4 ms·

> That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those anim

by jMyles 10y ago

> That and art, if someone draws child pornography is that a crime? If blizzard says one of their overwatch characters is 17, are the people who make those animated porno videos making child porn? And are the people watching it consuming child porn? The answers to these questions are obvious: no and no. If the answers are any different or short of being absolute, then that's a clear hole in the first amendment.

girvo 10y ago
In Australia, cartoon child porn is also illegal.
- taneq 10y ago
  In fact, IIRC even actual porn containing only provably adult actors is illegal if a judge decides it looks like someone might be underage.
  - braveo 10y ago
    I remember reading about a case where a porn star actually showed up to a trial of her own volition and showed the judge her license to prove she was over 18 when she did the film. Had she not responded when the guys lawyers contacted her, the accused would've gone to jail for child porn. That's how insane and scary these laws are. I'm all for coming down hard on someone for having cp, but it wasn't cp, just a young looking actress.
icebraining 10y ago
"18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene (...) or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  > (B) is obscene Those two words are hiding a lot. For example, it's probably not obscene in Oregon, since part of the Miller test defers to state law and we have a stronger state equivalent of the 1st amendment in our state constitution that would allow it. And if you wrapped it in a story(like a manga or comic), it would be easier to argue that it has literary or artistic merit. Though, a "states' rights" argument would probably be more likely to succeed.
- jMyles 10y ago
  My comment wasn't meant to speak to the test of the federal register, under which a huge part of the everyday lives of Americans are federally prohibited. I was more speaking to the question, "is it a crime?" IE, is it a crime in any sort of common-law sense and the proper purview of a government in a functionally free society. In that sense, I do not believe that the wholesale fabrication of any form of media is a crime.
byuu 10y ago
> The answers to these questions are obvious: no and no. Tell that to Chris Handley [1]. He imported a pornographic comic book from Japan, a postal inspector got his panties in a bunch over it, and a prosecutor pushed for 15 years in prison and life as a sex offender unless he plead guilty. Knowing he'd probably lose in front of a jury of his peers [2], and being blackmailed with the threat of 15 years, he took a plea for six months in prison. Wasn't even afforded the right to a fair trial. Oh, and it's not just pictures, either. Textual, fictional stories can be "obscene" as well. It is possible to write a fake story in a Hacker News comment that can get you 15 years in federal prison in the US. [1] http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/cbldf-case-files/handley/ http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/cbldf-case-files/handle... [2] it's deemed "obscene", which is a magic "get out of Free Speech free" card, so it falls under the Miller Test. You could get a jury in a very deep red county to find two fully-clothed males kissing as "obscene" if you wanted. "Obscenity" is the thing that needs free speech protections the most.
- jMyles 10y ago
  > "Obscenity" is the thing that needs free speech protections the most. Agreed. I'm even of the mind that mere possession of any piece of media cannot be properly regarded as criminal, precisely because it interferes with the far more important right to free speech. It seems to me that prohibiting the creation or sale of child porn is more appropriate.
  - byuu 10y ago
    In an ideal world, I want possession of real CP to be a crime ... that is, if it could stop there. I would be willing to accept that small bit of cognitive dissonance / hypocrisy. I'm very sympathetic to the victims of abuse having their images out there being sold and traded online. But then you have cases like Handley where cartoons are criminalized (which I consider to be a thought crime), and cases like this story where it's used to basically eviscerate the fifth amendment ... and it really makes it clear: you cannot have exceptions to free speech, or it will continue to grow and gut everything else. It's not a "slippery slope" argument ... the slope has already happened -- we're seeing it right now. An appeals court just said you can rot in jail for the rest of your life if you forget your password. And they're going to get away with it because of the horrific spectre of CP ( parodied well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdu4wSBZqMM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdu4wSBZqMM ) As much as I abhor the content, I really believe prosecutors should be going after the producers, the sellers, the people collecting ad revenue off of hosting this stuff, and of course, the actual abusers themselves. I'd like to see the people with paraphilias they didn't ask for have access to proper counseling, access to anti-androgens, etc. But we don't live in a country that wants to help people. We live in one that wants to punish people -- even if that results in more victims.

by jMyles 10y ago

girvo 10y ago

In Australia, cartoon child porn is also illegal.

taneq 10y ago
In fact, IIRC even actual porn containing only provably adult actors is illegal if a judge decides it looks like someone might be underage.
- braveo 10y ago
  I remember reading about a case where a porn star actually showed up to a trial of her own volition and showed the judge her license to prove she was over 18 when she did the film. Had she not responded when the guys lawyers contacted her, the accused would've gone to jail for child porn. That's how insane and scary these laws are. I'm all for coming down hard on someone for having cp, but it wasn't cp, just a young looking actress.

icebraining 10y ago

"18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene (...) or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction. It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."

MichaelBurge 10y ago
> (B) is obscene Those two words are hiding a lot. For example, it's probably not obscene in Oregon, since part of the Miller test defers to state law and we have a stronger state equivalent of the 1st amendment in our state constitution that would allow it. And if you wrapped it in a story(like a manga or comic), it would be easier to argue that it has literary or artistic merit. Though, a "states' rights" argument would probably be more likely to succeed.
jMyles 10y ago
My comment wasn't meant to speak to the test of the federal register, under which a huge part of the everyday lives of Americans are federally prohibited. I was more speaking to the question, "is it a crime?" IE, is it a crime in any sort of common-law sense and the proper purview of a government in a functionally free society. In that sense, I do not believe that the wholesale fabrication of any form of media is a crime.

byuu 10y ago

> The answers to these questions are obvious: no and no. Tell that to Chris Handley [1]. He imported a pornographic comic book from Japan, a postal inspector got his panties in a bunch over it, and a prosecutor pushed for 15 years in prison and life as a sex offender unless he plead guilty. Knowing he'd probably lose in front of a jury of his peers [2], and being blackmailed with the threat of 15 years, he took a plea for six months in prison. Wasn't even afforded the right to a fair trial. Oh, and it's not just pictures, either. Textual, fictional stories can be "obscene" as well. It is possible to write a fake story in a Hacker News comment that can get you 15 years in federal prison in the US. [1] http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/cbldf-case-files/handley/ http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/cbldf-case-files/handle... [2] it's deemed "obscene", which is a magic "get out of Free Speech free" card, so it falls under the Miller Test. You could get a jury in a very deep red county to find two fully-clothed males kissing as "obscene" if you wanted. "Obscenity" is the thing that needs free speech protections the most.

jMyles 10y ago
> "Obscenity" is the thing that needs free speech protections the most. Agreed. I'm even of the mind that mere possession of any piece of media cannot be properly regarded as criminal, precisely because it interferes with the far more important right to free speech. It seems to me that prohibiting the creation or sale of child porn is more appropriate.
- byuu 10y ago
  In an ideal world, I want possession of real CP to be a crime ... that is, if it could stop there. I would be willing to accept that small bit of cognitive dissonance / hypocrisy. I'm very sympathetic to the victims of abuse having their images out there being sold and traded online. But then you have cases like Handley where cartoons are criminalized (which I consider to be a thought crime), and cases like this story where it's used to basically eviscerate the fifth amendment ... and it really makes it clear: you cannot have exceptions to free speech, or it will continue to grow and gut everything else. It's not a "slippery slope" argument ... the slope has already happened -- we're seeing it right now. An appeals court just said you can rot in jail for the rest of your life if you forget your password. And they're going to get away with it because of the horrific spectre of CP ( parodied well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdu4wSBZqMM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdu4wSBZqMM ) As much as I abhor the content, I really believe prosecutors should be going after the producers, the sellers, the people collecting ad revenue off of hosting this stuff, and of course, the actual abusers themselves. I'd like to see the people with paraphilias they didn't ask for have access to proper counseling, access to anti-androgens, etc. But we don't live in a country that wants to help people. We live in one that wants to punish people -- even if that results in more victims.