Manga Translator Appeals Child Pornography Charges

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Grey Carter:
Director, John McTiernan, could have perfected Die Hard's gritty, yet realistic, action scenes by mercilessly gunning down hobos as research - yet the Swedish police force have yet to arrest Bruce Willis as an accessory to murder.

More or less my thoughts on the subject. They'd have to prove that real photos were used in the production of the drawings to have a case.

Which I dare say doesn't happen with "manga", due to the usually very stylized natures of the drawings.

Unlike certain American comics:

image

Grey Carter:
"These are not real people," said University of Gävle comics researcher, Johan Höjer, during the initial trial. "The prosecution has a tendency to view these drawings as camouflaged photos, but these are animated fantasies."

Oh, hey, someone else in my hometown who understands the distinction between fiction and reality!

Xiado:
Glad I don't live in Sweden, such a progressive place where owning cartoon pictures is a crime and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.

There's a reason why this has garnered so much attention in Sweden. It's far from the norm of things, as we're traditionally rather liberal when it comes to nudity.

To be blunt, it's something I'd expect from the US rather than Sweden.

JediMB:

Xiado:
Glad I don't live in Sweden, such a progressive place where owning cartoon pictures is a crime and "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.

There's a reason why this has garnered so much attention in Sweden. It's far from the norm of things, as we're traditionally rather liberal when it comes to nudity.

To be blunt, it's something I'd expect from the US rather than Sweden.

When I saw the title I first thought it was in the US or the UK

Hi everyone, a long-time lurker coming in here in order to clarify some things about this topic as an actual Swedish citizen and one that is interested in this particular use of Sweden's laws. Analysis time; wall of text incoming.

The first thing that many of you get wrong here, is that child pornography needs to have a concrete victim in order to be a crime. In Sweden, this is not the case. Instead child pornography (as in, looking at these pictures and/or distributing them) is a crime against society and its values (not sure how to translate it, Societal order I think would be the closest) and is as such something that is considered a crime even if a specific victim cannot be shown (think along the lines of hate speech, a crime that does not have always have a specific victim, but is illegal nonetheless). Child pornography is not a sex-crime in Sweden (I don't know how it is in other countries, but it needs to be emphasized), however sexual assault and/or actually taking pictures of the child during such actions is. In this scenario with Simon Lundström, it is indeed a victimless crime, but the law in Sweden sees it as a crime against the society itself, something so unacceptable that it does not matter if an actual victim (in this case, portrayed real children) can be found. It IS legal, however, to draw these pictures yourself, as long as they are not meant to be shown or distributed to anyone else.

Another thing to bear in mind, is the fact that Swedish law does not differentiate between real and not-real characters when it comes to this law, and (I think) follows some kind of guideline when deciding whether a character is underage or not (something to do with chest size, body form and amount of pubic hair, if I remember correctly). Basically, the law says that the character portrayed in pornographic situations needs to be over 18 and have undergone "a full cycle of puberty"(my trans.) In effect, this means that characters under 18, but look older, are safe UNLESS their age is detailed (remember the Dead or Alive game on 3ds? It didn't get to Sweden because fear of Kasumi, who is under 18 in the game and could be considered to be in "pornographic" situations in the photo-shoot portion of the game. No precedent has been set, the game is not officially illegal, but fear of the implications of it being related to child pornography was enough to not sell it here). Characters that look younger than 18 but are older, are never legal here, because of the way the law is constructed. A vampire who is hundreds of years old but looks like a 7-12 year-old(Look up the Negima character Evangeline)? Illegal in Sweden in pornographic situations. The same goes with all characters that does not meet both criteria of being 18 years old and have gone through puberty.

The devil is, of course, in the details. How about a female character who happens to have small breasts and have shaved her pubic hair? What about a male character who happens to have little body-hair and a small frame? No one really knows, since no precedent has been set. The problem also lies in the fact that since looking at these pictures is illegal, no one outside the court was allowed to see the offending pictures (except for in one particular place in Stockholm, under police observation, I believe), which many saw as rather shady. Since the law is so vaguely worded, it causes fear as to what is considered illegal and what is not, particularly in the world of drawn characters, where ages and body types can vary extremely depending on the style and the artist. People have drawn conclusions that Love Hina (a rather famous manga here) is illegal in Sweden because of the vague words used (this is probably not true, but remember that it is up to the courts to actually say whether a picture is "pornographic" (as opposed to sexual, which is okay if it has "artistic values" (my trans.). The movie Lolita? Probably okay (but again, it has not been proven. This is my interpretation of the law, and the fact that there IS interpretation involved is my biggest issue with it).
The fact that the law equals drawn characters with actual children as well as it being very vague are the biggest flaws of it. That combined with the societal fear of being associated with even speaking about child pornography in Sweden means that the issue is not really brought up by the people that should discuss it, and the show goes on, ridiculous though it may be.

