crime now, and you don't see a problem?

Helmholtz Watson:

ReservoirAngel:
Really I'm trying to see your view here. But I just can't. All I seem to hear is "it's creepy and weird so let's make it illegal." If you go by that logic I'm pretty sure every single person on this board would have to face criminal charges because everyone, at some point, has either looked at or created something that others would find creepy online. Everyone.

That slope is getting pretty slippery.

We're just using your logic. "It's disgusting and I don't like it" can and has been used as rationale to ban violent video games, rap music, rock music, adult porn, and profanity.

Won't someone think of the children.

Those poor fictional children.

Oh I can't stand thinking about what happens to those poor fictional children.

We should take that real man over there and send him to jail for it.

Helmholtz Watson:

Arontala:

Helmholtz Watson:
Too bad, it should be illegal to depict such things, I really can't say that anything of any significance is lost by outlawing such morally wrong filth.

Yeah, I agree with you.

While we're at it, we should ban all depictions of violence and murder.

Its not the same thing, try again.

Just because no one's jacking off to it doesn't mean there aren't people who have homicidal urges.

Helmholtz Watson:

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:
He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage.

Then I suppose the Russian government was fully justified in repressing the opposition, anti-government rallies. After all, the country does not support such behavior.

Seriously, if you wanna go down that road, drawing lolicon will become the least of people's problems.

Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

You're right a better substitution would be Nazi Germany not supporting Judaism, both their society and their government.

I know Godwin's Law blah blah blah, I don't really care, it fits.

Father Time:

Helmholtz Watson:

Vegosiux:

Then I suppose the Russian government was fully justified in repressing the opposition, anti-government rallies. After all, the country does not support such behavior.

Seriously, if you wanna go down that road, drawing lolicon will become the least of people's problems.

Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

You're right a better substitution would be Nazi Germany not supporting Judaism, both their society and their government.

I know Godwin's Law blah blah blah, I don't really care, it fits.

No it does not.

Helmholtz Watson:

Father Time:

Helmholtz Watson:
Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

You're right a better substitution would be Nazi Germany not supporting Judaism, both their society and their government.

I know Godwin's Law blah blah blah, I don't really care, it fits.

No it does not.

Your only qualification was stuff that society and country don't support or encourage, and in 1940's Germany that was Judaism.

Yeah I know that banning drawings isn't as bad as banning a religion but your rationale for banning drawn stuff can cover that too.

It's the right call. If we were going to ban all of the multitude of weird and kinky things that if preformed in real life would be harmful and even deadly...

There'd be a heck of a lot more to ban. Keeping fantasy in the realm of fantasy is what almost all who have a particular kink for it are able to do. Those who can't probably would be even more likely to preform such acts to real kids if that's all they could do because you're not gonna tell someone, "Hey, you don't like this anymore."

Fetishes don't work like that.

Helmholtz Watson:

Vegosiux:

Helmholtz Watson:
He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage.

Then I suppose the Russian government was fully justified in repressing the opposition, anti-government rallies. After all, the country does not support such behavior.

Seriously, if you wanna go down that road, drawing lolicon will become the least of people's problems.

Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

So you promote the banning of vore because it promotes cannibalism then?

Helmholtz Watson:
Too bad, it should be illegal to depict such things, I really can't say that anything of any significance is lost by outlawing such morally wrong filth.

That is all I have to say about that.

Ldude893:

Helmholtz Watson:
Too bad, it should be illegal to depict such things, I really can't say that anything of any significance is lost by outlawing such morally wrong filth.

That is all I have to say about that.

inb4 some responds with "not liking child porn makes me a dick?"

Anyway, I've never understood why a drawing of me killing someone is fine, but a drawing of a loli is a no no.

Also, real children are disgusting. Obvious case of 3dpd.

It should be mentioned that while it doesn't legalize drawings, it does still limit the scope of the criminal area in regard to them quite significantly. Upon rereading it, I'll even admit to it being more significant and reasonable than I initially thought.

At least when firmly rooted in a culture (as manga drawings would be), only drawings which are "realistic" are held to be criminal, meaning that ordinary images in the manga art style are presumably legal. The translator had a single image deemed to be realistic, but was acquitted due to his status of expert.

Without having actually seen what the court considered "realistic" though, and it being somewhat unclear whether clearly fictional drawings without any cultural rooting are legal, it's still hard to say that this ruling legitimize such drawings. There's really nothing in the premises on any guidelines on what is to be considered "realistic", it probably have to do with anatomical correctness or something, but it's ultimately anyone's guess.

Ldude893:

That is all I have to say about that.

When it comes to cartoons that mimic pedophilia, I don't have to be nice about it. Its a disgusting and shameful thing to like.

wintercoat:

Helmholtz Watson:

Vegosiux:

Then I suppose the Russian government was fully justified in repressing the opposition, anti-government rallies. After all, the country does not support such behavior.

Seriously, if you wanna go down that road, drawing lolicon will become the least of people's problems.

Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

So you promote the banning of vore because it promotes cannibalism then?

