Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
3timer

This makes me nervous...

by
I happened to be listening to the radio and this case came up:

http://www.joplinglobe.com/crime_and_courts/x253529908...

Three years for simply possessing drawn images.  I wonder what the punishment would be for distribution of images that “clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value”?

Apparently the U.S. attorneys office is the arbiter of what qualifies as protected speech.  In their view only non-offensive material is protected.

How much on IB would qualify under this narrow view?  And really, anything non-offensive doesn't need protection anyway.
Viewed: 110 times
Added: 6 years ago
 
Kiffin
6 years ago
Heh... that guys wife must have thought really highly of him
3timer
6 years ago
If your wife finds a file called "incest comics" it's unlikely she'll just ignore it.  He shoulda called it "fantasy football" and she never would have looked.  
Kiffin
6 years ago
Ya ... I guess my point is what a relationship they must have to not be able to talk about it before heading to the cops.
3timer
6 years ago
Are you kidding?  This clearly makes the prenup null and void.

I'm guessing they didn't have a very good relationship anyway, cuz my first thought was also that she would have approached him first.  

Or maybe she put the file on his comp to hasten a divorce?
Kiffin
6 years ago
haha ya... good point there =p
fyne
6 years ago
I don't understand what's wrong with /drawn/ child porn. I mean, it's not actually hurting any real children at all, so why should it matter? I mean, I only like cub art as a hypothetical thing, IRL I would never act on it. But if it keeps some people from acting on those fantasies and whatnot, idk what's so wrong.
3timer
6 years ago
The precedent is being set that thinking it is almost, if not as bad as actually doing it.  

You don't think correctly therefore your thoughts are criminal.  This is the direction we are heading.
DraculJOSHI
6 years ago
correction, that is the way the us, china and russia are heading.
3timer
6 years ago
Plus the UK, Australia, Germany, Canada, etc...

Don't worry, it's coming your way too if you aren't vigilant.  
DraculJOSHI
6 years ago
oh, the uk is pretty much us's bitch.. ironically... and canada is very far away... and still miles better.
And the germans are pretty bad and dangerous, but for a different reason. they are pretty selfish.
Here in switzerland, we're fine from that. They tried taking us ever since we exist... always failed. (first romans, then austria and now the EU)
Also, there's starting to be a discussion here soon about a completely different, even more social form of state in which everyone gets 2500 bucks from country plus the ammount they work for... resulting in a much better lifestyle... it's going to be so awesome here in a few centuries ^^
3timer
6 years ago
That's what I like about the Swiss, they're like dwarves.  Just hide in the mountains and try not to worry much about the rest of the world.

Thanks for all your neutrality.  

And yer army knives, those knives are pretty kick ass too.  
RuthofPern
6 years ago
I think that this is the reason why IB has the no human rule...
3timer
6 years ago
Yeah, but in the scheme of things furry is only one step above pedo in the mainstream mind.  If lines drawn on a page can be considered "child porn" it's not a stretch that lines drawn on a page can be considered "animal abuse".  
RuthofPern
6 years ago
It is worrying...especially with cases like this one around.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article45986...

In the UK it is now illegal to have porn on your personal computer that is deemed offensive to anyone at all (Including prudes) Even if you have no intention of enacting what you are watching.
3timer
6 years ago
The objectivity of The Sun is clearly evident in that article.  Is "sick" a legal term?  Do they just snag random bloggers off the street to write those?
DraculJOSHI
6 years ago
gladly, not every country is stupid enough to label any intercourse with animal abuse.
altough my rape and genital mutilation fetishes would go out the window... but that is very unlikely to happen here in switzerland.
Klorsis
6 years ago
About 3-4 years ago the US passed a law that classifies any "minor" drawing as child porn.  I can't remember off hand what the bill was called, but it was passed after a Manga collector was convicted and sentenced to 15 years for having comic books that depicted minors in sexual situations.  Something noteworthy about that case was that investigators found absolutely zero images of real kids being abused.  *Just* the comics.