I cartoons are people... can I file a lawsuit against Michael Bay for defamation, rape and murder of cartoon characters?

Maxxn:

Well, I suppose that settles it then. Thanks for clearing that up Maxxn.

I suppose this is being treated less as a felony and more as disorderly conduct. This still does not settle right with me though. If Lundström was paid professionally to translate the offending manga, then I still believe the company who hired him should be at fault as well for providing said offending material. Why only go after him?

That stuff about not allowing the jury to see the offending pictures seems kinda shady too. Isn't that considered withholding evidence?

Maxxn:
-SNIP-

Thanks for some of the clarification. So he's basically being charged with what would be the equivalent of an obscenity charge in the States?

I get that people want to protect the children, I'm one of those people that are against the exploitation of children, however, it seems that the vagueness of a law has once again bitten someone in their ass.

It does seem a bit silly to charge someone whose profession is that of a Manga Expert with these charges.

overpuce:

Maxxn:
-SNIP-

Thanks for some of the clarification. So he's basically being charged with what would be the equivalent of an obscenity charge in the States?

I get that people want to protect the children, I'm one of those people that are against the exploitation of children, however, it seems that the vagueness of a law has once again bitten someone in their ass.

It does seem a bit silly to charge someone whose profession is that of a Manga Expert with these charges.

EDIT: I would presume it to be like an obscenity charge, I am not very well versed with US legislation though, so I can't be certain.

The law is indeed vague, and the fear and stigma associated with the actual crime is so huge in Sweden that most people would rather avoid talking about it altogether than actually adress it. Any government that actually tries to change it would, in the public eye, be "making it easier for the pedophiles".

Regarding whether or not to charge this person in particular, well.. The law as it is now couldn't have done it in any other way. The problem isn't so much that the law exists as much as how they thought it to be a good idea to incorporate all drawn pictures that could be perceived as humans, no matter how much the style gave it away as a fictional work.

The interesting bit is that children in sexual situations are still allowed in written media... The question is whether that will be censored too, or whether the law will be changed to something more sensible.

Sixcess:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Sixcess:

The prosecution's arguments aren't exactly well thought out, but let's not hide behind technicalities. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

This just then, Happy Tree Friends is facing legal trouble for their cruel treatment of animals.

Not the same thing, and unless you're extremely naive you know it's not the same thing.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of hardcore lolicon, but lets not pretend that people who enjoy it are child predators.

Then what are they?

As a pure issue of law then this case is dealing with a question that's yet to be settled - a number of countries including the US, UK and Germany are still debating whether or not sexualised portrayals of children are child porn - be they in the form of illustrations, or rendered images, or via 3D avatars in something like Second Life. The prosecution's arguments in this case are nonsensical, but the wider question is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, given how close we are to creating virtual images that are near indistinguishable from the real thing I think it's a question that has to be asked.

Noone is arguing that a drawing of a child in a sexual situation should be viewed on the same level as photos or video of actual child abuse. Badly thought out arguments aside, even the Swedish courts are not arguing this. If they were this guy would be in prison, not dealing with a relatively small fine and his name on a register.

So of course it's not remotely as wrong as the real thing, but that alone doesn't make it right.

Dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is not a valid argument. Written words are just a collection of lines on paper as well, but that doesn't stop people being convicted of things like hate speech and holocaust denial. The intent of the lines matters.

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff? Children should not be viewed in a sexual manner, and anyone who does so bears watching in my opinion, and I don't care how narrow minded that may sound. I consider myself open minded and liberal, but I can certainly live with being seen as intolerent of that.

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

RaNDM G:

Well, I suppose that settles it then. Thanks for clearing that up Maxxn.

I suppose this is being treated less as a felony and more as disorderly conduct. This still does not settle right with me though. If Lundström was paid professionally to translate the offending manga, then I still believe the company who hired him should be at fault as well for providing said offending material. Why only go after him?

That stuff about not allowing the jury to see the offending pictures seems kinda shady too. Isn't that considered withholding evidence?

