Precursor Games Founder Arrested For Child Porn

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

...well, I guess we won't be getting any sort of orphanages in the game...

TheRightToArmBears:

knight steel:
Are we talking about actual child porn or Lolicon because there is a difference [one uses real children the other drawing/cartoons] depending on the answer my opinion will change.

I agree with this, I don't want to jump the gun on calling the guy filth.

That said, it sucks for the rest of the guys at Precursor Games. I'm guessing as one of the founding members he probably had quite a large role, and they've been having enough trouble lately.

While I still wouldn't jump to conclusions someone brought up a very interesting point about why it probably not lolicon-I'll quote it so you can read it if you already haven't.

KoudelkaMorgan:
Generally if they are underage by a year or 2 they refer to it as "involving minors" or "underage individuals."

If its hentai they refer to them as "images depicting" etc.

When they say flat out "child porn" then you usually know they mean the kind that gets you shanked in jail.

Thanks for the good info hope you don't mind me quoting you ^_^.

knight steel:

TheRightToArmBears:

knight steel:
Are we talking about actual child porn or Lolicon because there is a difference [one uses real children the other drawing/cartoons] depending on the answer my opinion will change.

I agree with this, I don't want to jump the gun on calling the guy filth.

That said, it sucks for the rest of the guys at Precursor Games. I'm guessing as one of the founding members he probably had quite a large role, and they've been having enough trouble lately.

While I still wouldn't jump to conclusions someone brought up a very interesting point about why it probably not lolicon-I'll quote it so you can read it if you already haven't.

Yeah, I read that after I posted. My sympathy is severely lacking for the guy now.

Odd Odd and Odder!

You never know just how severe these cases are. I mean sometimes it is just 14 year olds spreading nude pics through their phone to others... yes that is also child porn. Crazy teenagers...

Oh well the police knows, the lawyers know.. and maybe a Jury one day will know.

wombat_of_war:
apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Many people have strange turn-ons. Some people have a fetish for shoes, long hair, leather, the same sex or octopuses. The problem with people who are turned on by kids is that they create incentives for child abuse, which of course is a very serious problem because children are vulnerable. But this aside, I find pedophiles no different than other people with unusual sexual preferences. It's something people don't have any control over either. You are what you are. This is why I think that cartoony or fake child pornography should not be illegal, and that instead of sending people to jail, they should be sent to psychiatric evaluation to see if they form an actual danger for children or not.

Dragonbums:
There is not accidental, "I did a single picture of CP and got caught" incidents in these cases.
If that were true, then I'm pretty sure 80% of users on websites like Furaffinity would find themselves in jail in a heartbeat.

Look at what the man is being accused of. Mainly viewing and downloading child porn. At that point, the man is guilty. That's it.

Why?

Because when they do investigations like this, they watch you. How long? Nobody knows. It could be months, or years. However they monitor your activity, and they compile data and evidence against you. Enough of it that they have a case against you.
Chance are, when they are knocking on your door telling you your under arrest for child porn, you can bet your ass you're already guilty. You are simply wasting your breath trying to defend yourself.
They just need the courts to make it official.

If people under the age of 18 take pictures of themselves naked, it's considered a breach of child pornography laws.
If he had a single picture of a 17 year old or childlike cartoon featuring nudity in some folder you could potentially reach from an internet location, it could possibly make him guilty of the charges leveled against him.
Technically, if I send you an unlabeled email containing one of these images, or send it to you in a text, you can be charged with storing child pornography. Possibly even accessing, because rhyme and reason goes out the window in so many of these cases.

Sure, they watch some people for a long time. However, some people they maybe watch for one second, if they can prove they have the "one image of CP" on any kind of storage.

Well if they did a warranted search on him then it's probably very bad. Hundreds of people probably look at CP every-day, whether intentionally or accidentally; but only a quarter of them will get arrested because they're either repeat offenders or distributors, which seems like the person in this article. I don't have any sympathy for a man who looks at CP intentionally, I accidentally saw an image once (on 4chan, reported immediately and hid the thread and got the fuck outta there) and it was absolutely disgusting, so if that's the sort of thing he's been watching and saving onto his computer he deserves anything that comes to him.