Are you trying to say that vore would lead to a person a snuff film where real cannibalism would occur?

Father Time:

Yeah I know that banning drawings isn't as bad as banning a religion but your rationale for banning drawn stuff can cover that too.

Firs off, this isn't the 40's, so any law I'm proposing wouldn't be affect 1940's Germany. Second off, CP in its very nature can harm people, where as a guy speaking Hebrew to lam skin doesn't hurt anybody nor do most people care about it.

Helmholtz Watson:

Father Time:

Yeah I know that banning drawings isn't as bad as banning a religion but your rationale for banning drawn stuff can cover that too.

Firs off, this isn't the 40's, so any law I'm proposing wouldn't be affect 1940's Germany. Second off, CP in its very nature can harm people, where as a guy speaking Hebrew to lam skin doesn't hurt anybody nor do most people care about it.

Your simplistic view of the world is really whats holding you back...

Helmholtz Watson:

Ldude893:

That is all I have to say about that.

When it comes to cartoons that mimic pedophilia, I don't have to be nice about it. Its a disgusting and shameful thing to like.

wintercoat:

Helmholtz Watson:
Your taking what I'm saying out of context. You know full well that's not what I mean. As I said before, "He would be spreading material that encourages thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage".

So you promote the banning of vore because it promotes cannibalism then?

Are you trying to say that vore would lead to a person a snuff film where real cannibalism would occur?

Well, it's along the same lines as the current discussion, isn't it? Something illegal in real life, but harmless when drawn, an act abhorred by society. It, as you said "promotes thinking about behavior that the country and society don't support or encourage". Will you claim that vore is okay, but loli isn't, even though they both portray subjects that are both illegal and socially abhorred? Or should both be illegal? Then I've got to ask, what about fictional depictions of rape? The same idea applies here as well. How about bestiality? If you ban one on the grounds that it's socially reprehensible, then you have to ban all of them for the same reason.

adamtm:

Helmholtz Watson:

Father Time:

Yeah I know that banning drawings isn't as bad as banning a religion but your rationale for banning drawn stuff can cover that too.

Firs off, this isn't the 40's, so any law I'm proposing wouldn't be affect 1940's Germany. Second off, CP in its very nature can harm people, where as a guy speaking Hebrew to lam skin doesn't hurt anybody nor do most people care about it.

Your simplistic view of the world is really whats holding you back...

Holding me back from what? Liking CP?

Helmholtz Watson:

adamtm:

Helmholtz Watson:
Firs off, this isn't the 40's, so any law I'm proposing wouldn't be affect 1940's Germany. Second off, CP in its very nature can harm people, where as a guy speaking Hebrew to lam skin doesn't hurt anybody nor do most people care about it.

Your simplistic view of the world is really whats holding you back...

Holding me back from what? Liking CP?

No, understanding what everyone is talking about.

wintercoat:

Well, it's along the same lines as the current discussion, isn't it?

Only if your claiming that watching vore could lead to people purchasing snuff films which would provide a demand for such criminal behavior.

adamtm:

Helmholtz Watson:

adamtm:

Your simplistic view of the world is really whats holding you back...

Holding me back from what? Liking CP?

No, understanding what everyone is talking about.

I understand what they are saying, I just disagree.

Helmholtz Watson:

wintercoat:

Well, it's along the same lines as the current discussion, isn't it?

Only if your claiming that watching vore could lead to people purchasing snuff films which would provide a demand for such criminal behavior.

It's as likely as lolicon leading to an increase in child pornography. Can you prove such a link?

Helmholtz Watson:

adamtm:

Helmholtz Watson:
Holding me back from what? Liking CP?

No, understanding what everyone is talking about.

I understand what they are saying, I just disagree.

From your answers I dont think you do.
Especially your false equivocations and crystal-ball gazing.

If you wouldn't be locked down so much on your "CP is bad mkay" you would recognize the issue isn't specifically with CP in the first place.

But along the line of your reasoning, please demonstrate that fictional drawn pornography of any kind leads to the same behavior in real life.
If this is true, shouldn't we be seeing for example a lot more rape in Japan where that kind of fictional drawn pornography is massively prevalent?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

adamtm:
snip

I didn't say that they become CM, just that they may be interested in pictures about the real thing and not just the cartoon.

wintercoat:
snip

Human nature. Its naive to think that if people find the cartoons sexually arousing that they wouldn't find pictures of the real thing sexually arousing as well.

Helmholtz Watson:

adamtm:
snip

I didn't say that they become CM, just that they may be interested in pictures about the real thing and not just the cartoon.

wintercoat:
snip

Human nature. Its naive to think that if people find the cartoons sexually arousing that they wouldn't find pictures of the real thing sexually arousing as well.

Please demonstrate the accuracy of your claim and how prevalent this is.
Any kind of peer-reviewed study will do, thank you.

Helmholtz Watson:

adamtm:
snip

I didn't say that they become CM, just that they may be interested in pictures about the real thing and not just the cartoon.

wintercoat:
snip

Human nature. Its naive to think that if people find the cartoons sexually arousing that they wouldn't find pictures of the real thing sexually arousing as well.