So, by US law...the majority of the content on this site is illegal.
3timer
6 years ago
Really?  I'd like to see the law, not to mention the case that spawned it.  Since ex post facto laws are illegal according to the U.S. Constitution they would have had to do some fancy footwork to charge him with anything.  Not that the Constitution amounts for much nowadays.  

It's important to note that the man in the article I cited wasn't charged with possession of child pornography, but "possession of obscene materials", which is horrifyingly vague.  
3timer
6 years ago
*Sigh*  After some research it appears you are correct-ish.  The laws are terribly subjective and I can't believe they can stand against serious scrutiny.  The problem is that few people are going to be willing take these laws on.  

A drawn or otherwise created pornographic image of a child in which no actual child is used is legal, PROVIDED it isn't "obscene".  The problem lies in how "obscene" is defined.  As best I can tell it's only barely defined.

The Miller test for pornographic obscenity is as follows:

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(best I can tell this means "Will the average person jerk off to it?")

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

(I guess this is asking "Is it sex, and does it make you feel dirty?")

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(Self explanatory, and of course, vague)

The item in question must satisfy ALL of these in order to qualify as obscene.  At that point it's illegal.  It is not "child porn" it is obscene.  I suppose you could put a little tag that says "U.S. Congress" on one character and "U.S. Citizens" on the other and call each image a "political statement".

Oh, and that was Christopher Handley.  He eventually plead guilty to obscenity and was given 6 months plus 3 years probation, but not before getting major parts of the PROTECT act ruled as unconstitutional.  "A visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was removed from the act, so no drawn image can be classified as "child porn" by current U.S. law.  
Keristrasza
6 years ago
The Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), held that in a person’s home "the mere private possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally be made a crime." The Court went on to say, “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds.” But the government does have the right to prohibit possession of certain items, such as child pornography. They also have the right to prohibit the distribution of certain items, such as child pornography, pornography, and material harmful to minors.
--You have the right to possess hard-core pornography/obscenity for your own use in your home.
--You do not have the right to sell or show hard-core pornography to others.
--You do not have the right to possess child pornography.
--You do not have the right to show or give material to a minor that is harmful for a minor.
" 3timer wrote:
*Sigh*  After some research it appears you are correct-ish.  The laws are terribly subjective and I can't believe they can stand against serious scrutiny.  The problem is that few people are going to be willing take these laws on.  

A drawn or otherwise created pornographic image of a child in which no actual child is used is legal, PROVIDED it isn't "obscene".  The problem lies in how "obscene" is defined.  As best I can tell it's only barely defined.

The Miller test for pornographic obscenity is as follows:

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(best I can tell this means "Will the average person jerk off to it?")

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

(I guess this is asking "Is it sex, and does it make you feel dirty?")

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(Self explanatory, and of course, vague)

The item in question must satisfy ALL of these in order to qualify as obscene.  At that point it's illegal.  It is not "child porn" it is obscene.  I suppose you could put a little tag that says "U.S. Congress" on one character and "U.S. Citizens" on the other and call each image a "political statement".

Oh, and that was Christopher Handley.  He eventually plead guilty to obscenity and was given 6 months plus 3 years probation, but not before getting major parts of the PROTECT act ruled as unconstitutional.  "A visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was removed from the act, so no drawn image can be classified as "child porn" by current U.S. law.  
Keristrasza
6 years ago
so in total retrospect, nothing on this site as it is drawn and created not involving real children or depicting real children can be considered child porn, AND as long as we do and use and view it in our own homes for our own enjoyment it is not illegal
3timer
6 years ago
But it's probably illegal for me to distribute it to you for your use.  

