Dont' bring manga into Canada

[Slargos]

I believe it is the latter.

Paedo sex offenders rarely start out by yanking children into the bushes.  It's a whole learning process and development.  They might start out by watching Disney Channel and going to children's parks, but can develop into reading some tame comics, then more explicit comics, then explicit photographs, then on to real live children.

I'm geniuinely curious, not contrarian, when I ask whether there's any research to substantiate this or whether it's conjecture.

[Valmy]

Of course this is not a universal, not an inevitable process.  I know that some paedos never move beyond the images.  But that's the risk, and is why such material depicting children in explicit sexual activities are banned.

Meh sounds like the same crap that gets video game violence banned to me.

[Barrister]

I believe it is the latter.

Paedo sex offenders rarely start out by yanking children into the bushes.  It's a whole learning process and development.  They might start out by watching Disney Channel and going to children's parks, but can develop into reading some tame comics, then more explicit comics, then explicit photographs, then on to real live children.

I'm geniuinely curious, not contrarian, when I ask whether there's any research to substantiate this or whether it's conjecture.

Some research.  Lots of paedo sex offenders have child porn.  But this is the kind of topic that is almost immune to doing typical double-blind research into, so it's impossible to state any conclusion with absolute certainty.

I believe this connection was mentioned to me in a professional conference I attended, but that's hardly a definitive statement.

In short if someone else wants to find research papers contradicting me I won't be offended.

[dps]

Back to the case at hand: we don't know what material there is.  I don't think it was a Sailor Moon comics, and I don't think we should tolerate just about everything because it's simply a drawing. 

Yeah, this particular case isn't all that interesting simply because we don't know just what the guy had.  Personally, to me, if something doesn't contain depictions of real minors, it shouldn't be classed as kiddie porn, but there is some manga/hentai out there that's so nasty that, while I don't think it should be considered kiddie porn, I also don't have a big problem with someone being busted for having.  But from all the article tells us, it could be Sailor Moon or Pokemon or something like that.

[dps]

No, not Hortlund, I was Oxenstierna back in the old forum. We have been over this several times before.

Wasn't Bluebook back on the old forum some female Brit that was a friend of Brazen's?  Or was that Bluebird?

[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?

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

Seems unlikely but alright.

[Barrister]

I believe it is the latter.

Paedo sex offenders rarely start out by yanking children into the bushes.  It's a whole learning process and development.  They might start out by watching Disney Channel and going to children's parks, but can develop into reading some tame comics, then more explicit comics, then explicit photographs, then on to real live children.

I'm geniuinely curious, not contrarian, when I ask whether there's any research to substantiate this or whether it's conjecture.

I'm not sure whether it's surprising or not, but wiki has a page on the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

It does seem to me there are more studies, and more reputable, linking child porn to sexual abuse of children, but I acknowledge there are a few studies going the other way.

[Caliga]

Wasn't Bluebook back on the old forum some female Brit that was a friend of Brazen's?  Or was that Bluebird?

swallow?

[dps]

Paedo sex offenders rarely start out by yanking children into the bushes.  It's a whole learning process and development.  They might start out by watching Disney Channel and going to children's parks, but can develop into reading some tame comics, then more explicit comics, then explicit photographs, then on to real live children.

Lots of paedo sex offenders have child porn.  But this is the kind of topic that is almost immune to doing typical double-blind research into, so it's impossible to state any conclusion with absolute certainty.

Well, logically, I'd be surprised if most pedophiles don't have kiddie porn.  The real question is if kiddie porn leads to pedophilia or not.  I'm inclined to think probably not.

I know that I preferred women with big boobs before I ever saw any porn featuring big boobed porn stars.  If I have porn featuring women with big boobs, it's because I like big boobs, not the other way around.

[Slargos]

I believe it is the latter.

Paedo sex offenders rarely start out by yanking children into the bushes.  It's a whole learning process and development.  They might start out by watching Disney Channel and going to children's parks, but can develop into reading some tame comics, then more explicit comics, then explicit photographs, then on to real live children.

I'm geniuinely curious, not contrarian, when I ask whether there's any research to substantiate this or whether it's conjecture.

Some research.  Lots of paedo sex offenders have child porn.  But this is the kind of topic that is almost immune to doing typical double-blind research into, so it's impossible to state any conclusion with absolute certainty.

I believe this connection was mentioned to me in a professional conference I attended, but that's hardly a definitive statement.

In short if someone else wants to find research papers contradicting me I won't be offended.

Given such a tenuous link, it seems a bit excessive to prosecute unless there's also evidence that the person in question is an actual offender.

Find child porn Hentai on the HD of a convicted rapist? Probably good cause.

Find manga that could possibly be classified as child porn on a guy with no priors? I'd certainly hesitate to bring out the firewood as a first resort..

But then, we don't know enough details about this particular case to make such speculations.

[dps]

Wasn't Bluebook back on the old forum some female Brit that was a friend of Brazen's?  Or was that Bluebird?

swallow?

D'oh.  That's it.

P.S.  It's no surprise that Cal turned up in this thread about the time I mentioned big boobs, is it?   

[Ideologue]

If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

I thought we were trying to protect children from being used in the sex trade...I am less convinced we need to protect fictional characters from abuse.