Lundström's work was not (according to my knowledge, I haven't seen the pictures in person so I don't know if they have any relation to their manga work) providing him with the pictures; they were more along the lines of "research material" for his work as a manga-expert, according to his own words. Actual licensed manga has yet to be part of any court here in Sweden as far as I'm aware. So the company had nothing to do with the pictures themselves, but were very fast in firing him as soon as the charges came. His professional work has nothing to do with children (he's a translator), but like I said, companies does not want to be affiliated with these things, so they fired him.

About the evidence, it was indeed very close to be withholding evidence; the problem was mostly (according to the courts) how to actually show the pictures without committing a crime themselves for doing so. So they did something else: Told people that if you wanted to see the evidence, you need to come to a very specific place, where you will be shown the pictures in a way that makes it impossible for you to copy them or otherwise show them to anyone else. I don't know if this is standard operating procedure for other cases, but that is how they solved it.

nikki191:

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

Question. Do you feel the same way when it comes to the fictional portrayal of murder?

Another rare example of people having criminal charges put on them despite not owning any child abuse images or having committed any real life sexual offences. We cannot conflate looking at and drawing images with actual immorality.

Simulated child pornography (i.e. Material intended to look realistic and sometimes based off models.) might be bad, especially if it is based off a model, but for your average manga/anime girl..."This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance of characters to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

A big problem with cases like these, is that sometimes the judges wont even look at the "offensive" images.

I just don't see how this is a problem... The guy didn't draw the image and unless they can find a small child with eyes the size of my fist and blue hair that would require a crate of hair spray just to keep up they have no basis to even reasonably assume that someone used actual child pornography as the basis of the work he was translating. This is pretty gross use of a law to protect actual REAL children, is now being used to censor one community by another.... sigh I wish Loli wasn't around so we wouldn't have to defend this position in this situation.

shintakie10:

nikki191:

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

Question. Do you feel the same way when it comes to the fictional portrayal of murder?

This is really interesting, because a lot of Swedish commentators of this particular case have asked the same thing. Why are we vilifying and condemning one particular criminal action in fictional media, when so many others are a-ok? Why is it okay to kill someone in a comic, but a sexual situation with a child (which is clearly fictional, it being a drawn picture) is illegal?

It's very interesting to ask these questions, it's just too bad that so few of the people actually making the decisions whether something is legal or not does not answer them enough publically, so that we could at least see their reasoning behind what they are doing.

... All I have to say is: Thank GOD I live in Western Australia where there are NOT stupid laws against cartoon (and therefore completely imaginary) porn

doggie015:
... All I have to say is: Thank GOD I live in Western Australia where there are NOT stupid laws against cartoon (and therefore completely imaginary) porn

Wait... are you being serious or facetious/sarcastic?

shintakie10:

nikki191:

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

Question. Do you feel the same way when it comes to the fictional portrayal of murder?

I too would like to know. If nikki's point is that it's just perverted thoughts that are fine as long as they stay thoughts then I have no beef with him/her. If nikki intends that these thoughts should be persecuted and punished then I'd love to find where he/she draws the oft hypocritical line.

nikki191:

Sixcess:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

This just then, Happy Tree Friends is facing legal trouble for their cruel treatment of animals.

Not the same thing, and unless you're extremely naive you know it's not the same thing.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of hardcore lolicon, but lets not pretend that people who enjoy it are child predators.

Then what are they?

As a pure issue of law then this case is dealing with a question that's yet to be settled - a number of countries including the US, UK and Germany are still debating whether or not sexualised portrayals of children are child porn - be they in the form of illustrations, or rendered images, or via 3D avatars in something like Second Life. The prosecution's arguments in this case are nonsensical, but the wider question is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, given how close we are to creating virtual images that are near indistinguishable from the real thing I think it's a question that has to be asked.

Noone is arguing that a drawing of a child in a sexual situation should be viewed on the same level as photos or video of actual child abuse. Badly thought out arguments aside, even the Swedish courts are not arguing this. If they were this guy would be in prison, not dealing with a relatively small fine and his name on a register.

So of course it's not remotely as wrong as the real thing, but that alone doesn't make it right.

Dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is not a valid argument. Written words are just a collection of lines on paper as well, but that doesn't stop people being convicted of things like hate speech and holocaust denial. The intent of the lines matters.

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff? Children should not be viewed in a sexual manner, and anyone who does so bears watching in my opinion, and I don't care how narrow minded that may sound. I consider myself open minded and liberal, but I can certainly live with being seen as intolerent of that.