IanDavis:
On its official forum, Precursor CEO Paul Caporicci commented: "Having just learned of these disturbing charges today and based on the serious nature of them, Ken McCulloch is no longer affiliated in any way with Precursor Games." His employee profile has since been pulled from the website.

This is what surprises me the most actually.

Last January a guy working for the same company as I was arrested for child abuse, he was accused of abusing several girls aged between 8 and 13 over the course of 10+ years, he confessed to 2 of them.
He was convicted but went on to appeal the verdict, so the company still wasn't allowed to fire him. We went bankrupt in May, he was still on the payroll then.

The point being you can't fire someone until the final verdict has been pronounced here. Let alone fire him on the basis of a suspicion.

wombat_of_war:
apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Better than throwing them under the bus before they are convicted.

Also being a pedophile isnt a crime, abusing a child is a crime, pedophelia is a sexual orientation no different than being straight, gay, or bisexual.

Most pedophiles are able to control their urges and are never a harm to anyone, some cant though and they are called child abusers.

image

Edit: As for the OT, it wouldnt surprise me if this was some group of retards arresting him over lolicon or some shit.

Phrozenflame500:
Well, that sucks I guess. Too bad his career's already ruined because of trial by media. Hopefully the company can get their shit together without him.

Also watch this thread turn into a "Whether Lolicon is Child Porn" debate somehow.

There shouldn't be, because it isn't. Period, end of discussion.

OT: If it was lolicon, it just shows how fearful people are about sex thanks to America being hyper-religious.

If it was actual child porn, lock him up, throw away the key.

chikusho:

Dragonbums:
There is not accidental, "I did a single picture of CP and got caught" incidents in these cases.
If that were true, then I'm pretty sure 80% of users on websites like Furaffinity would find themselves in jail in a heartbeat.

Look at what the man is being accused of. Mainly viewing and downloading child porn. At that point, the man is guilty. That's it.

Why?

Because when they do investigations like this, they watch you. How long? Nobody knows. It could be months, or years. However they monitor your activity, and they compile data and evidence against you. Enough of it that they have a case against you.
Chance are, when they are knocking on your door telling you your under arrest for child porn, you can bet your ass you're already guilty. You are simply wasting your breath trying to defend yourself.
They just need the courts to make it official.

If people under the age of 18 take pictures of themselves naked, it's considered a breach of child pornography laws.
If he had a single picture of a 17 year old or childlike cartoon featuring nudity in some folder you could potentially reach from an internet location, it could possibly make him guilty of the charges leveled against him.
Technically, if I send you an unlabeled email containing one of these images, or send it to you in a text, you can be charged with storing child pornography. Possibly even accessing, because rhyme and reason goes out the window in so many of these cases.

Sure, they watch some people for a long time. However, some people they maybe watch for one second, if they can prove they have the "one image of CP" on any kind of storage.

In those cases it usually involves someone reporting them to the police, or it being spread around so much that the police catch wind of it and get the person in question arrested. However if the police are investigating you in private, without any tip off from a third party source, they keep tabs on you until they know without a doubt that you are into CP.

Dragonbums:

In those cases it usually involves someone reporting them to the police, or it being spread around so much that the police catch wind of it and get the person in question arrested. However if the police are investigating you in private, without any tip off from a third party source, they keep tabs on you until they know without a doubt that you are into CP.

No, they check you out until they suspect they can arrest you on any kind of CP related charge.
Having a single record of a single image that could possibly be considered evidence based on previous interpretations of the law (such as a nude drawing of a childlike person).

Abomination:
Awesome, trial by media again.

"Charged" doesn't mean "convicted" guys. But hey, who cares if someone is innocent or not? Just get accused of rape or child pornography possession and you might as well kiss your life goodbye.

Ummmmm...I don't think they would have arrested him after a warranted search of his house if they didn't find anything to arrest him for...

Edit: As for everyone saying "It might have been lolicon hentai which isn't real child porn, it's just drawings". Be that as it may, in the eyes of the law (at least here in the US) some states don't differentiate. Same thing with drawings of other illegal sexual stuff such as bestiality. Doesn't matter what YOUR morals say what counts and what doesn't, if lolicon is deemed illegal...then it's illegal. Kinda like how you can say there's nothing wrong with smoking pot all day long, but in the eyes of most states: it's still illegal.

