Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

image

The Swedish Supreme Court has acquitted manga translator, Simon Lundström.

Lundström was convicted of possessing child pornography back in 2010, when authorities found suggestive pictures of bobble-headed, cartoon minors on his personal computer. He disputed the ruling, arguing that you need children for child pornography and that drawings aren't children, but his conviction was upheld by two lower courts, one of which reduced his punishment to a $780 fine and an order that he could no longer offer his services as a "manga expert."

In both trials, the prosecution argued that the images Lundström possessed could be used to entice children into performing sexual acts, and that real children could have been used as models for the drawings. I'm going to assume that last argument sounded marginally less insane in the original Swedish.

Though the Supreme court insisted that the 39 images Lundström was being charged for did constitute pornographic representations of children, it was forced to admit that there is a distinction between fictional children and their aggravating, real-life counterparts. It also claimed one of the images was realistic enough to constitute full blown child pornography, but admitted that prosecuting Lundström on those grounds would violate his freedom of expression.

"The criminalization of possession of the drawings would otherwise exceed what is necessary with regard to the purpose which has led to the restriction on freedom of expression and freedom of information," read a statement from the court.

Lundström later released a statement to the press:

"I'm obviously very relieved, in part because it makes life easier for me personally, but most of all I'm generally relieved for Sweden as a whole," he said. It would have been very hard for me to relate to Sweden as a country if it turned out to be a place that prohibited certain expressions of the imagination."

Source: SMP thanks to awesomeClaw

Permalink

So Sweden's criminal justice system proves it isn't as backwards as we thought.

It's good Lundstrom won. He was only charged for doing his job and the prosecution had a terrible argument against him.

Imaginary kids are not real?
image

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Well thank God sanity prevailed. In a world where common sense doesn't seem so common anymore, I was honestly not sure how this case would go.

Glad to see an innocent man go free.

As someone who once (shamefully) supported labeling pornographic pictures of children as Child Porn, I am extremely glad Lundstrom made it out okay. You can't ban one form of free speech without banning all other forms of free speech, unless it's directly harmful to people.

I still don't like that kinda porn but ultimately no one gets hurt but it so it shouldn't be considered pedophilia porn or whatever, I've been drinking , shut up.
(yay spell check)

The legal system of my country could now be considered marginally less insane.

Great succes!

Grey Carter:
In both trials, the prosecution argued that the images Lundström possessed could be used to entice children into performing sexual acts, and that real children could have been used as models for the drawings. I'm going to assume that last argument sounded marginally less insane in the original Swedish.

I totally get it. The crimes this person could commit with such images in real life are limited only by your imagination. It's solid logic because we have always prosecuted people based on the fact that at any time or place a person can commit a horrible crime therefor they should be thrown in prison before they have the chance to do so, like the movie Minority Report.

image

whatever you think, if he ain't harming anybody it ain't a crime, lol

Eri:
Imaginary kids are not real?
image

You should probably tell the United States that next.

damn you! read my mind, first thought i had when reading that title!

OT: while some manga definitely is definitely "childish", there is a ton of it where they are indeed adults, it's just the style/curvatures that make them seem not mature when compared to real life.

not to mention, i'm pretty sure he wasn't harming anybody...so always go by "no harm, no foul" in my book.

I reiterate what I said before: I may not agree with what he does, but it does not mean he should be punished for something that isn't harming anyone.

Nice to see that the justice system came through.

Leemaster777:
Well thank God sanity prevailed. In a world where common sense doesn't seem so common anymore, I was honestly not sure how this case would go.

Glad to see an innocent man go free.

Doesn't seem so common? I believe that Deadpool and I will agree to that...

so I can others can continue watching messed up hentai?

YAY!

Don't like that kind of stuff, still glad the guy got off.

(See you can dislike something without being a self righteous ass, world. Stop thrusting your dick of opinion onto everyone else without properly considering the ramifications and restrictions your ill constructed beliefs will sow.)

Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

First page and the comments section isn't swarming with loli pics yet, I must admit I'm surprised.

Grey Carter:
the prosecution argued that the images Lundström possessed could be used to entice children into performing sexual acts

"Hey kid, you want this comic book? How bad do you want it?"

RaNDM G:
So Sweden's criminal justice system proves it isn't as backwards as we thought.

It's good Lundstrom won. He was only charged for doing his job and the prosecution had a terrible argument against him.

well 1/3 of it isnt as backwards as we thought.

Lets not forget that two lower courts couldn't get their heads out of their asses after all.

OT: Im glad he got those charges dropped, was complete bullshit.

Hmm, several posts of people affirming that they agree with the ruling. Pffft, that's boring. I offer up a bounty of 57 internets to whomever can build a reasonably sane argument against the ruling.

KeyMaster45:
Hmm, several posts of people affirming that they agree with the ruling. Pffft, that's boring. I offer up a bounty of 57 internets to whomever can build a reasonably sane argument against the ruling.

This positive ruling got me no breakfast in bed on a Saturday and now I will have to get up.

Thusly I declare that this shameful act of harboring drawn wide-eyed small people like creatures doing oddly explicit and strange things is Illegal.

So sayeth me. *taps mug on desk*

Thou doest not sayeth? The name of the article alone is a facepalm moment.

KeyMaster45:
Hmm, several posts of people affirming that they agree with the ruling. Pffft, that's boring. I offer up a bounty of 57 internets to whomever can build a reasonably sane argument against the ruling.

Let me give it a shot:

1) This ruling may set precedence that anything animated, generated by computers or drawn is not child porn. However, as technology advances the ability to differentiate between CG, or highly realistic drawings (done via computers) may blur the line between real life child pornography and virtual to indistinguishable levels making it hard to rely on the "needs a victim" as a means of differentiating for law enforcement.

2) Virtual reality (I.E. Think virtual reality on the level of the holo decks of star treck) will also come into effect one day at which not only can it be realistic level, but truly can be assuredly virtual and thus the difference between real life child pornography and that of the digital world will be only in the lack of a real victim at which point the ability to know what you're seeing might even come into question.

Ok that's the best I can manage while staying sane..

*Edited for formatting

Good to hear that Sweden isn't completely insanse. I felt sorry for this guy being convicted because of the current "pedo scare" thing but im glad he made it out okay. Sweden, I once again like you and think you are pretty cool country.

Eri:
Imaginary kids are not real?
image

You should probably tell the United States that next.

^This. That Iowa or whatever place it was thing still pisses me off. Don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about that stuff, but it's fucking cartoons, it's not real and doesn't harm anyone, just like erotic stories or imagination and I don't think you should be able to make those illegal in a billion years. Now, if they have proof that the art was based on nude posing of children (considering it's anime/manga/whatever, I'll add a 'lol' to that) or that any child was harmed by it, sure, but that's a whole different goddamn crime.

Huh, Sweden isn't completely insane. Well, I guess you learn something every day.

It's kinda good that this ruling happened, otherwise someone would have to go around arresting classical art gallery owners for all those flying naked babies that float around those olde paintings.

Also, freedom and all that.

Grey Carter:
He disputed the ruling, arguing that you need children for child pornography and that drawings aren't children

This phrasing is hilarious, doubly so due to it being essentially the perfect rock solid defense. I like to think that the prosecution just felt like a massive moron when he realized his case had absolutely no grounds whatsoever.

Holy shit, So the Supreme Court in my country actully has some common sense. Yay!

Grey Carter:
Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

And that real children could have been used as models for the drawings. I'm going to assume that last argument sounded marginally less insane in the original Swedish.

Permalink

No, It still sounds as insane in swedish.

Eri:
Imaginary kids are not real.

image

how could we be so naive! its all a lie. A LIE! illuminati!

