Dont' bring manga into Canada

[Slargos]

 

I hope you threw the book at him.

[The Brain]

Nor is there any victim involved in copying and distributing child porn.  The only victimization is in the initial making of child porn.

I'm sure the girl agrees with you.

[Jacob]

My one and only child porn prosecution:
...

Hard to feel sorry for an idiot like that. What was the outcome?

Out of curiosity, if someone did something similar but the other person was of age, what are the likely legal implications?

[Josquius]

My one and only child porn prosecution:

21 year old pothead is dating 16 year old girl.  This is of course perfectly legal.

Pothead takes nude pictures of 16 year old.  This is not legal, but when taken between consenting people and kept private are pretty much never prosecuted.

Until pothead breaks up with 16 year old.  Pothead gets the bright idea to print out a bunch of nude pictures of his ex-girlfriend, writes words like "slut" and "bitch" on them, and tapes them to lampposts in their home town.   He also gives a bunch of these photos to the girl's dad.

So of course he gets charged with distributing child porn.

I'm shocked, how could this not end well?

[Barrister]

I just looked up the Austrian law on the issue.

Texts are exempt.

Pictures are trickier - anything sexual with persons under 14 is verboten. Anything from 14-18 depends on context - e.g. as part of a sex ed video would probably be fine, as part of an otherwise non-pornographic movie *could* be fine, depending on the context. The law also extends to "realistic depictions", which is kind of fuzzy. I've seen mangas like Elfen Lied (Wiki article) on sale, though.

Also, sexual pictures/videos with people 14-18 are ok if they were created with everyone's consent, they're for private use, and there's no or very little likelyhood of distribution (think guy and girl exchanging nude pix or filming themselves - of course in days of the internet this is fuzzier than in days of polaroids).

I'm not sure what I think about banning pure text and writings, to be honest.  I can see it both ways.

But "realistic depictions" is just as fuzzy as anything in Canadian law.  At least Canada the law is more clear - any visual depiction is forbidden.

[ulmont]

You guys all said laws against child porn are to 'protect the victim'.  Well if you want to get technical about it, there is no victim involved in mere possession of child porn.  Nor is there any victim involved in copying and distributing child porn.  The only victimization is in the initial making of child porn.

This is not true as viewed by American law.  Children portrayed in child pornography are allowed to sue as victims.

McDaniel next argues that his conduct did not proximately cause Vicky's harm.  Instead, he contends that her father and the distribution of the images caused her harm, and by the time he possessed the images, the harm had already been done.  He asserts that restitution is appropriate only in cases where the defendant actually sexually abused a child or produced the child pornography because, in those cases, the defendant's conduct actually harmed the child.

We disagree.  Dr. Green explained that each NCMEC notification [the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children notifies victims when someone is arrested with pictures of the victim] adds to the "slow acid drip" of trauma and exacerbates Vicky's emotional issues.  He testified that each notification is "extraordinarily distressing and emotionally painful" to Vicky and that Vicky suffers "each time an individual views an image depicting her abuse."

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/01/eleventh-circuit-publishes-first-circduit-opinion-affirming-restitution-term-in-sentencing-of-child-.html
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/03/fifth-circuit-rules-in-child-porn-case-that-no-proximate-causation-needed-to-get-restitution-under-c.html

[Barrister]

My one and only child porn prosecution:
...

Hard to feel sorry for an idiot like that. What was the outcome?

Out of curiosity, if someone did something similar but the other person was of age, what are the likely legal implications?

Well that's what I asked myself.  I concluded if the victim was 18 he'd probably be charged with criminal harassment.  So that was the deal we offered - take a plea to criminal harassment, or face being convicted of child porn.  The victim was somewhat equivocal about helping us in any event - going back and forth between 'but I still love him' and 'throw the book at him', and at no point was she keen on testifying in court.

This dude wasn't stupid (or rather, pothead was stupid, but his lawyer was not) and he took the deal.  He probably could have stayed away from jail, but he kept repeatedly making contact with the girl despite court conditions at this point to stay well away from her.  I think he wound up with almost a year in jail.

[Slargos]

See, that pisses me off something fierce. You know what he's done, yet he gets to plea for a reduced sentence rather than having justice served.

[Barrister]

See, that pisses me off something fierce. You know what he's done, yet he gets to plea for a reduced sentence rather than having justice served.

We know what he has done.  It is just a matter of what label do we use.

The 'guilty intent' in this case was clearly to harass his ex-girlfriend, so the criminal harassment charge more fit what he was trying to do.  Of course distributing child porn also fit these facts, so we could have proceeded on that charge as well.

[Slargos]

See, that pisses me off something fierce. You know what he's done, yet he gets to plea for a reduced sentence rather than having justice served.

We know what he has done.  It is just a matter of what label do we use.

The 'guilty intent' in this case was clearly to harass his ex-girlfriend, so the criminal harassment charge more fit what he was trying to do.  Of course distributing child porn also fit these facts, so we could have proceeded on that charge as well.

So why didn't you, I was going to ask, but I guess it's self-explanatory. He got stupid but that's no real reason to completely fuck up his life when a smack on the wrist will do.

[Habbaku]

See, that pisses me off something fierce. You know what he's done, yet he gets to plea for a reduced sentence rather than having justice served.

On the other hand, I applaud Beeb's restraint in the case in only prosecuting for what he did. 

[Slargos]

See, that pisses me off something fierce. You know what he's done, yet he gets to plea for a reduced sentence rather than having justice served.

On the other hand, I applaud Beeb's restraint in the case in only prosecuting for what he did. 

Yeah, on second thought it might perhaps be a bit excessive to go for broke on a first-time offender. The guy's obviously a fucking douche, but a year in the big house could perhaps straighten him out a bit.

[Bluebook]

Cartoon child porn is illegal in Sweden aswell. I fail to be upset about this. On the one hand, sure it is a limitation of someones freedom of expression, but on the other hand I just dont see any reason why watching cartoon child porn should be in any way a legitimate protected interest in the eyes of the law.

[garbon]

Cartoon child porn is illegal in Sweden aswell. I fail to be upset about this. On the one hand, sure it is a limitation of someones freedom of expression, but on the other hand I just dont see any reason why watching cartoon child porn should be in any way a legitimate protected interest in the eyes of the law.

So the only choices are illegal and legitimate protected interest?

[Bluebook]

Cartoon child porn is illegal in Sweden aswell. I fail to be upset about this. On the one hand, sure it is a limitation of someones freedom of expression, but on the other hand I just dont see any reason why watching cartoon child porn should be in any way a legitimate protected interest in the eyes of the law.

So the only choices are illegal and legitimate protected interest?

In this case, its either one or the other, yes.