That said, I don't know Canadian law, I don't know if lolicon is considered illegal, just saying that your morals and beliefs don't matter in terms of the law: illegal stuff is illegal.

Edit Edit: Acquittal by Forum-Goer Excuse (it was probably lolicon, so it's not that big of a deal) is just as foolish as Trial by Media. You don't know that it was only lolicon, just as the media doesn't know that it was true child porn. How about we all shut up and wait for the facts to come out?

RJ 17:

Abomination:
Awesome, trial by media again.

"Charged" doesn't mean "convicted" guys. But hey, who cares if someone is innocent or not? Just get accused of rape or child pornography possession and you might as well kiss your life goodbye.

Ummmmm...I don't think they would have arrested him after a warranted search of his house if they didn't find anything to arrest him for...

Edit: As for everyone saying "It might have been lolicon hentai which isn't real child porn, it's just drawings". Be that as it may, in the eyes of the law (at least here in the US) some states don't differentiate. Same thing with drawings of other illegal sexual stuff such as bestiality. Doesn't matter what YOUR morals say what counts and what doesn't, if lolicon is deemed illegal...then it's illegal. Kinda like how you can say there's nothing wrong with smoking pot all day long, but in the eyes of most states: it's still illegal.

That said, I don't know Canadian law, I don't know if lolicon is considered illegal, just saying that your morals and beliefs don't matter in terms of the law: illegal stuff is illegal.

Edit Edit: Acquittal by Forum-Goer Excuse (it was probably lolicon, so it's not that big of a deal) is just as foolish as Trial by Media. You don't know that it was only lolicon, just as the media doesn't know that it was true child porn. How about we all shut up and wait for the facts to come out?

I'm not saying it's lolicon or not, I'm just saying that the whole situation shouldn't have been brought to light until a verdict is reached.

The very idea that arrest = guilty spits in the very face of due process.

Arrests are carried out due to suspicion, not guilt.

RJ 17:

Edit Edit: Acquittal by Forum-Goer Excuse (it was probably lolicon, so it's not that big of a deal) is just as foolish as Trial by Media. You don't know that it was only lolicon, just as the media doesn't know that it was true child porn. How about we all shut up and wait for the facts to come out?

Funny, Aquittal by forum-goer has never ruined someones life before as far as I have seen. if I am wrong please correct me on that point. If not I would hardly call it 'just as foolish' Unless you are just looking for a reason that the mods will let you insult fellow forum goers.

Abomination:
Snip.

Arrests are made when evidence is found to support the suspicion. Beyond that, most companies have a "Moral Clause" that must be adhered to, stating that if you're even arrested you can be terminated.

Will it suck hard-core if it turns out this was some kind of misunderstanding that cost this guy his job and reputation? Definitely. Just saying that after they searched his place, there wouldn't be a reason to arrest him if they didn't find what the warrant said they were searching for.

Desert Punk:

RJ 17:

Edit Edit: Acquittal by Forum-Goer Excuse (it was probably lolicon, so it's not that big of a deal) is just as foolish as Trial by Media. You don't know that it was only lolicon, just as the media doesn't know that it was true child porn. How about we all shut up and wait for the facts to come out?

Funny, Aquittal by forum-goer has never ruined someones life before as far as I have seen. if I am wrong please correct me on that point. If not I would hardly call it 'just as foolish' Unless you are just looking for a reason that the mods will let you insult fellow forum goers.

True, your life can't be ruined by Acquittal by Forum-Goer, but that's not the point I was trying to make by saying "it's just as foolish". I'm saying that we here on the forum don't have the details anymore than the media does at this point, so NO ONE - not us, nor the media - should be jumping to conclusions. Could it turn out that this guy just had some lolicon drawings on his computer? Sure. Though as I said in my first response, that might not matter if the law still says that's illegal. But besides that, it could just as easily turn out that he has child-rape porn all over his computer and he truly is a sick, twisted individual.