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

Thing is, prosecuting people for getting off to fictional kids portrayed in a sexual way is still essentially thought crime.

I maintain that no matter how deranged and disgusting it seems, so long as it remains a fantasy, it should not be punished.

nikki191:

Sixcess:

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of hardcore lolicon, but lets not pretend that people who enjoy it are child predators.

Then what are they?

As a pure issue of law then this case is dealing with a question that's yet to be settled - a number of countries including the US, UK and Germany are still debating whether or not sexualised portrayals of children are child porn - be they in the form of illustrations, or rendered images, or via 3D avatars in something like Second Life. The prosecution's arguments in this case are nonsensical, but the wider question is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, given how close we are to creating virtual images that are near indistinguishable from the real thing I think it's a question that has to be asked.

Noone is arguing that a drawing of a child in a sexual situation should be viewed on the same level as photos or video of actual child abuse. Badly thought out arguments aside, even the Swedish courts are not arguing this. If they were this guy would be in prison, not dealing with a relatively small fine and his name on a register.

So of course it's not remotely as wrong as the real thing, but that alone doesn't make it right.

Dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is not a valid argument. Written words are just a collection of lines on paper as well, but that doesn't stop people being convicted of things like hate speech and holocaust denial. The intent of the lines matters.

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff? Children should not be viewed in a sexual manner, and anyone who does so bears watching in my opinion, and I don't care how narrow minded that may sound. I consider myself open minded and liberal, but I can certainly live with being seen as intolerent of that.

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

There's a really good article on this subject by author Neil Gaiman: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

His point is that - no matter how distasteful you personally find the material - if you believe in free speech, you should defend it.

As long as no one has been hurt, adults have the right to write, draw, read and view what they like. No matter how depraved. No matter how abhorrent the act would be in real life. No matter how little trust you personally feel for people who enjoy it.

That's what freedom means.

This is silly. This whole lolicon thing really is quite inescapable. If you watch the anime "I have few friends" it gets as far as it can get with "dem lolis" without actually having anything "important" in view. And this is mainstream manga-type stuff. So if this is kid porn, most of Japan is a convicted sex offender.
Among others, of course, but even having watched little anime, I think this one is probably gonna be one of the best examples because of how balls-out it is. But, honestly, it still makes me feel shallow for watching it....

When a federal agent of law enforcement says he thinks the images suck but you're wasting your time with this kind of farce, wouldn't that be a time to step back and think.

All of the statistics I've read in recent years paint the vast majority of child abuse (sexual or otherwise) coming from people close to or within the family. So by that logic, the police could probably half the rate of child abuse by knocking on the door of every family in the country, flipping a coin and executing one of the parents.

No one likes to be the guy to have to stand up and say it, but this is one of those lesser of two evils things. It's true, characters are not designed in a vaccum and this sort of wink nudge approach can look really shifty, but unless the animators or artists are abducting and forcing children to model (and most artists worth their salt these days don't need models for basic human types), then really, its just largely shitty art of a subject you hate. Pursuing this poor bastard through the courts is a waste of everyone's time, money and takes away man power that could be best used by finding actual child abusers and actual child porn trading rings/societies.

Or to put it TL:DR terms.

This guy doesn't deserve this nonsense because he has hurt no one.
AND
Actual child molestors deserve 38 inches of cold steel and a shallow grave.

Grey Carter:

"And even a drawing could be of a real child," said prosecutor, Hedvig Trost. "A photo depicting a real child could have been used to make the drawing. It is hard from the outside to know whether there is an original photo or not."

If that's the case, then they have a duty of care to find out who the original publishers are (cos this guy is just the translator) and alert the Japanese authorities. Because despite some bizzare laws and sexual proclivities, molesting children and rape are actually illegal in Japan.

Someone, sue FOX for enticing people to act like retards, please.

Sixcess:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Sixcess:

The prosecution's arguments aren't exactly well thought out, but let's not hide behind technicalities. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

This just then, Happy Tree Friends is facing legal trouble for their cruel treatment of animals.

Not the same thing, and unless you're extremely naive you know it's not the same thing.

I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of hardcore lolicon, but lets not pretend that people who enjoy it are child predators.

Then what are they?

As a pure issue of law then this case is dealing with a question that's yet to be settled - a number of countries including the US, UK and Germany are still debating whether or not sexualised portrayals of children are child porn - be they in the form of illustrations, or rendered images, or via 3D avatars in something like Second Life. The prosecution's arguments in this case are nonsensical, but the wider question is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, given how close we are to creating virtual images that are near indistinguishable from the real thing I think it's a question that has to be asked.