I just find it funny that an answer to what seems like a huge criminal law controversy (and is resolved in a variety of ways in different jurisdictions) seems to be so one-sided to a criminal law professional.

I guess hundreds of thousands of sexuology experts, legislators, judges etc. are not as smart as a crown prosecutor in Yukon.

In what way did I ever say this stuff was simple?  You'll even note that what you quoted was me posing a question, not making a statement.  And later all I said was that these questions are not a "no brainer" aka this shit is hard to make policy about.

Sometimes we know each other so well here that we assume we know what someone's response is, and answer that, rather than what a person is actually saying.

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.

Respectfully, I don't think that reasoning is sound.  Like, you know I'm a vegetarian, right?  By the logic above, I'm still haven't killed an animal if I eat meat because I didn't order an animal's destruction, I'm only involved in the "mere possession" of it, and the death of the "victim" is an accomplished fact.  So I should be able to eat meat with abandon.

By providing an audience (often a paying audience), possessors of real child pornography are encouraging infliction of harm on a victim.  Also, as noted previously, given that one of the harms of child pornography is recognized to be the exploitation the sexuality of a human legally/cognitively incapable of consent, watching makes its own harm.

Laws against child porn aren't only about protectign children from being victimized during it's creation (although that is a significant part of it).  It is also about prohibiting that market for its creation in the first place, plus is about preventing an attitude and culture that is accepting, or even promotes, viewing children sexually.

This is a valid position, even if I think the "safety valve" argument traditionally mentioned only as an afterthought when justifying free expression, and brought up by others already, actually holds great weight here.

I'm also suspicious of using speech restraints for socio-political engineering, no matter how abhorrent the political opinion being suppressed is.

The law in Canada is complex, and not entirely satisfactory - but as I said there are no easy answers to this stuff.  Our laws prohibit any representation, be it film, drawn, written, audio recorded, depicting underage sex.  Now the standards are somewhat different - for a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, it is anything that merely depicts someone under 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity.  Written material is prohibited where it counsels sexual activity with those under 18, or whose 'dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of 18'.

And even there there are defences of artistic merit, educational purpose, scientific purpose, medical purpose, and public good.

I think that is an easy question, a very easy one, in fact.  Beyond the notion that no one can link a causal chain between the consumption of such material and any harm outside of the Dreaming, people write or render horrors constantly for the purpose of arousing an audience.  It's true that most of the time this is purely violent, but why does, or why must, the ethos by which Canada outlaws fake children halt when it comes into contact with more popular, less "icky" material that is--rationally--just as prurient?  If I wrote a graphic depiction of Islamabad being nuked because I hate the country it sits in,* why should that speech be permitted, and "The Sexual Misadventures of Molly the 17 Year and 364 Day Old Girl" land me in jail?

*Illustration purposes only.  I don't think Islamabad should be nuked.  Only conventionally bombed. :p  Also, given this is Canada, [y]our home and native land, I would not be at all certain I could write that.

So it's trying to set a balance between allowing legitimate educational and scientific purposes, and keeping paedos from having wanking material.

I guess I'm just not sure if that's a legitimate state interest.

[The Brain]

My personal worry is that the witch hunt will reach BDSM within a few short years. The first signs have already appeared (in Sweden recently a guy actually had to defend himself in court after having had consensual BDSM sex). BDSM cartoons will make me a sex criminal for sure, MANY of them depict illegal activities.

[Slargos]

My personal worry is that the witch hunt will reach BDSM within a few short years. The first signs have already appeared (in Sweden recently a guy actually had to defend himself in court after having had consensual BDSM sex). BDSM cartoons will make me a sex criminal for sure, MANY of them depict illegal activities.

See, faggots, while irritating and disgusting can actually serve a purpose.

The Rainbow Brigades will be sent into the breach, and while it may seem like the nutters have gained an advantage on the field, it is temporary and soon undone.

[Ideologue]

My personal worry is that the witch hunt will reach BDSM within a few short years. The first signs have already appeared (in Sweden recently a guy actually had to defend himself in court after having had consensual BDSM sex). BDSM cartoons will make me a sex criminal for sure, MANY of them depict illegal activities.

Actually, they've gone after real-life BDSM in Canada, criminalizing some gray area play: R. v. J.A, 2011 SCC 28.  I'm not sure how I feel about that ruling myself, although it is clear that it's one of those instances that the dispute should have been left private--the "victim" got mad (for unrelated reasons) and filed a complaint for sexual assault regarding a gentleman choking her into unconsciousness (consensually) and then inserting a buttplug into the eponymous receptacle (with what was understood to be her prior consent).  She later changed her mind, and wanted the charges dropped (because she was not evil to the bone, and realized what a life-fucking beast she had let loose), but by this time it was in the state's hands.  The basic rule seems to be that consent is continuously granted throughout a sexual encounter, and unconsciousness renders previous consent invalid.

But forget (frankly unsafe) BDSM play for a minute.  What the SCC doesn't seem to realize (or doesn't care because they were following Parliament's lead) is that they turned a goodnight kiss on your sleeping girlfriend's forehead into a sexual assault.  Excellent work, top legal minds of an entire nation!