The facts aren't known yet, so going back to the statement that you quoted: "How about we all shut up and wait for the facts to come out?"

wombat_of_war:
apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Yeah, really.

The guy gets accused of child pornography, and the first conversation here begins finding excuses to his behavior (lolicon, really?), or blaming "trial by media".

I wonder where all the white knights are hiding that adamantly talk about feminism all the time so girls will pay attention to them.

Absolutionis:

wombat_of_war:
apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Yeah, really.

The guy gets accused of child pornography, and the first conversation here begins finding excuses to his behavior (lolicon, really?), or blaming "trial by media".

I wonder where all the white knights are hiding that adamantly talk about feminism all the time so girls will pay attention to them.

You just said he was accused of a crime.

And you're calling names to anyone who doesn't want to immediately string him up? Way to be progressive! After all, immediately someone is accused of a crime they should be given the harshest punishment for that crime possible! Screw trials, evidence, etc!

As for the company: How about we wait for the verdict of the crime before ruining a persons life and firing him? Just a thought!

Abomination:

RJ 17:

Abomination:
Awesome, trial by media again.

"Charged" doesn't mean "convicted" guys. But hey, who cares if someone is innocent or not? Just get accused of rape or child pornography possession and you might as well kiss your life goodbye.

Ummmmm...I don't think they would have arrested him after a warranted search of his house if they didn't find anything to arrest him for...

Edit: As for everyone saying "It might have been lolicon hentai which isn't real child porn, it's just drawings". Be that as it may, in the eyes of the law (at least here in the US) some states don't differentiate. Same thing with drawings of other illegal sexual stuff such as bestiality. Doesn't matter what YOUR morals say what counts and what doesn't, if lolicon is deemed illegal...then it's illegal. Kinda like how you can say there's nothing wrong with smoking pot all day long, but in the eyes of most states: it's still illegal.

That said, I don't know Canadian law, I don't know if lolicon is considered illegal, just saying that your morals and beliefs don't matter in terms of the law: illegal stuff is illegal.

Edit Edit: Acquittal by Forum-Goer Excuse (it was probably lolicon, so it's not that big of a deal) is just as foolish as Trial by Media. You don't know that it was only lolicon, just as the media doesn't know that it was true child porn. How about we all shut up and wait for the facts to come out?

I'm not saying it's lolicon or not, I'm just saying that the whole situation shouldn't have been brought to light until a verdict is reached.

The very idea that arrest = guilty spits in the very face of due process.

Arrests are carried out due to suspicion, not guilt.

It wasn't kept secret because that's not how our society works. Our justice system is open, freely viewable by the public, in order to maintain a certain standard for the police and the courts set by the public. If these proceedings were secret, there would be no accountability.

And of course being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty, but police aren't even allowed to arrest someone unless they have a lot of damn good evidence. Because if someone is arrested on false charges, then everyone looks bad. The police look bad for making a bad call, the prosecutors look bad for backing the play, and the judges look bad for issuing the warrant. Obviously mistakes happen, and bad police work exists, but nine times out of ten, if someone is arrested, it's not unless the police are certain they have something.

Mcoffey:
It wasn't kept secret because that's not how our society works. Our justice system is open, freely viewable by the public, in order to maintain a certain standard for the police and the courts set by the public. If these proceedings were secret, there would be no accountability.

And of course being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty, but police aren't even allowed to arrest someone unless they have a lot of damn good evidence. Because if someone is arrested on false charges, then everyone looks bad. The police look bad for making a bad call, the prosecutors look bad for backing the play, and the judges look bad for issuing the warrant. Obviously mistakes happen, and bad police work exists, but nine times out of ten, if someone is arrested, it's not unless the police are certain they have something.

Society is supposed to work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. But, as usual, when rape or pedophilia are involved we seem to forget that particular concept in exchange for pitchforks and torches.

This individual should have been given name suppression - all suspects should have name suppression.

Edit: I also find it somewhat ironic that some people who are all keen to string this individual up find serious issue with the recent telecommunication privacy debacle going on in the United States.