Another interesting note that I made while researching this issue.  Almost every single parent in the country is in possession of "child porn".  By law, child pornography does not have to involve a sexual situation, or even show genitalia.  Any photograph of a child in a state of undress is child pornography.  So that picture your mom took of you playing in the bathtub when you were two years old is porn.  
Keristrasza
6 years ago
well, its not distribution, this is a art dump and archive, not a distribution center, the stuff you place here is Technically only for your own use, you jsut have the ability to sport your collection as private or public, you are not showing it to us, we are looking at it, we dont ask your permission to view your materials, the sites like this get by on that fact, the site itself considers it a place for people to "backup" their personal files, not to distribute them,

Secondly, not taking the time to find the quote, but the laws describe distribution as for profit only,

Thirdly, i did a bit more research into the matter, cause you got my brain rolling

It is NOT illegal to show your hardcore porn to others, so long as you warn them of its nature before hand, (hence the websites strictness on proper tags, a consenting adult can view and share the materials with other consenting adults so long as it is done inside ones own personal home
Klorsis
6 years ago
Playing with the US legal system is as clean as playing in the mud. I'm glad you took a little time to research it more.  I followed it until the bill passed and then threw my arms up in despair.

On a personal level... I'm inclined to believe that a judge would view an anthropomorphic minor the same as a child minor.  Even if you're found not guilty, your life has already been destroyed just because of the accusation.

**edit**
There was a new law passed around 2005-2008 time that deals with this subject matter, and it was the law I was thinking about when I responded... However I haven't had luck finding the bill again.
3timer
6 years ago
The problem is that they all look the same.  When one law gets dismantled because of vague wording they simply pass a new law with slightly altered wording.  I guess they're looking for that magic combination of words that will make it constitutional.  At this point it's clear that any image that doesn't involve an actual child can't be called "child porn" by any stretch.  

Right now the laws are leaning heavily on the "obscenity" clause as outlined by the Miller test.  The problem is that obscenity is subjective and varies from person to person.  Also, obscenity on its own may be protected as free speech since it can be used in artistic expression.  
Keristrasza
6 years ago
Anthropomorphic or not, it is not considered or legally definable as child porn so long as it does not depict a actual person and is created of ones imagination or creativity,  
The definition of child porn is set forth as such

(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B)  [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;
(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and data which is capable of conversion into a visual image that has been transmitted by any means, whether or not stored in a permanent format;
(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
Keristrasza
6 years ago
and to explain this is shorter legal terms,

Child porn is defined as a PERSON "huge key word there"

Whom at the time of creation is Identifiable "REAL" but does not have to be identified

who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature  "once again, the person has to be real and Exist"

and finally my favorite part

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults. "this basically means that anything that is a drawing, cartoon, painting, sculpture, or other various created works, cannot have the description of CHILD PORN, applied to them legally."
Keristrasza
6 years ago
Child pornography may include actual or simulated sexual intercourse involving minors, deviant sexual acts, bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or the exhibition of genitals in a sexually arousing fashion. In most instances, however, the mere visual depiction of a nude or partially nude minor does not rise to the level of child pornography. Thus, home movies, family pictures, and educational books depicting nude children in a realistic, non-erotic setting are protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute child pornography.

Child pornography differs from pornography depicting adults in that adult pornography may only be regulated if it is obscene. In miller v. california, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that pornography depicting adults is obscene if (1) the work, taken as a whole by an average person applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) the work, when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In contrast, child pornography can be banned without regard to whether the pornographic depictions of minors violate contemporary community standards or otherwise satisfy the Miller standard for Obscenity.

In New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (U.S. 1982), the Supreme Court explained the rationale underlying the distinction between child pornography and adult pornography. The Court said that the government has a compelling interest in protecting minor children from Sexual Abuse and exploitation. Using the same rationale, the Supreme Court later said that even the mere possession of child pornography may be prohibited without violating the First Amendment. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (U.S. 1990).

However, the Supreme Court drew the line with so-called "virtual" depictions of child pornography. In 1996 Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA), which expanded the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, but also "any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Civil libertarians worried that the CPPA would be applied to ban a range of sexually explicit images that appeared to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of computer-imaging technology.