Noone is arguing that a drawing of a child in a sexual situation should be viewed on the same level as photos or video of actual child abuse. Badly thought out arguments aside, even the Swedish courts are not arguing this. If they were this guy would be in prison, not dealing with a relatively small fine and his name on a register.

So of course it's not remotely as wrong as the real thing, but that alone doesn't make it right.

Dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is not a valid argument. Written words are just a collection of lines on paper as well, but that doesn't stop people being convicted of things like hate speech and holocaust denial. The intent of the lines matters.

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff? Children should not be viewed in a sexual manner, and anyone who does so bears watching in my opinion, and I don't care how narrow minded that may sound. I consider myself open minded and liberal, but I can certainly live with being seen as intolerent of that.

It is a victimless crime. Who exactly is harmed if a guy gets off to lolicon?

He's a sick bastard, but he doesn't belong in jail.

Sixcess:
As a pure issue of law then this case is dealing with a question that's yet to be settled - a number of countries including the US, UK and Germany are still debating whether or not sexualised portrayals of children are child porn - be they in the form of illustrations, or rendered images, or via 3D avatars in something like Second Life. The prosecution's arguments in this case are nonsensical, but the wider question is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, given how close we are to creating virtual images that are near indistinguishable from the real thing I think it's a question that has to be asked.

Noone is arguing that a drawing of a child in a sexual situation should be viewed on the same level as photos or video of actual child abuse. Badly thought out arguments aside, even the Swedish courts are not arguing this. If they were this guy would be in prison, not dealing with a relatively small fine and his name on a register.

So of course it's not remotely as wrong as the real thing, but that alone doesn't make it right.

Dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is not a valid argument. Written words are just a collection of lines on paper as well, but that doesn't stop people being convicted of things like hate speech and holocaust denial. The intent of the lines matters.

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff? Children should not be viewed in a sexual manner, and anyone who does so bears watching in my opinion, and I don't care how narrow minded that may sound. I consider myself open minded and liberal, but I can certainly live with being seen as intolerent of that.

The problem is that this is a slippery slope. There are comics that have children in sexual situations to portray a horrible event, such as Berserk where the protagonist gets raped at a very young age. It's not explicit, but it is there. Would this then too be found illegal? Could a court of law really distinguish between the artistic meaning and merrit behind the example I just mentioned and straight up porn?

Korolev:
He's a sick bastard, but he doesn't belong in jail.

Actually he's not, he's getting a fine. Ok that still sucks but I think he might've lived with it and moved on if they weren't labeling him as a sex offender as well since that costed him his job and will make it a pain in the ass to get work in the future.

Here's hoping their Supreme Court rules in his favor, I would actually like to see news that makes me feel good about humanity instead of this kind of depressing stupidity all the time.

Sixcess:
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

Yet some retard could still confuse it for a swan because he's incapable of judgement.

It's unsavory, I agree with that, but as long as no one was actually hurt by its creation (other than the artistic integrity of the medium) then I don't see a criminal act here. I see a guy with a weird fetish, who has no history of harming anyone.

Grey Carter:
For those of you who love picking up random terms you will never use in casual conversation: "Lolicon."

Never use? I don't think you know my friends.

Child pornoghraphy is revolting even in fantasy.Counter argument seems half-baked but i agree with the idea behind it and more measures should be taken about it.

I guess we should determine the line between art and pornoghraphy.It would make a good topic

Therumancer:
Indeed in most countries, the burden of proof is on the accused.

In most first world countries? that's BS and you know it. Most if not all first world countries have innocent until proven guilty as the standard. And we don;t find the American system silly because we think the accused should have to prove his innocence, we find it silly because it is so weak it is often abused by sue happy people to sue for foolish things.

Got fat by eating at mcdonalds? Sue.
Spilled coffee on your lap and it was hot? Sue.

that kind of shit.

artists involved in the work could have used real children as models

Flat what.

No, no, no. That's STUPID, swedes.

Darkmantle:

Therumancer:
Indeed in most countries, the burden of proof is on the accused.

In most first world countries? that's BS and you know it. Most if not all first world countries have innocent until proven guilty as the standard. And we don;t find the American system silly because we think the accused should have to prove his innocence, we find it silly because it is so weak it is often abused by sue happy people to sue for foolish things.

Got fat by eating at mcdonalds? Sue.
Spilled coffee on your lap and it was hot? Sue.

that kind of shit.