Abomination:

Mcoffey:
It wasn't kept secret because that's not how our society works. Our justice system is open, freely viewable by the public, in order to maintain a certain standard for the police and the courts set by the public. If these proceedings were secret, there would be no accountability.

And of course being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty, but police aren't even allowed to arrest someone unless they have a lot of damn good evidence. Because if someone is arrested on false charges, then everyone looks bad. The police look bad for making a bad call, the prosecutors look bad for backing the play, and the judges look bad for issuing the warrant. Obviously mistakes happen, and bad police work exists, but nine times out of ten, if someone is arrested, it's not unless the police are certain they have something.

Society is supposed to work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. But, as usual, when rape or pedophilia are involved we seem to forget that particular concept in exchange for pitchforks and torches.

This individual should have been given name suppression - all suspects should have name suppression.

The courts are a system of the people. Kinda hard to involve them when they don't who's on trial.

And I don't know if I missed anything, but I haven't seen a single person say he's guilty. I've seen a few people say if he's guilty, he should be punished. I'm not seeing any pitchforks or torches, just people commenting on what the evidence and a trial may or may not prove.

Look at it this way; if they police did screw up, he'd be a victim. His story of how his career and reputation could spread, making him an icon for police incompetence. Society would hold them accountable and the people responsible would be punished for it. He could sue for damages, and continue his life. None of that happens if his story and identity are suppressed. That is why it's all public. The police are on trial just as much as the suspect.

Desert Punk:

wombat_of_war:
apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Better than throwing them under the bus before they are convicted.

Also being a pedophile isnt a crime, abusing a child is a crime, pedophelia is a sexual orientation no different than being straight, gay, or bisexual.

Most pedophiles are able to control their urges and are never a harm to anyone, some cant though and they are called child abusers.

Edit: As for the OT, it wouldnt surprise me if this was some group of retards arresting him over lolicon or some shit.

While none of us know what's what and what will eventually stick, I'd like to chime in here real quick.

I find myself unwilling to accept that pedophilia is 'a sexual orientation no different than' any other. Whatever happens between consenting adults is one thing. When someone faps over images, thoughts, souvenirs of or with actual underage children present, party's pretty much over and I am absolutely unable to even want to generate any compassion or sympathy.

Dragonbums:
There is not accidental, "I did a single picture of CP and got caught" incidents in these cases.
If that were true, then I'm pretty sure 80% of users on websites like Furaffinity would find themselves in jail in a heartbeat.

Look at what the man is being accused of. Mainly viewing and downloading child porn. At that point, the man is guilty. That's it.

Why?

Because when they do investigations like this, they watch you. How long? Nobody knows. It could be months, or years. However they monitor your activity, and they compile data and evidence against you. Enough of it that they have a case against you.
Chance are, when they are knocking on your door telling you your under arrest for child porn, you can bet your ass you're already guilty. You are simply wasting your breath trying to defend yourself.
They just need the courts to make it official.

but the difference between cub art and lolicon is there is no way a prosecutor could argue that cub art directly harms various cubs.

It's like saying me looking at a picture of a toaster would automatically make me want to rape it. One, that's stupid, toasters can get hot and I dont feel like having second degree burns anywhere, and two, it was asking for it, with how it would pop up that toast....

but yea, nearly everyone who had been to 4chan even would be prison bitches right now if the police came after you for just one picture.

Hell, I remember one night a long long time ago where AT kept spamming the hell out of /b/, AT or AnonTalk was basically the 12chan of forums.

But I'm not sure if its the same way in Canada, but simply viewing an image does not immediately create guilt, much like shock images, you probably weren't looking for themacuser.jpg, but damn, it's there, and you are all out of eye bleach.

Instead, at least in New York if I remember right, the prosecutor has to prove the suspect knowingly downloaded it, which could be accomplished by looking at the date created, date modified, date last used/opened.

Sad to say, but I dont think he was looking up pictures, can across one that was very questionable, and the RCMP burst down his door with their beavers. Something tells me there was more than just one picture, and it might of been something worthy of being on an external drive.

Mcoffey:
Look at it this way; if they police did screw up, he'd be a victim. His story of how his career and reputation could spread, making him an icon for police incompetence. Society would hold them accountable and the people responsible would be punished for it. He could sue for damages, and continue his life. None of that happens if his story and identity are suppressed. That is why it's all public. The police are on trial just as much as the suspect.

So why not just suppress the name so nobody gets hurt?

Why do we always have to have somebody suffer?

Edit: ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with a crime that might actually not even have a victim.

Headdrivehardscrew:

Desert Punk:

wombat_of_war:
apparently its fashionable and cool to find a way to defend pedophiles these days

Better than throwing them under the bus before they are convicted.

Also being a pedophile isnt a crime, abusing a child is a crime, pedophelia is a sexual orientation no different than being straight, gay, or bisexual.

Most pedophiles are able to control their urges and are never a harm to anyone, some cant though and they are called child abusers.

Edit: As for the OT, it wouldnt surprise me if this was some group of retards arresting him over lolicon or some shit.

While none of us know what's what and what will eventually stick, I'd like to chime in here real quick.

I find myself unwilling to accept that pedophilia is 'a sexual orientation no different than' any other. Whatever happens between consenting adults is one thing. When someone faps over images, thoughts, souvenirs of or with actual underage children present, party's pretty much over and I am absolutely unable to even want to generate any compassion or sympathy.

Then you dont understand what I am talking about.

When I say its no different than Straight/Bi/Gay I mean that a person is born that way. It is not a choice or something that they can flip on and off ny more than a gay person can flip off being gay.

The best they can do is control it. I never said it was socially acceptable, or that abusing children SHOULD be socially acceptable. By all means loathe and hate those that hurt and abuse children to sate themselves... But if you are unable to find compassion or sympathy for someone who was born and suffer with such a condition but never hurts anyone, that speaks more to you as a person than anything else.

Abomination:

Mcoffey:
Look at it this way; if they police did screw up, he'd be a victim. His story of how his career and reputation could spread, making him an icon for police incompetence. Society would hold them accountable and the people responsible would be punished for it. He could sue for damages, and continue his life. None of that happens if his story and identity are suppressed. That is why it's all public. The police are on trial just as much as the suspect.

So why not just suppress the name so nobody gets hurt?

Why do we always have to have somebody suffer?

Edit: ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with a crime that might actually not even have a victim.

By victimless crime I assume you mean if it's hentai. We don't suppress the name because it's a public record. The names of everyone involved are put on the record, even the person writing the record. By making everything public, we significantly reduce the chances of the law being mishandled or manipulated, making everyone accountable for their actions. There are drawbacks, in the unfortunate case of someone's reputation accidentally damaged, but even then, those that screwed up are held accountable by the same system, which then is required to make some kind of reparations to the wronged party. It's not perfect, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

dragongit:

Take it as you will. It is just simply American Law. In some countries you are declared an adult at earlier ages. In Iraq and Iran adulthood is 15 years old. Even in Scotland you can be declared mature at 16. The majority set the age at 18 however. If this includes the act of having sex I can't say for sure, but it's the age set in the US and its how the law is set. No exceptions.

I can only think of America where the age of consent is 18.

Most of Europe is 16 and under.

Still, I think a fully grown adult having sex with people under like 20 is frowned uppon.

Mcoffey:

Abomination:

Mcoffey:
Look at it this way; if they police did screw up, he'd be a victim. His story of how his career and reputation could spread, making him an icon for police incompetence. Society would hold them accountable and the people responsible would be punished for it. He could sue for damages, and continue his life. None of that happens if his story and identity are suppressed. That is why it's all public. The police are on trial just as much as the suspect.

So why not just suppress the name so nobody gets hurt?

Why do we always have to have somebody suffer?

Edit: ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with a crime that might actually not even have a victim.

By victimless crime I assume you mean if it's hentai. We don't suppress the name because it's a public record. The names of everyone involved are put on the record, even the person writing the record. By making everything public, we significantly reduce the chances of the law being mishandled or manipulated, making everyone accountable for their actions. There are drawbacks, in the unfortunate case of someone's reputation accidentally damaged, but even then, those that screwed up are held accountable by the same system, which then is required to make some kind of reparations to the wronged party. It's not perfect, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

I don't think you understand how name suppression works. It doesn't mean the entire crime goes unreported and no records are kept, it just means that the court is under orders to not release the identity of the accused unless there is a guilty verdict.