It doesn't exactly legalize all fictional drawings, but it does limit the scope of criminalization quite significantly.

According to the premises, at least when firmly rooted in a cultural tradition as manga drawings are, 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 perhaps being somewhat unclear whether clearly fictional drawings without any cultural rooting are legal, so it's hard to say that this ruling truly 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), so if you're a Swede with strange urges you should probably still stay away.

The court deserves praise for reaching the most reasonable result it could within the phrasing of a messed up law though. Unlike the hyperbolically puritanical Swedish legislators, it assigns proper weight to Freedom of Speech.

From the article, it does sound

Lumber Barber:
Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

aaaaand they're not even imaginary kids... they're imaginary characters that despite their age merely LOOK like imaginary kids. but... ah, he got off, i'll let sleeping dogs lie...

BrotherRool:
From the article, it does sound

Lumber Barber:
Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

Eri:
Imaginary kids are not real?
You should probably tell the United States that next.

First you'd have to get a few senators and congresscreatures without an imaginary extra father appointed.

Enthuril:

BrotherRool:
From the article, it does sound

Lumber Barber:
Good. If anything, this can help pedophiles release their urges since society shuns them so much.
In case you don't know, pedophilia is not a choice. Having sex with a child is a choice.

I'm aware that most wants to do awful things to other people aren't choices, hence wants. On the other hand I'd need some proof that this helps them. It could be easily argued the other way. For example for angry people, 'releasing their anger' like people advise has been proven to often make them more angry people. Maybe we should be fighting our basic nature at all levels and this is a slippery slope

Paedophilia is rooted in human sexuality and is therefore unchangeable, which means that suppressing it can psychologically do more harm than good. In the same idea, having a release for sexual urges has a positive result as most people can logically see that masturbation has an effect on decreasing your sexual urge for a period of time. Hence the whole blue balls thing. So saying that anyone who is attracted to children is going to have sex with children and doesn't actually seek to release those urges in a non-harmful way is somewhat similar to how some of the crazier feminists claim that all males are rapists.

Before I get the police on me by doing some research on this stuff, are you a psychologist whose studied this kind of thing, or just a clever informed person?

EDIT: No worries, found out, it turns out that studies show that exposureto pornography can icnrease rates of sexual assault, also

In a paper written in 1965[6] called, Sexual Deviation as Conditioned Behavior: A Hypothesis, R.J. McGuire found that the viewing of pornography can serve as a source of a paraphilic "vivid sexual fantasy" which, when contemplated during masturbation, may condition men into perversion

In a prison interview conducted by Gail Dines, rape of a prepubescent child followed "habitual" consumption of child porn "within six months," although the men were previously "horrified at the idea".[8]

However, a metaanalysis by Hald, et al (2010)[11] suggests that there is a link between consumption of violent pornography and rape-supportive attitudes in certain populations of men, particularly when moderating variables are taken into consideration.

Silbert, M. and Pines, A., in "Pornography and Sexual Abuse of Women," published their study involving prostitutes in the international journal Sex Roles, "The comments followed the same pattern: the assailant referred to pornographic materials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence."[18]

. According to the study, child molesters indicated "significantly more" exposure to pornography than rapists in adulthood.

According to the study "Pornography Use as a Risk Marker for an Aggressive Pattern of Behavior Among Sexually Reactive Children and Adolescents", sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), also referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, "may be more vulnerable and likely to experience damaging effects from pornography use." According to the study, the SRCAs who used pornography were "more likely" to display aggressive behaviors than their nonusing counterparts

So yes although it's not conclusive there is a huge body of evidence that perusual of pornography leads to increases and rape and child molesting.

Lumber Barber:
snip

I wanted to bring you in again because I found research that suggests that exposure to child pornography actually does lead to an increase in child molesting. The research is not fully conclusive but I haven't found any studies that suggest it would decrease sexual urges

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
Registered for a free account here