The Supreme Court agreed. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002), the Court ruled that the CPPA's provisions went too far by trying to ban speech that created no real minor victims of sexual abuse. Nor could the CPPA be sustained on grounds that pedophiles might use virtual child pornography to seduce actual children into participating in real child pornography. The prospect of crime, by itself, does not justify laws suppressing protected speech, the Court said.

In response to the Court's decision, the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced almost identical bills that attempt to implement the substantive provisions of the CPPA in a way that would survive constitutional scrutiny. The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 was approved by the House (H.R. 4623 § 3(a)) and as of early 2003 was pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. S. 2511, § 2(a).

In the new bill, Congress changed the prohibition against images that "appear" to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct to a prohibition against "computer image or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable" from a conventional image of child pornography. Similarly, the proposed legislation replaced language prohibiting el
Keristrasza
6 years ago
so did a bit more research again just cause im a nerd,

First
Yes there was a Law passed to include  any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

BUT In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition the supreme courts overturned it as unconstitutional

AND i did even futher research, and found that no, the revised versions of the law were never passed, So, basically anything that is created and "fake" depictions are legal, "as pertaining to child porn, NOT obscenity laws..., so only look at this stuff in your own home lol"
3timer
6 years ago
Here's the thing: I really thought everything I did here was protected as free speech, and it turns out that it isn't.  If a prosecutor got a bug in his butt he could easily manipulate all these poorly worded laws into charging me with something, even though everything here was created from my mind.  They are my thoughts and fantasies given visual form.  They aren't real, but they could be treated as real on some level in a court of law.  They could be treated as causing injury to a nonexistent person or to the state itself.  Since they are not acceptable in polite society it is deemed as fine to persecute this level of thought by society.  
Keristrasza
6 years ago
this is sadly overly true, the government is so messed up and corrupted that they can basically get away with doing anything regardless of how wrong it actually is.
Dirt
6 years ago
I like what someone had to say in the comments.

" The Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), held that in a person’s home "the mere private possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally be made a crime." The Court went on to say, “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power t
o control men's minds.” But the government does have the right to prohibit possession of certain items, such as child pornography. They also have the right to prohibit the distribution of certain items, such as child pornography, pornography, and material harmful to minors.
--You have the right to possess hard-core pornography/obscenity for your own use in your home.
--You do not have the right to sell or show hard-core pornography to others.
--You do not have the right to possess child pornography.
--You do not have the right to show or give material to a minor that is harmful for a minor.
Exelbirth
6 years ago
Got to love the mentality of mankind these days. Most people seem to love manipulating the whole fantasy vs reality thing in their favor. After all, do people who watch movies like friday the 13th frequently go around and slashing people up? Pretty much the answer is always no. Why does that rule suddenly not apply to drawn child porn then? Because people don't want it to.
3timer
6 years ago
It's not like it's a new thing.  Heavy metal music was blamed for everything from encouraging devil worship to causing suicides.  The role playing game Dungeons and Dragons received similar treatment.  Violent video games continue to be blamed for school shootings and other violence.  The internet blamed for pornography addictions and school bullying.  Talk radio blamed for terrorism.  Television gets blamed for just about everything.  Go back far enough and they used to blame alcohol for everything until prohibition, then the lack of alcohol became the problem.  

There's a segment of the population that wants easy answers to complicated problems.  If a kid shoots up his school and you find out he owns a copy of Grand Theft Auto, then it follows that the game must have made him shoot up the school.  If the problem is that simple then banning the game will stop any future school shootings.  Some people don't want to live in a world where random things happen and can't be accounted for.
Exelbirth
6 years ago
The thing is most often they can be accounted for with other answers, it's just the convenient one gets used, even if it's not the case at all.
3timer
6 years ago
Convenience based on if it fits a certain agenda.  
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.