Evidence. Proof. Stating it's human nature doesn't prove squat. Otherwise, you have to agree that all of the fetishes I mentioned would have to be banned for the exact same reasons.

Having been to a Mandarake store and Comiket in Japan, I really have trouble seeing how anyone could get worked up on supporting someone's right to drawn child pornography. I'm not about to say it needs to be banned, but I'm not going to lose any sleep about someone who no longer gets to buy drawings of two 9-year old girls covered in semen[1]. I also feel the same way about Mortal Kombat's graphic ripping people in half footage. It shouldn't be banned, but getting worked up to defend it as necessary for our cultural conversation strikes me as a bit juvenile. And if the industries that produce this sort of extreme content can't regulate themselves enough to make sure that people who don't want to see it don't have to see it, I'm not going to feel bad if some people go extreme in their opposition and move to ban it.

EDITED TO ADD: It reminds me of Yahtzee's review of Splatterhouse. It's only natural for children to want to see content that is forbidden to them, but in a sane, well-adjusted society some content should be so excessive that once people can see it, they stop wanting to see it. While an outright ban works against this by making it forbidden to everyone forever, irresponsible content producers wading around in excess just to grab attention shouldn't be portrayed as fighting a noble battle for free speech. The apparent decline of the goreporn genre (the Saw movies, Hostel, etc) is a good example of how this is supposed to work (though it would be a better example if the public lost interest at the first sequel. What can I say, Americans are not always all that mature.)

[1] This was an actual doujin drawing I saw for sale in a Mandarake store. I was looking for vintage Transformers for a family member and unfortunately to get to that section you have to go through the child sex fantasy fan club section.

Hey, Blablab and Helmholtz Watson agree about something.

And, yeah, I tend to agree with them. Beyond the usual slippery slope arguments, can't see why people would support decriminalising it.

thaluikhain:
.... can't see why people would support decriminalising it.

Because its not criminal?
What other reason do you need?

Katatori-kun:
Having been to a Mandarake store and Comiket in Japan, I really have trouble seeing how anyone could get worked up on supporting someone's right to drawn child pornography. I'm not about to say it needs to be banned, but I'm not going to lose any sleep about someone who no longer gets to buy drawings of two 9-year old girls covered in semen. I also feel the same way about Mortal Kombat's graphic ripping people in half footage. It shouldn't be banned, but getting worked up to defend it as necessary for our cultural conversation strikes me as a bit juvenile. And if the industries that produce this sort of extreme content can't regulate themselves enough to make sure that people who don't want to see it don't have to see it, I'm not going to feel bad if some people go extreme in their opposition and move to ban it.

EDITED TO ADD: It reminds me of Yahtzee's review of Splatterhouse. It's only natural for children to want to see content that is forbidden to them, but in a sane, well-adjusted society some content should be so excessive that once people can see it, they stop wanting to see it. While an outright ban works against this by making it forbidden to everyone forever, irresponsible content producers wading around in excess just to grab attention shouldn't be portrayed as fighting a noble battle for free speech. The apparent decline of the goreporn genre (the Saw movies, Hostel, etc) is a good example of how this is supposed to work (though it would be a better example if the public lost interest at the first sequel. What can I say, Americans are not always all that mature.)

Some people think beyond the desires, tastes, and preferences of themselves, and consider other points of view, even ones that seem disgusting to many, valid and worth keeping unrestricted. I find it slightly hilarious that you characterize this as 'juvenile', when your own attitude is a mixture of apathy and an apparent desire for those content producers that make content you dislike to stop existing. Is not an excessive sense of entitlement and selfishness a 'juvenile' trait? When we grow up, we learn to accept that others have different tastes.

As much as the originally stated purpose for a liberal approach to speech and so on was to prevent political tyranny, we would be mistaken not to recognize the continuing value of protecting the seedier side of discourse and entertainment. After all, I doubt there are really that many who consider the Victorian approach desirable today. And why not? Because actually most of us either respect the freedom of our fellow humans or desire to see bare wrists and ankles ourselves. We discovered, through exposure, that bare wrists and ankles are actually not an existential threat to any worthwhile public morality. We discarded a form of social tyranny, which arguably led to many more important things, such as a recognition that if bare ankles and wrists are not a hideous cancer upon society, perhaps certain 'abominations' also might be acceptable as members of society. And there is no particularly compelling case to be made that this process is (or that we should desire it to be) over...

Your 'right' not to see something on display in a privately owned store that makes its own decisions on what to carry does not override the rights of those who wish not to be burdened by your particular moral sensitivities when it comes to finding the cartoons they want to see, semen-covered or otherwise. Some people appreciate shock value, or whatever you want to call it, and to declare their preferences worthless enough not to be bothered by infringements on their freedom of speech and expression strikes me as the more juvenile position. You don't see value in it, but you are just one person. The world does not revolve around you.

Captcha: easy as cake

Is captcha supposed to measure our attitudes?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked