From the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund site:

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has signed on as a special consultant to the defense of Chistopher Handley, an Iowa collector who faces up to 20 years in prison for possession of manga.  The Fund adds its First Amendment expertise to the case, managed by United Defense Group's Eric Chase, and will also be providing monetary support towards obtaining expert witnesses.

Handley, 38, faces penalties under the PROTECT Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1466A) for allegedly possessing manga that the government claims to be obscene.  The government alleges that the material includes drawings that they claim appear to be depictions of minors engaging in sexual conduct.  No photographic content is at issue in Handley's case.

"Handley's case is deeply troubling, because the government is prosecuting a private collector for possession of art," says CBLDF Executive Director Charles Brownstein.  "In the past, CBLDF has had to defend the First Amendment rights of retailers and artists, but never before have we experienced the Federal Government attempting to strip a citizen of his freedom because he owned comic books. We will bring our best resources to bear in aiding Mr. Handley's counsel as they defend his freedom and the First Amendment rights of every art-loving citizen in this country."

May want to review the actual court doc before jumping on any bandwagons...
http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5/$FILE/Handley.pdf

not like he's being pounded for his Hello Kitty collection

I have to agree with the court. Child pornography is child pornography whether in art form, photographic or not.

Defendant's kind of a moron, his defense seems to be "But but but it's not illegal!"  He needs to read up on current law:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108OB5egm::

Except it still sets a precedent with regards to non-photographic images - especially when it covers anime/manga.  By definition, the stylized characters are almost always possible (probable?) to consider as depicting "kids".

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to actual kiddie porn, the makers and possessors deserve to be taken out and skinned alive one cell at a time down to the bone - but this can still set up a bad chilling effect precedent.  Who really wants some faceless WASP being able to decide if the images they possess, ones they created solely in a computer, are by their definition "obscene", and they face a felony charge for the privilege?

You get asked if you've ever been arrested, and you have to say yes because it was something like this, and it was for "possession of obscene material", you're screwed - even if it was tossed out of court because the images in question were half-finished renders of figures you haven't put clothes to yet ... Not good.

Well you don't have to comply with Federal law if you're willing to accept the consequences ^^  Stand up for your right to collect drawings of little girls raped by animals!  Note, defendant is not being charged with POSSESSING the stuff, but of continuing to BUY the stuff after it's been outlawed.

Personally I'm a big fan of the current set of law, and incidentally this is NOT a precedent, Dwight Whorley was the first person convicted under this act.  Ignore Federal law at yer peril folks.

Interesting. I live in Iowa.

-Sarah

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :)

The government picking cases that no-one will object to in order to set things up for future use isn't exactly novel - all you have to do is look at the UK to see how "mission creep" turns what looks to be great at the start into something unhealthy later :P

So it's a little disingenuous to make it about possessing drawings of kiddie bestiality porn.  It's about someone else's morality judging what's acceptable for you in the privacy of your own computer that hasn't harmed, and will not, harm anyone else.

(The argument that such images, even if weird and sick, encourages actual child abuse is about as valid as the claims computer games or TV make kids shoot up their schools - the same connection to reality as political campaign promises)

When you surrender a piece of a right based solely on something so subjective, you can say goodbye to that right altogether because it's a virtual certainty someone, somewhere, will object to something you do that you consider harmless.

Consider the Danish cartoons ... They managed to offend about one and a half billion people, but subjectively, very few people saw the offence claimed - Everyone was jumping on the bandwagon claiming "freedom of speech".

(and Islam is aniconic, so half the artwork here probably qualifies as offensive to many Muslims)

Is Freedom Of Speech really "Freedom of speech only in those things we agree with" ... and if so, who is the "we"?  What do you do if you end up not being part of the "we"? 

You've got a pic on your page (a rather good one, too!) of two women - I think it's Tango? - what would you do if some tinpot dictator in authority who objects to anything implying lesbians decides it's obscene and went after you?

You might think that unlikely, and it probably is.  It shouldn't have to be "probably" or "unlikely", though.

Which probably means there'll be no "real" answer - the kiddie pornographers will use it to validate their crap, which will be used to justify limiting the rights involved, but no-one can say those limits won't be used in the future for things that aren't as hot-button offensive to the community at large.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, I'm coming at this from having escaped the totalitarian democracy the UK has become, and know first hand how the authorities make such reasonable suggestions of limitations then once the "fix" is in suddenly expand it to hit everyone else they find objectionable.

Thanks for the link about Whorley, I didn't know about it, and retract the statement this case sets precedent.  I'll also grant you I need to read more on this particular case to get a better handle on it.

Quote - So it's a little disingenuous to make it about possessing drawings of kiddie bestiality porn.

Once again, that's not what Handley is being charged with - it's BUYING the stuff after it's been outlawed.

Quote - You've got a pic on your page (a rather good one, too!) of two women - I think it's Tango? - what would you do if some tinpot dictator in authority who objects to anything implying lesbians decides it's obscene and went after you?

I'd either comply with the law or accept the consequences - I wouldn't stick my fingers in my ears and yell "NA NA NA NA NA" like Handley seems to be doing.  Be aware that "some tinpot dictator" is not the reason for the PROTECT Act being passed, it's consistent and heavy demand from lawmakers' constituents.  If there were consistent and heavy demand for the opposite, i.e. the free right to collect and acquire images of whatever category of children being raped by animals, it is likely this law would not have passed.

Freedom of Speech granted by the First Amendment is not a blank check, there are MANY limits on what information can be expressed, where it can be expressed and how it can be expressed.

I must admit the title got me to read this thread...and I haven't followed any of links...but "children being raped by animals"  seems to be some of the content in question and that really does cross the line...that isn't art.  And I am not bringing up the "what is art" conversation.....

--Rebekah--

I agree sixus.....totally.

Unintended consequences and slippery slopes.

First they come for........

Quote - I must admit the title got me to read this thread...and I haven't followed any of links...but "children being raped by animals"  seems to be some of the content in question and that really does cross the line...that isn't art.  And I am not bringing up the "what is art" conversation.....

--Rebekah--

I agree. Bekkah thanks for not bringing up the whole "what is art" arguement, by mentioning it in the first place though. :lol:

This is not directed at you Bekkah, but speaking of slippery slopes and unintended consequences though.

This arguement that this is just someone else trying to force their morality on others is IMHO nothing more than an attempt at saying anything should go. When clearly no, anything should not go.

Our society has every right to say what is acceptable and what is not acceptable behaviour by it's members. Otherwise we have nothing but anarchy and chaos.

This individual clearly chose to ignore the law wich prohibits possession of such materials, and they got dinged for it.

"I didn't know" otherwise known as what I call the "ignorant defense" is not a legal defense for breaking the law. It never has been. And it shouldn't be in this case either.

Jumps off the bandwagon****

I think the law did the safe thing by charging the guy.  Better safe than sorry.  I mean kids being raped is pretty messed up, animals or not.

While I agree that people who produce photos or movies of kids being harmed & the people who buy them should be tortured slowly until they die, the point is there were NO kids involved at any point in the making of those pictures.

Better safe than sorry is NOT the way to go, I'm pretty sure some of our American friends reading this thread own guns, now surely it would be better safe than sorry to arrest them all in case they go on a killing spree, wouldn't it?

Yes it is exactly the same thing.

Apples and Oranges dude.

Apples & potatoes more like. ;)

I'll give you that.  :)

It's fictional cartoons people!

As a survivor of child sexual abuse, let me say that I'd rather someone get off on fictional,  hand drawn cartoons or 3D graphic images  than with a real child!

Quote - Defendant states all of the images at issue in counts one through five are drawings from
Japanese anime comic books that were produced either by hand or by computer, and the
drawings depict fictional characters. Defendant states there is no indication the drawings
represent or refer to any actual persons, either minor or adult, and the drawings are purely a
product of the artist’s imagination.

Yes, some of the images being referred to are well, strange IMHO, but I have to agree with the Defendent's statement above.

Since when is having an imagination against the law?

You can dislike the law, you can think it is a dumb and stinky law, but you either follow it or accept the consequences.  If you want the law changed, lobby for it (write your lawmakers).  Or spend a little time in prison like Mr. Handley there is going to be doing.

Personally I'm not a fan of images (photo, painted, cartoon or otherwise) of little kids being raped by animals, so this guy can go down the toilet and it's all good with me.

If only people with closed minds could have closed mouths.

 Well I don't agree with child porn but I think the problem is western culture is becoming more and more closed minded.  The more you hide, push under and force underground the more you are likely to create more and larger problems.

 Personally I feel free speech and the USA are two things that are mutually exclusive. From what I can tell the US especially the government like to subvert and opress free speech. It's starting to get that way here in the UK as well.

 I review manga and anime for a science fiction and fantasy website and to be honest I think the japanese on the whole have a lot healthier approach to sex in general than here in the west.

 I  can't get my head round the whole thing of beauty pageants - dressing up small girls to look like adults just doesn't sit right with me but if thats what people or rather parents want to do then thats up to them. I think there are things like this in the mainstream that I think are as equally dodgy.

 I'll shut up now cause I'll problably go to far if I carry on.  I've probably upset a few people and I'm sorry if anything I've said offends anyone. I just can't abide closed minded thinking. 

Quote - If only people with closed minds could have closed mouths.

A funny thing for a free speech advocate to say...  If your opinion does not match mine then you shouldn't be able to talk?  Heh!

If only people with closed minds could have closed mouths.

it's 'metaphoric' . It's a famous quote - can't remember off the top of my head who said it - someone out there may know. I think it can be true sometimes that those who have a narrow view point are often the most vocal. I just think its worrying when a few can dictate what the many can or can't say or do or even feel. Everyone is entitled to a view point. Its the imposing of judgement that I get uncomfortable about.

 Yes you need to have laws and hopefully a society can form sensible laws and rules. It's when people forceably impose there moral view point, often with a false sence of justice, that I begin to worry.

it's one of the things that's kept me from looking at manga (other than the fact they have kinks that I'd never even imagine...sheesh). There's something about children with adult attributes that just seems innapropriate. But I'm an old geezer...;)

Quote - I think it can be true sometimes that those who have a narrow view point are often the most vocal. I just think its worrying when a few can dictate what the many can or can't say or do or even feel.

"Few" and "narrow view point" are perhaps not as accurate as you might like when categorizing people who think images of animals raping children should not be bought and sold, but I could be mistaken.  Also "the many" when it comes to those who desire to buy and sell the same.  I'm all for porn - peek at my gallery and judge - but this stuff, no.

Quote - There's something about children with adult attributes that just seems innapropriate. But I'm an old geezer...;)

There's something worse about children with children's attributes.  If you've ever seen any of the stuff, it's blatantly obvious what's going on.  Anybody defending this guy ought to find some info on exactly what's being talked about, it's not pictures of kittens and flowers, it's really foul stuff.

First off, I agree with those that feel the law is right in this instance. I abhor kidde porn, and although I agree with freedom of expression, I do think that in this instance it's a case of someone trying to circumvent the generally accepted and legally enforced penalties around such offensive material by satisfying his urges through manga art.

I'm going to throw a seriously curved ball into this one though. Where is the moral high ground if, once this person is released from prison, instead of using fictional art to satisfy his urges he ends up actually engaging in or viewing real images of such material because he believes that there is no point in trying to find grey areas such as manga any more because he will be prosecuted anyway?

My point here stems from the fact that no matter what society in general does, people with such obscene urges and desires will always exist. You can't after all punish someone for what they are thinking. So, if such people do exist, and if they do not act on their impulses in the real world they are more than likely part of normal society, surely it follows that unless they have some form of outlet which is not grounded in reality, they may well turn to reality to satisfy their urges?

The question that is begged by this is that should such people be institutionalised, but how do we know about it before they commit their first real-world crime? I'm not advocating allowing this sort of thing to go unchecked or unpunished. I'm just wondering if in this instance the devil we know really is as bad or worse than the devil we don't know.

Mostly just food for thought and comment.

UA

*Well I don't agree with child porn but I think the problem is western culture is becoming more and more closed minded.

*Agreed, and it's doing so without giving much thought, as usual, to the long range consequences of represssion. Hey, I may not be a fan of BDSM, but if that's what people want/need to do behind closed doors or in front of 250 like-minded enthusiasts, that's their call and NOMB. I'd rather see a government official come out on how much he enjoys cute little Chanel day dresses than how well he can shoot a wolf from a helicopter. And if having images or videos of illegal stuff on one's computer is a bad thing, then I imagine a lot of us are in deep, deep trouble.

Bottom line: the guy may be stupid about how he's handling it, but given all the high minded speeches we make about freedom et al, the guy wasnt really doing anything wrong. He kept it on his computer: he didnt run out to Kinko's and get 24x36 blowups made. He wasnt pressuring the local paper to start running it as a daily feature. And if we think that making an example of this poor schmuck (and yeah, folks, I think we can offer a little sympathy here) whose crime was discovered when someone else decided to go poking around in places that none of us would really want a government official to go... well, yeah, I think we are looking at a slippery slope of injustice here. If it doesnt involve anyone else, tell me: what, truly, is the crime here? Thoughts? Desires? Wow... like I said, if that's the case, we'd all better watch out.*

Quote - I'm going to throw a seriously curved ball into this one though. Where is the moral high ground if, once this person is released from prison, instead of using fictional art to satisfy his urges he ends up actually engaging in or viewing real images of such material because he believes that there is no point in trying to find grey areas such as manga any more because he will be prosecuted anyway?

By extension, where is the moral high ground if a person imprisoned for assault is released and goes on to commit murder?  Obviously assault should be legalized!

That line of reasoning breaks down in every other category of criminal law too.  And it's all moot - it IS ILLEGAL to trade in images of children being raped by animals, whether it is a poopy dumb stinky law or whatever you might think.  Write your legislators if you want different law.

The defendant does have a legal defence if the material has 'serious literary and artistic value', a determination that can only be made by the jury.

So, hands up all those who think that depictions of children being raped by animals has 'serious literary and artistic value'?

There are definite cross-cultural elements in this, and I'm not going to argue against the thesis that the Japanese are weird. But a part of this whole sorry business is the idea that comics are just for kids. That's not something the Japanese believe, or the French, or... Well, it would be a very long list of countries and cultures. And the whole thing depends on the problem of just what "appears to be a minor". Which means under-18, if I understand right. I doubt that even big tits are a guarantee of a person's age being over-18. Not these days.

Quote - By extension, where is the moral high ground if a person imprisoned for assault is released and goes on to commit murder?  Obviously assault should be legalized!

That line of reasoning breaks down in every other category of criminal law too.  And it's all moot - it IS ILLEGAL to trade in images of children being raped by animals, whether it is a poopy dumb stinky law or whatever you might think.  Write your legislators if you want different law.

 
Your extension of my reasoning is incorrect. Let me explain why. Firstly, going from assault to murder is a choice that the criminal is making. Nobody took anything away from the criminal which left him no choice other than to commit murder, he just chose to do so. Someone who is sexually deviant does not have a choice to begin with. Those are the urges they experience, period.

Secondly, in your example both assault and murder are physical crimes against other people. In my instance it's being jailed for a moral crime which has no victim which may in fact result in the criminal turning to physical crimes through feeling that there is no other way to satisfy his urges without being prosecuted.

Lastly, I didn't say that anything should be legalised. I merely put my thoughts up for comment.

UA

PS. I do not live in the US of A, I am a South African. In my country things are similar but have their nuances. If I was living in the USA I may consider writing to legislators however.

Quote - Someone who is sexually deviant does not have a choice to begin with. Those are the urges they experience, period.

That is absolute nonsense when it comes to acting on any impulse.  Most particularly obvious when you have an offender who goes to very great and very sane and controlled lengths to conceal their behavior and to evade law enforcement.  There is obviously no lack of control at all in the typical sex offender, it's only a defense used in court.

Quote - In my instance it's being jailed for a moral crime which has no victim which may in fact result in the criminal turning to physical crimes through feeling that there is no other way to satisfy his urges without being prosecuted.

Same can be said for any category of punishment for any criminal offense, "victimless" has zero to do with that.  Society shouldn't punish criminals, it may make them meaner!

I think you're missing my point again. I didn't say that a sexual deviant has no choice but to act on their impulses. I said they have no control over the fact that the impulses exist in their heads. There is a big difference there. What I was getting at earlier was that, if a sexual deviant who as I said has these urges and thoughts going through their mind, finds that they cannot satisfy their urges using material which we find offensive but is not based on reality, the urge to act out on their sexual deviances in real life may become stronger.

I really can't see why you keep saying that what I am pointing out in relation to this specific issue must have bearing on all other crimes. There is no such thing as a universal across the board standpoint when it comes to crime because all crimes are different. They have different motives, victims, modus operandi, consequences and moral deviations. Therefore they should all be treated differently in keeping with their circumstances.

Without trying to start a flame war pjz, i'm debating these points with you not trying to pick you apart. I understand that you feel passionate about this, but please try not to say things like 'That is absolute nonsense' and 'Obviously assault should be legalized!'. Debate with me by all means however.

UA

Sean-

"If it doesnt involve anyone else, tell me: what, truly, is the crime here? "

Step number 7-  intimidate journalist and artist.

Even with no conviction a chilling effect is produced.

These are the tools of the totalitarian.

And be sure your foot soldiers ridicule any attempts at contrary reasoning.

And this highlights the problem.

The issue isn't about the material itself, it's about the implications for artwork - computer generated or even just PnP - that could be considered "obscene" by someone in authority.

That it's being used against material that's patently gross, with implications of the motives and future actions of the person in question, isn't in doubt.

But it's also pretty obvious that no-one was actually hurt in the creation of the material.  No-one was exposed to it at the guy's house (that's been told about at any rate).  Its artistic value aside for a moment, it was nothing more than images.

If there were no overt acts of harm committed, doesn't it simply end up being a suppression of expression?  In effect, "you can't draw anything we we find immoral/obscene".  Along with that is "You can't write about things we find immoral/obscene".

It's effectively punishing thought, not deeds.

Again, the Danish cartoons come to mind.  Islam prohibits any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, and yet everyone said the cartoons were legitimate even though they managed to annoy somewhere around a billion people.

Was there any artistic value to a picture of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban?  As I recall, a lot of people didn't think so - but they still stood up for the right of the cartoonists to draw it if they wanted to.

You can't turn around and say obscenity laws justify suppression of expression simply because of them being decided by some sort of societal majority - else how do you explain telling a billion people that their idea of obscenity doesn't count?

It isn't about whether or not those particular comics are obscene - they are, but it's irrelevant.  The government has decided to place a moral level of censorship on artwork that harms no-one in the creation, doesn't violate anyone's privacy if it's disseminated - and that can't be a good thing, because who makes those decisions?

You risk surrendering the right to determine the product of your own imagination and your right to create based on that product for your own edification and enjoyment.  The law regulates possession, not sale, dissemination, or production.

Simply possessing non-photographic artwork.  If you create it, you're in possession of it.

In some ways, we should actually "blame" some of this on the coders who create the software.  They've created software that produces photorealistic imagery, which makes it near-impossible for law enforcement to go after the "real" kiddie porn - the stuff with real live victims in it.

A pedophile could turn around and say "It's computer generated", and the cops would have the damndest time proving otherwise - the burden, you recall, being on them to prove guilt to begin with.  They struggle to identify real live victims of such creatures, the chances of them being able to categorically prove an image is not computer generated are getting slimmer almost day by day.

So this law got passed to cover the loophole, and shut down a way pedophiles could abuse computer-generated imagery.

(As an aside, the genesis of Manga to begin with, if I remember correctly, was because of Japanese cultural mores against "real" depictions of genitalia, and so Manga developed as a way to get around that to provide porn.)