Akisa:

dragongit:

knight steel:

I know in they eyes of the law it doesn't matter [which personally I think is stupid saying that having sex a 14 year old who wanted it is just as bad as fucking a 5 year old is ridiculous] I'm just talking about my personal thought on the matter which are much more flexible than that of the government's.

Take it as you will. It is just simply American Law. In some countries you are declared an adult at earlier ages. In Iraq and Iran adulthood is 15 years old. Even in Scotland you can be declared mature at 16. The majority set the age at 18 however. If this includes the act of having sex I can't say for sure, but it's the age set in the US and its how the law is set. No exceptions.

Actually the age of consent in the USA is based on the state you're in. While a few states (12) have 18 as the age of consent, most states (30) have a lower age requirement like in Georgia, Hawaii, New Jersey, etc. In the case of Canada the age is 16.

Some states, like mine which is PA, have very vague age of consent laws. They claim it's 17, but it's really 18. But if an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old, and the 17 year olds parents object to it, they can claim the 18 year old "Corrupted a Minor" and get arrested.

RJ 17:

That said, I don't know Canadian law, I don't know if lolicon is considered illegal, just saying that your morals and beliefs don't matter in terms of the law: illegal stuff is illegal.

In Canada, drawn depictions are considered as serious as real child porn. You'll often hear stories of people coming to Canada from other countries where child porn laws extend only to real depictions of it but drawn is either nebulous or all right, and said people often finding themselves in trouble with the law because they indeed have the drawn depictions, either in physical format or on their computer. Oddly enough, this extends also to written material that may not even depict any pictures, at least if the wikipedia article on the matter is too be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Canada.

The exception to this, or rather something that differentiates what is and isn't child porn, is if the material in question serves an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical purpose, which is why something like Alan Moore' Lost Girls, which does depict images of children having sex (drawn of course) is allowed in Canada, because on it's evaluation it was determined that the book as a whole held artistic value and thus was not considered child porn (although stores still don't openly stock it; you usually have to go to the store front and ask if they have it in stock)

As for this particular case, I don't think the guy has a chance. Regardless of if it was drawn or real, both are still very much illegal in Canada and can earn serious jail time. Maybe he is innocent and this was an honest misunderstanding on whoever's part, but at the same time I'm not holding my breath. Not saying he is definitely guilty, just that I don't think there's much he can do to get out of this.

As for if it was real or drawn, as another poster pointed out, the language of the article suggests that it was in fact not drawn, and was most likely the real stuff. I guess we'll know more though as the story continues

Abomination:

Mcoffey:

Abomination:
So why not just suppress the name so nobody gets hurt?

Why do we always have to have somebody suffer?

Edit: ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with a crime that might actually not even have a victim.

By victimless crime I assume you mean if it's hentai. We don't suppress the name because it's a public record. The names of everyone involved are put on the record, even the person writing the record. By making everything public, we significantly reduce the chances of the law being mishandled or manipulated, making everyone accountable for their actions. There are drawbacks, in the unfortunate case of someone's reputation accidentally damaged, but even then, those that screwed up are held accountable by the same system, which then is required to make some kind of reparations to the wronged party. It's not perfect, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

I don't think you understand how name suppression works. It doesn't mean the entire crime goes unreported and no records are kept, it just means that the court is under orders to not release the identity of the accused unless there is a guilty verdict.

In that case you're also forgetting the potential for witnesses or other victims to come forward. There are countless cases of a person being arrested, only to have people come forward and report being victimized in one way or another, now that the potential for reprisal from the accused is gone. If they never find out about it, the police never find out about them, the perpetrator might go free and continue their crimes. There are also incidents of people coming forward who can corroborate the accused's story who wouldn't have known otherwise.
Again, it's not a flawless system, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

dragongit:

knight steel:

dragongit:
Well in that case:
Did the children consent?[yes I know that they don't have the knowledge needed ect ect but I'm still curious on if they were willing]
And how old are we speaking, toddlers or young teens?
These things will affect my judgment but so far it's not looking good for him.

I don't think it matters. in the United States any person under the age of 17 is not legally declared an adult, and thus are dubbed to not be legally able to "consent" to sexual acts with anyone. We hear of teens having sex all the time, but it's harder to pin the blame on two teens then say, one teen, and an adult. If this is legitimately the case then this company had one hell of a dark cloud cast upon it.

I know in they eyes of the law it doesn't matter [which personally I think is stupid saying that having sex a 14 year old who wanted it is just as bad as fucking a 5 year old is ridiculous] I'm just talking about my personal thought on the matter which are much more flexible than that of the government's.

age of cncent is a different thing. in sweden it is 15....

dragongit:

knight steel:

Antari:
This was just one arrest of many involving a country wide investigation which saw about 22 people being arrested. Two children were saved during the search and seizures. Something tells me this wasn't just anime.

Well in that case:
Did the children consent?[yes I know that they don't have the knowledge needed ect ect but I'm still curious on if they were willing]
And how old are we speaking, toddlers or young teens?
These things will affect my judgment but so far it's not looking good for him.

I don't think it matters. in the United States any person under the age of 17 is not legally declared an adult, and thus are dubbed to not be legally able to "consent" to sexual acts with anyone. We hear of teens having sex all the time, but it's harder to pin the blame on two teens then say, one teen, and an adult. If this is legitimately the case then this company had one hell of a dark cloud cast upon it.

This happened in Canada. Our age of consent is 16.

Eternal_Lament:

RJ 17:

That said, I don't know Canadian law, I don't know if lolicon is considered illegal, just saying that your morals and beliefs don't matter in terms of the law: illegal stuff is illegal.

In Canada, drawn depictions are considered as serious as real child porn. You'll often hear stories of people coming to Canada from other countries where child porn laws extend only to real depictions of it but drawn is either nebulous or all right, and said people often finding themselves in trouble with the law because they indeed have the drawn depictions, either in physical format or on their computer. Oddly enough, this extends also to written material that may not even depict any pictures, at least if the wikipedia article on the matter is too be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Canada.

The exception to this, or rather something that differentiates what is and isn't child porn, is if the material in question serves an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical purpose, which is why something like Alan Moore' Lost Girls, which does depict images of children having sex (drawn of course) is allowed in Canada, because on it's evaluation it was determined that the book as a whole held artistic value and thus was not considered child porn (although stores still don't openly stock it; you usually have to go to the store front and ask if they have it in stock)

As for this particular case, I don't think the guy has a chance. Regardless of if it was drawn or real, both are still very much illegal in Canada and can earn serious jail time. Maybe he is innocent and this was an honest misunderstanding on whoever's part, but at the same time I'm not holding my breath. Not saying he is definitely guilty, just that I don't think there's much he can do to get out of this.

As for if it was real or drawn, as another poster pointed out, the language of the article suggests that it was in fact not drawn, and was most likely the real stuff. I guess we'll know more though as the story continues

Thank you very much for the post, as you better touched on the points that I was trying to make than I could.

Mainly I've been trying to say that - after a warranted search - the guy wouldn't have been arrested if they didn't find anything that they were looking for as described by the warrant. But in the end, we should all wait for the details to come out before we make our conclusions. Will the media define him as "definitely guilty!" before the trial is over? Certainly. But just as it's silly for them to do that, it's silly for us to do the opposite and defend him as "definitely innocent!" before the trial is over when we don't have all the facts either.

So again, I'd urge my fellow escapists to take on a "wait and see" mentality before jumping onto one boat or the other.

I'm going to reserve my judgement till more details are revealed about this case. If this is actual child pornography, I'd let justice get its way, as letting these images circulate would encourage the selfish abuse of children for the sake of someone's desires.

But if this is another case of drawings and artificial imagery being considered as child pornography, I think Canadian lawmakers has some problems distinguishing reality and fiction. If you ban these kinds of fetishists from acting upon their desires, and yet eliminate the only legal ways for them to express their desires, what alternatives do they have? There's currently no way to remove fetishes, and they're hardwired into the human body after all.

But again, I'll wait till we find out more about this case.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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