Why do people bring up the coffee lady like its some bad thing? That coffee was a hundred degrees hotter than it needed to be and caused really horrific burns to the woman. She wasn't suin because she dropped coffee on herself. She was suin because the coffee was so hot that it caused horrible skin damage.

OhJohnNo:

nikki191:

Sixcess:

Not the same thing, and unless you're extremely naive you know it's not the same thing.

Then what are they?

As a pure issue of law then this case is dealing with a question that's yet to be settled - a number of countries including the US, UK and Germany are still debating whether or not sexualised portrayals of children are child porn - be they in the form of illustrations, or rendered images, or via 3D avatars in something like Second Life. The prosecution's arguments in this case are nonsensical, but the wider question is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, given how close we are to creating virtual images that are near indistinguishable from the real thing I think it's a question that has to be asked.

Noone is arguing that a drawing of a child in a sexual situation should be viewed on the same level as photos or video of actual child abuse. Badly thought out arguments aside, even the Swedish courts are not arguing this. If they were this guy would be in prison, not dealing with a relatively small fine and his name on a register.

So of course it's not remotely as wrong as the real thing, but that alone doesn't make it right.

Dismissing it as just lines on a piece of paper is not a valid argument. Written words are just a collection of lines on paper as well, but that doesn't stop people being convicted of things like hate speech and holocaust denial. The intent of the lines matters.

Finally, why the hell are people trying to legitimise this stuff? Children should not be viewed in a sexual manner, and anyone who does so bears watching in my opinion, and I don't care how narrow minded that may sound. I consider myself open minded and liberal, but I can certainly live with being seen as intolerent of that.

well said and frankly i couldnt of put it better myself.

no matter what the defence is, no matter what people say to legitimise this stuff its still boils down to .. reality check.. DUDE you are portraying kids in a sexual way.

Thing is, prosecuting people for getting off to fictional kids portrayed in a sexual way is still essentially thought crime.

I maintain that no matter how deranged and disgusting it seems, so long as it remains a fantasy, it should not be punished.

When looking at a subject we dislike (or downright loathe in the case of some people here). It is important to look at it and question who is getting hurt here.

Are kids getting hurt from him having the images? No, because they were drawn by somebody for the expressed reason of exploring a fantasy. Fantasy is an important word, by the way. Definitely keep it in mind.

Now, with the way things are, does the law hurt people? Well, I think it's quite obvious with this story that, yes. Yes it does hurt people. But why is that? How could a law intended to protect children also hurt people?

That's because when a law is made, rights need to be taken into consideration. And unfortunately for many non-americans, Freedom of Speech is not always an assured right. In most places (Not sure about Sweden, but I'll get to that in a minutes) Free Speech is less of an established right and more of an implied one.

Now why does this apply? Well, let's assume that Sweden does in fact have established free speech. Well, oftentimes, laws are voted on, and use scare tactics in order to pass. This is done while ignoring parts of the law that limit the rights of citizens. In this case, it removes their right to have drawings of children in pornographic situations.

Practices like this are dangerous, and do happen everywhere, and do tend to take different forms. The problem here is that new laws will continue to be made. And they will build off of what is already here. And if we lay a foundation where the rights of citizens are thrown aside at the first sign of something we don't like... It just gets worse from here.

It's fine not to like this stuff. And it's fine to like it too. It wouldn't exist if there weren't a place for it. The trick is in letting perverts be perverts as long as they keep their fantasies to themselves. Most people do.

Come on Sweden, you used to be cool.

This is not a pipe.

What does it say about me that I recognised that image right away?

Also silly case is a silly.

I don't really like the idea of lolicon images, but really. Who are they harming? And if it was his job, then surely the case should have been brought against his publisher... not the poor guy who doing what his boss asked.

Sixcess:
A few questions:

Would anyone care to link to these images? Would doing so be considered a breach of posting rules? Would the Escapist receiving unwelcome attention from the FBI for allowing these images to be accessed via this site?

If theses are explicitly sexual images it's porn, and if those depicted are depicted as children then it's child porn.

The prosecution's arguments aren't exactly well thought out, but let's not hide behind technicalities. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

The problem has never been the actual viewing of child porn, but instead it's creation in which innocent children were abused.

In this case, no real children have been abused and should therefore be considered nothing more than a harmless sexual deviancy.

There has been a similar ruling here in the States were a man was cleared of 5 of his 147 charges of possessing child pornography because all he did was view them and not anything to store them.

Not reall to the point, but somewhat relevant.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here