But it doing so it can be used to go after almost every artist, for anything they produce in any form that offends the local community - who, incidentally, will also make up the jury that decides what has artistic value or not.

That's the problem.  It isn't that it's being used against kiddie porn, it's that it's so broad everyone who puts pencil to paper or renders an image is being told "The government can decide if it likes what you make, and if we don't, you're going to face criminal charges, even though no-one will have actually been hurt".

Kiddie porn ends up being the red herring, yet another "reasonable cause" to put such things in place to combat, because no-one will object to going after the people who like that material.

Think about what someone, for example from Focus On The Family, could do if they got into the state's attorney's office of your state, and you render gay-themed images?  You really think they'd hold back on making an example of you for "corrupting youth and pushing the homosexual agenda with such obscenity masquerading as art"?

Think people like them aren't considering how they can do just that?  The law already exists on the books, the opening is there.  If some lawyer in Florida can go after Take-Two software claiming they're responsible for Columbine and Va Tech and Goddess-alone-knows what else because of a simple computer game, it's pretty much a certainty some other "moral crusader" will pick this topic to get their 15 minutes out of.

It's being used against someone who likes virtual kiddie bestiality porn, but it is not limited in who it can apply to as only people who like virtual kiddie bestiality porn.

That's why I brought the question up in the first place.

Allowing the debate to get sidetracked into the right and wrongs of it's specific application in this case means people aren't going to see the branch for the leaves, let alone the forest - which is probably what those behind the law hope stifles debate of just how intrusive the law can be to begin with.

"Question the law, and the argument can be repositioned into how you're just supporting kiddie porn".  That ends up being really conducive to the free exchange of ideas :)

At the end of the day, how comfortable are artists with the idea that the government has the ability to decide if their artwork is obscene or not, and drag them in front of a judge, even if the artwork was on your computer in your home, possibly was never seen by or intended to be seen by anyone else, and didn't hurt or harm anyone?

Will you change what you create based on a fear that the inevitable will happen, that someone will find it offensive, and that this hypothetical someone might just end up being able to use this law to go after you?

Those are possibly better questions?

Quote - Simply possessing non-photographic artwork.  If you create it, you're in possession of it.

You keep missing the important point.  POSSESSION is not at issue, TRADE in the materials discussed is the charge.

At any rate, here is a very nice picture of kittens and flowers.  These are still legal.

And here come the kittens...

As far as I can tell, the law says no depictions of child porn, including drawings.  Thus this guy needs to be charged.  While these cartoons don't mean someone would do something bad to a child, he might very well have an interest in it and could go off and hurt a child later anyways.  That's why I feel he should be given his day in court instead of being let out.

If you feel the law is wrong, contact your representative and senators. 

And art is as art has always been... up for interpretation by any and all. Some will say ‘good job’ and some will not. I have seen some terrifying manga before and it just seems to me that such material doesn't help a person cope with their urges but focuses them and makes them more of a pervert. We as a culture always want the next thing (insert interest in place of thing) to always be better, brighter or more intense the next time around. Perverts are no different. Once something gets old and uninteresting they move on to something more shocking to get their kicks. The person who enjoys what this guy is reading (huh, reading?) is simply focusing on what excites him the most now. When he has gotten all that he can from these images he's bound to move up and on. Now where do you guys think that will eventually lead?

"And be sure your foot soldiers ridicule any attempts at contrary reasoning"

Are you kidding? Do you really think that we are so ignorant that we can't see that this very comment made by you is a condemnation of any contrary opinions? By your very statement, I must be a brainwashed foot soldier conspiring to bend the truth simply because I don't agree with you!!! Well, I guess there is no reason to visit this forum again. No matter what I say, unless I submit to the ‘open minded’ bunch, I must be the bad guy attempting to subvert reason. Apparently, my opinion is no longer valid simply because I disagree with you.

"So, hands up all those who think that depictions of children being raped by animals has 'serious literary and artistic value'?"

While I'm not being "pro-child abuse", subject matter is not considered the determiner of whether something is art. As an example, take Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" where the artist simply takes a photo of a small crucifix in a bottle of his own urine.

Since this thread has long ago digressed into lala-land, I will instead address the original question directly:

Rendering manga-style images in and of itself will in no way put you at risk of being prosecuted.

Attached Link: Just trying to keep some proper values

What happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

All I say is that *"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Quote - What happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

Someone screamed "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" in an airplane?

Actually they sang "Weapon of Choice" on an airplane.

  I wouldn't be too critical. After all, pornography and violence are  two of the US' major export products.

That's called supply and demand.

I keep hoping the two biggest exports would be the Osmonds, personally.

In a crate.

An airtight one.

Don't ask :P

The Osmonds LOL. I haven't thought about them since my mother died! She said you just couldn't trust people with that many teeth. Thanks for the smile :-)

-Sarah

Yeah...The Osmonds. I remember  when the lead-singer started yelling: "Gimme and F..."

Was at Woodstock, no?

LOL

more prophetic seriousness:

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

Steppenwolf

"While these cartoons don't mean someone would do something bad to a child, he might very well have an interest in it and could go off and hurt a child later anyways." 

Hmmm, good thing I didn't do that Sarah Palin being mauled by wolves pic. Wasn't there a movie where they were arresting people for crimes they hadn't committed yet because some high tech scanner said they would commit them in the future?

I think you're thinking of "Minority Report", but the concept of "pre-crime" has been in sci-fi for a while.

More recently in the "real" world, Tony Blair (the previous UK Prime Minister), declared he could determine who would end up a criminal while they were still in the womb - and people actually took the idiot seriously!

However, with pedophiles, it's an "urge" that's almost guaranteed to escalate into actually fulfilling those urges with another, statisticly speaking.  It's been claimed that stories and pictures such as these give such people an outlet that prevents them offending, but that's mostly apocryphal at this stage - partially because of the attitude towards the material to begin with.

Having said that, given the amount of pictures of live victims and stories available to these people, I don't think it has much effect on the numbers in either direction, up or down.

I'll admit, it's hard for me to reconcile my belief that pedophiles will offend, it's just a matter of time and opportunity, and so therefore they should be somehow prevented from doing so (incarceration, castration, isolation, monitoring, pick any two) with the fundamental idea of "Innocent until proven guilty".

But the question still becomes the validity of any laws that are so broad they can be used for something other than their intended and stated purpose.

Look at the way the UK seized funds of banks in Iceland under "anti terrorist laws", in order to prevent that country using the money deposited in its banks by UK authorities to bail their (Icelandic) banks out.

"Mission creep" happens all the time.

It's understandable why people would shrug and say "It's in a good cause" when their freedoms are curtailed for the purposes of preventing child abuse, but rarely do they look beyond the stated purpose and recognize how such laws can (and are) abused - abuse that can impact them further down the line - e.g. anyone who does renders using Mill Teen, or just tweaks dials to "Young", or similar.

One has to wonder if some enterprising little tin pot dictator might not go after the creators of those meshes for making such art possible, in a worst case scenario.  The laws certainly seem to be usable for it.

Hence the topic.

In this particular case, there may be more going on than any of us can know. Law enforcement will prosecute "lesser crimes" they can prove, when there are actually more serious offenses they're pretty sure of, but can't prove in court.  As in the Al Capone IRS charges.

On the other hand, Orwell's poor Winston Smith (in the novel "1984") is casting large shadows on the wall right now, and we do need to take notice of such actions as this.  There are actually several points Orwell makes in that novel that bear close attention these days. 

*"One has to wonder if some enterprising little tin pot dictator might not go after the creators of those meshes for making such art possible, in a worst case scenario. "  

• Poser is banned in many fundamentalist middle eastern countrys right now such as Saudi and Iran. And a few more.

In fact 8 or 10 years ago even those who ran this site unoffically turned a blind eye to our Poserite brothern in those countries conserning warez.

Your completely true consern isn't a matter of if - it's a matter of ---where.