Languish.org

http://cbldf.org/homepage/cbldf-forms-coalition-to-defend-american-comics-reader-facing-criminal-charges-in-canada/

Some american guy was charged with kiddie pron when his laptop was searched by Customs.

Not bringing manga anywhere is sound advice no matter what.

He should have known better.  It's a witchhunt out there, and comic books are something that many people love to attack.

Glad to see Canada standing strong against the threat of manga.

Well, let's deport Marie-Ségolène Royal there. She will be happy and so will we.

Scary. Laptop file searching. :ph34r:

Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Scary. Laptop file searching. :ph34r:

You have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong.

Possessing or accessing hentai material, even online, is indeed practically illegal in Canada, thanks to R. vs. Sharpe.

Ridiculous I know, that someone could be put on the sex offender registry for watching naughty purple tentacles, but it's considered child pornography.

Quote from: sbr on June 25, 2011, 10:15:56 AM

Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Scary. Laptop file searching. :ph34r:

You have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong.

I, like most people, have however :ph34r:

Even assuming there was nothing illegal there is still someone looking through your personal stuff...iffy.

This poor guy probally didn't even know it was illegal in Canada. It is strange.

This is pretty fucked up.

Quote from: Maximus on June 25, 2011, 09:58:34 AM
Glad to see Canada standing strong against the threat of manga.

So am I.

That a country could allow gay marriage but draw a line at some drawings of children does seem a little odd.

Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Scary. Laptop file searching. :ph34r:

Why would they search his files, and why would he let them? Put a damn password on it.

Good.

Who in Canada has the job of deciding whether a given drawing is of a 12 year old or of a young looking 18 year old?

Quote from: sbr on June 25, 2011, 10:15:56 AM

Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Scary. Laptop file searching. :ph34r:

You have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong keep your porn on a removable pendrive.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2011, 04:02:28 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Scary. Laptop file searching. :ph34r:

Why would they search his files, and why would he let them? Put a damn password on it.

I thought in cases like these, they can either compel you reveal the password, or hold you until you do.  Or just deny entry to the country on the same basis.

On the plus side waterboarding is pretty quick so you won't be delayed much by refusing to give them the password. Oh right, this wasn't in the US. Nm.

you can get all that stuff here already. oops.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 25, 2011, 05:13:08 PM

I thought in cases like these, they can either compel you reveal the password, or hold you until you do.  Or just deny entry to the country on the same basis.

No probable cause? No warrant?

Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2011, 05:14:36 PM
On the plus side waterboarding is pretty quick so you won't be delayed much by refusing to give them the password. Oh right, this wasn't in the US. Nm.

:lol:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2011, 07:06:08 PM
No probable cause? No warrant?

You don't need either at a border crossing.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2011, 07:06:08 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 25, 2011, 05:13:08 PM

I thought in cases like these, they can either compel you reveal the password, or hold you until you do.  Or just deny entry to the country on the same basis.

No probable cause? No warrant?

They're customs dudes. They can ask to go through your luggage and give you a right royal pat down without a warrant...not sure why a laptop would be different. But I'm not sure.

Quote from: Josephus on June 25, 2011, 07:17:43 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2011, 07:06:08 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 25, 2011, 05:13:08 PM

I thought in cases like these, they can either compel you reveal the password, or hold you until you do.  Or just deny entry to the country on the same basis.

No probable cause? No warrant?

They're customs dudes. They can ask to go through your luggage and give you a right royal pat down without a warrant...not sure why a laptop would be different. But I'm not sure.

I guess in  a case of a laptop there is also an issue of privacy/secrecy of correspondence involved. Can the customs officers go through your personal letters or contact list on your phone? I would think this goes beyond their scope of duties.

In this day and age of internet, there is really no compelling case for looking through someone's laptop for a fear of "smuggling" anything.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2011, 04:02:28 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Scary. Laptop file searching. :ph34r:

Why would they search his files, and why would he let them? Put a damn password on it.

In the UK at least, not giving out such a password could get you in trouble, though:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11479831

Just a thought - I'm gonna save a couple of my legal opinions among my porn stash - then claim legal privilege. :smarty:

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:20:18 AM
Just a thought - I'm gonna save a couple of my legal opinions among my porn stash - then claim legal privilege. :smarty:

Legal privilege won't stand up to child porn hysteria.  And you're gay, so you're already just the sort of person they're going to give a little extra scrutiny.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2011, 04:44:03 PM
Who in Canada has the job of deciding whether a given drawing is of a 12 year old or of a young looking 18 year old?

A judge.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2011, 07:06:08 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 25, 2011, 05:13:08 PM

I thought in cases like these, they can either compel you reveal the password, or hold you until you do.  Or just deny entry to the country on the same basis.

No probable cause? No warrant?

CBSA doesn't need either.

If you don't want your shit searched, then don't enter Canada.

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:20:18 AM
Just a thought - I'm gonna save a couple of my legal opinions among my porn stash - then claim legal privilege. :smarty:

While you might confuse the border guard long enough for it to work, you know damn well that won't hold up in a court of law.

Besides, I never got why you would need to store porn on your computer.  It's not as if it is hard to find.  Just download your smut on an as-needed basis, and delete when you're done.

Quote from: Drakken on June 25, 2011, 10:25:51 AM
Possessing or accessing hentai material, even online, is indeed practically illegal in Canada, thanks to R. vs. Sharpe.

Ridiculous I know, that someone could be put on the sex offender registry for watching naughty purple tentacles, but it's considered child pornography.

WTF? While Hentai is not my cup of cha, banning cartoons whether of Mohammed or of Schoolgirls being raped by cephalapods is just unacceptable.

I used to like Canada, what with their bacon, beer, violent sports, universal health care and all round accepting attitude towards Icelandic immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Canadian) (WTF, K.D. Lang?)

Quote from: Viking on June 26, 2011, 06:27:15 PM

Quote from: Drakken on June 25, 2011, 10:25:51 AM
Possessing or accessing hentai material, even online, is indeed practically illegal in Canada, thanks to R. vs. Sharpe.

Ridiculous I know, that someone could be put on the sex offender registry for watching naughty purple tentacles, but it's considered child pornography.

WTF? While Hentai is not my cup of cha, banning cartoons whether of Mohammed or of Schoolgirls being raped by cephalapods is just unacceptable.

I used to like Canada, what with their bacon, beer, violent sports, universal health care and all round accepting attitude towards Icelandic immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Canadian) (WTF, K.D. Lang?)

I've spent a lot of time in the largest icelandic town outside of Iceland - Gimli, Manitoba.   :cool:

But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

I don't know. Maybe because there's no actual victim?

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM

I've spent a lot of time in the largest icelandic town outside of Iceland - Gimli, Manitoba.   :cool:

But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

What's next, the banning of text depicting child rape?

To be honest I would have thought there were more than 6 thousand icelanders in copenhagen... There are about 1000 of us here in Trondheim.

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
I've spent a lot of time in the largest icelandic town outside of Iceland - Gimli, Manitoba.   :cool:

But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

Paedos can't help what they're attracted to anymore than people with more acceptable desires. The only problem is them acting on their desires involves harming innocent kids
With cartoon porn no kids get hurt and it gives them some way to indulge their passion without needing porn that involves real kids or even hunting out kids themselves.

I suppose there is the train of thought that this will simply lead them on, make them crave ever stronger stuff as they become immune to the cartoon porn, perhaps even lead otherwise decent people down the road of child porn. But....nah. Not if someone just has a few dirty pictures. Maybe if they're a depraved child rape hentai addict.

Anything that involves banning anime is okay with me.

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

Or text. We should burn all Game of Thrones books.

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
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.

Quote from: The Brain on June 26, 2011, 08:15:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

Or text. We should burn all Game of Thrones books.

Well, technically, depictions of underage sex in text is illegal, in Canada at least. I remember there was a fairly well publicized case many years ago, in B.C. I think, of some old guy who got charged with having drawings and text of kids in sexual activities, much of which he drew/wrote himself.

I think GoT and other things can get away with it because they are classified as "artistic or somesuch". My memory is vague about the whole thing, but I remember there were lots of editorials and commentary about it because it gave the courts a fair bit of power in deciding what is art and what is smut.

Quote from: Josephus on June 26, 2011, 09:44:31 PM
Well, technically, depictions of underage sex in text is illegal, in Canada at least. I remember there was a fairly well publicized case many years ago, in B.C. I think, of some old guy who got charged with having drawings and text of kids in sexual activities, much of which he drew/wrote himself.

It is illegal to fantasize about illegal activity in Canada?

QuoteI think GoT and other things can get away with it because they are classified as "artistic or somesuch". My memory is vague about the whole thing, but I remember there were lots of editorials and commentary about it because it gave the courts a fair bit of power in deciding what is art and what is smut.

What a bunch of shit.  So it is ok so long as it gets published in another country and imported where a publishing company makes money.  But if you make it on your own you are a criminal.  How arbitrary is that?  If Canada really feels that fantasy people under 18 fantasy years having fantasy sex is a a travesty that must be stamped out they should at least enforce it fairly.

But it isn't about fairness.  It's about persecuting a folk devil.

Quote from: Tyr on June 26, 2011, 07:14:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
I've spent a lot of time in the largest icelandic town outside of Iceland - Gimli, Manitoba.   :cool:

But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

Paedos can't help what they're attracted to anymore than people with more acceptable desires.

Bullshit.

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 11:46:45 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 26, 2011, 07:14:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
I've spent a lot of time in the largest icelandic town outside of Iceland - Gimli, Manitoba.   :cool:

But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

Paedos can't help what they're attracted to anymore than people with more acceptable desires.

Bullshit.

You think it's a conscious choice rather than some sort of biological or psychological defect?

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM

Quote from: Viking on June 26, 2011, 06:27:15 PM

Quote from: Drakken on June 25, 2011, 10:25:51 AM
Possessing or accessing hentai material, even online, is indeed practically illegal in Canada, thanks to R. vs. Sharpe.

Ridiculous I know, that someone could be put on the sex offender registry for watching naughty purple tentacles, but it's considered child pornography.

WTF? While Hentai is not my cup of cha, banning cartoons whether of Mohammed or of Schoolgirls being raped by cephalapods is just unacceptable.

I used to like Canada, what with their bacon, beer, violent sports, universal health care and all round accepting attitude towards Icelandic immigrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Canadian) (WTF, K.D. Lang?)

I've spent a lot of time in the largest icelandic town outside of Iceland - Gimli, Manitoba.   :cool:

But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

No, sir.  That there's a no-brainer.

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2011, 08:32:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
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.

I think we have long since established that Barrister argues from the standpoint of existing law, and builds his arguments thus.

I've noticed the same kind of reasoning from police officers here in Scandinavia, and I've always wondered about the causality relationship. Which comes first, the reasoning, or the job?

Quote from: Viking on June 26, 2011, 06:55:01 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM

I've spent a lot of time in the largest icelandic town outside of Iceland - Gimli, Manitoba.   :cool:

But such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

What's next, the banning of text depicting child rape?

To be honest I would have thought there were more than 6 thousand icelanders in copenhagen... There are about 1000 of us here in Trondheim.

I have a faint recollection of this being the case somewhere. Can't for the life of me recall the details though.

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 11:46:45 PM

Bullshit.

I'm no expert (thank god) but from what I've read it is classed as a psychological disorder.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 03:33:01 AM
I have a faint recollection of this being the case somewhere. Can't for the life of me recall the details though.

Its not child rape but I do remember something a year or two ago with a guy writing some pretty weird fiction about the rape of the pop group Girls Aloud IIRC and being convicted.

Quote from: Tyr on June 25, 2011, 10:58:13 AM

Even assuming there was nothing illegal there is still someone looking through your personal stuff...iffy.

This poor guy probally didn't even know it was illegal in Canada. It is strange.

As someone else pointed out, when you go through customs, they do look through your personal stuff--it's kind of the point of having customs.  And philosophically, I'm not sure that I see any difference between them rummaging through printed material that you might have and poking around in your computer files.

Quote from: MartinusI guess in  a case of a laptop there is also an issue of privacy/secrecy of correspondence involved. Can the customs officers go through your personal letters or contact list on your phone? I would think this goes beyond their scope of duties.

They definately can look through letters, as I understand it.  And as I said, I'm not sure why electronic media should be any different than print media.

Quote from: Iormlund

Quote from:  BarristerBut such issues are hardly a "no-brainer".  If we feel that depictions of explicit child sex are forbidden when shown live, why should they be okay in cartoon format?

I don't know. Maybe because there's no actual victim?

Doesn't have to be.  For example, if you have a (live-action) porn flick in which none of the actresses are younger than 25, but one of them plays a character that's stated to be 17, there is some legal opinion that the film would be considered kiddie porn.  Yeah, that's nuts, but as Neil said, it's a hysteria.  It's gone from a completely reasonable idea of protecting children to a witchhunt.  Remember the stories about some teenage chick sending topless pics of herself to her boyfriend's cell phone and ending up getting charged for distrubuting kiddie porn? 

Quote from: Slargos
I think we have long since established that Barrister argues from the standpoint of existing law, and builds his arguments thus.

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 01:30:56 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2011, 08:32:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
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.

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.

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.

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

And yes - something like explicit cartoons ARE some of those hard cases.  Is what is depicted "explicit"?  Is the "dominant characteristic" displaying underage sexual activity?  Does it have sufficient "artistic merit" for that defence to qualify?

I dunno. 

Quote from: Tyr on June 27, 2011, 04:42:13 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 11:46:45 PM

Bullshit.

I'm no expert (thank god) but from what I've read it is classed as a psychological disorder.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 03:33:01 AM
I have a faint recollection of this being the case somewhere. Can't for the life of me recall the details though.

Its not child rape but I do remember something a year or two ago with a guy writing some pretty weird fiction about the rape of the pop group Girls Aloud IIRC and being convicted.

I was a little harsh on you.  I apologize.

I certainly reject the notion that "poor paedo - he can't help himself, he's just born that way", but that's not quite what you were saying.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
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.

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.

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.

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

And yes - something like explicit cartoons ARE some of those hard cases.  Is what is depicted "explicit"?  Is the "dominant characteristic" displaying underage sexual activity?  Does it have sufficient "artistic merit" for that defence to qualify?

I dunno.

How cannot this argument be used to ban "Scarface", "Sin City", "True Blood", "Game of Thrones" etc.etc.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
Nor is there any victim involved in copying and distributing child porn.  The only victimization is in the initial making of child porn.

:huh:

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:28:32 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
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.

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.

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.

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

And yes - something like explicit cartoons ARE some of those hard cases.  Is what is depicted "explicit"?  Is the "dominant characteristic" displaying underage sexual activity?  Does it have sufficient "artistic merit" for that defence to qualify?

I dunno.

How cannot this argument be used to ban "Scarface", "Sin City", "True Blood", "Game of Thrones" etc.etc.

The argument?  It can be used to ban all of those things.  And remember once upon a time, such material woul have been banned.

But makign an argument is not the same as winning an argument.

For the movies nothing is shown that would qualify as 'explicit sexual activity'.  For GoT the dominant purpose of the books is not child sex.  And there's a defence of artistic merit for all of them.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:28:32 AM

How cannot this argument be used to ban "Scarface", "Sin City", "True Blood", "Game of Thrones" etc.etc.

Well it can. More often than not they would use the "artistic merit" defence, should any prosecution ensue. The Canadian law, as BB described it, has an intentionally rather large net, but rarely is anything like Game of Thrones prosecuted. The idea behind it is to have the legal means to prosecute smut when it's out there.
The Canadian courts aren't stupid enough to go after stuff like True Blood but use the legislation to ban the really smutty stuff.

QuoteThe law in Canada is complex, and not entirely satisfactory - but as I said there are no easy answers to this stuff.

I guess I find the arbitrariness of it concerning.  All they need to do to turn you, Barrister Boy, into a paedophile criminal is declare some piece of Media you have, such as a set of GRRM books, child pornography.  I would never think sitting alone and writing stories for your own private use to be a crime.  I mean laws like that could be used to destroy completely innocent people if you interpret them broadly enough.  I guess you just have to trust on good people to make sure bad laws do not turn into tyranny.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:33:37 AM
The argument?  It can be used to ban all of those things.  And remember once upon a time, such material woul have been banned.

But makign an argument is not the same as winning an argument.

For the movies nothing is shown that would qualify as 'explicit sexual activity'.  For GoT the dominant purpose of the books is not child sex.  And there's a defence of artistic merit for all of them.

I would argue that Manga's dominant purpose is not child sex, yet, it gets banned.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:48:22 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:33:37 AM
The argument?  It can be used to ban all of those things.  And remember once upon a time, such material woul have been banned.

But makign an argument is not the same as winning an argument.

For the movies nothing is shown that would qualify as 'explicit sexual activity'.  For GoT the dominant purpose of the books is not child sex.  And there's a defence of artistic merit for all of them.

I would argue that Manga's dominant purpose is not child sex, yet, it gets banned.

I am not sure that all manga is banned in Canada, unfortunately. In this particular case it could just be one over zealous customs officer made a rash decision. It's now up to the courts to decide.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:48:22 AM

I would argue that Manga's dominant purpose is not child sex, yet, it gets banned.

It has no artistic merit though.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:48:22 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:33:37 AM
The argument?  It can be used to ban all of those things.  And remember once upon a time, such material woul have been banned.

But makign an argument is not the same as winning an argument.

For the movies nothing is shown that would qualify as 'explicit sexual activity'.  For GoT the dominant purpose of the books is not child sex.  And there's a defence of artistic merit for all of them.

I would argue that Manga's dominant purpose is not child sex, yet, it gets banned.

Plenty of non-hentai manga is legally sold in Canada.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:44:37 AM

QuoteThe law in Canada is complex, and not entirely satisfactory - but as I said there are no easy answers to this stuff.

I guess I find the arbitrariness of it concerning.  All they need to do to turn you, Barrister Boy, into a paedophile criminal is declare some piece of Media you have, such as a set of GRRM books, child pornography.  I would never think sitting alone and writing stories for your own private use to be a crime.  I mean laws like that could be used to destroy completely innocent people if you interpret them broadly enough.  I guess you just have to trust on good people to make sure bad laws do not turn into tyranny.

I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

A certain basic faith in the system is what separates Canada and the US from being Greece or Pakistan.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:48:22 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:33:37 AM
The argument?  It can be used to ban all of those things.  And remember once upon a time, such material woul have been banned.

But makign an argument is not the same as winning an argument.

For the movies nothing is shown that would qualify as 'explicit sexual activity'.  For GoT the dominant purpose of the books is not child sex.  And there's a defence of artistic merit for all of them.

I would argue that Manga's dominant purpose is not child sex, yet, it gets banned.

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:55:29 AM
I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.  So naturally laws that require the judicial system to be wise make me nervous.

Also bear in mind I live in a part of the country where the legal system was systematically corrupted to destroy the lives of minorities for a hundred years and judges are elected hacks who cannot help but make rulings to impress the electorate.  Got to be tough on crime and drugs dontcha know?

The article doesn't specify Hentai, is says Manga. Tentacle sex with schoolgirls is found in non-Hentai Manga.

Regardless of the artistic merit of Manga, Soap Operas, Bodicerippers etc.etc. It's not up to the public at large (or the jury pool) to decide, it is a right of the consumer.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:58:51 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:55:29 AM
I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them? :huh:

By the way, here is the law in question: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:02:17 AM
And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them? :huh:

Because they sound arbitrary, complex, and unclear.

Besides dude you yourself said they were complex and unsatisfactory.  Does 'complex and unsatisfactory' mean good?

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:56:47 AM

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

Does canadian law distinguish between visual and non-visual media? Can a sentiment expressed in image form be proscribed while the same sentiment expressed in text does not? That sort of defeats the purpose of prohibiting that attitude. I don't see how you can maintain the argument. Text is ok because it is free speech yet drawings are bad because they encourage the attitude that sex with children is ok. As far as I can tell both drawings and text do exactly the same direct harm to children, the only difference is with the text the images are in the head while with the images the context is in the head.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 10:05:40 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:02:17 AM
And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them? :huh:

Because they sound arbitrary, complex, and unclear.

Besides dude you yourself said they were complex and unsatisfactory.  Does 'complex and unsatisfactory' mean good?

Some areas are not really amenable to simple and clear laws though.

In this area you will wind up making only a very small amount of material illegal (and making it very easy to circumvent), or you will wind up criminalizing a huge amount of material.  Neither sounds very satisfactory to me.  So instead we go with the "we'll know it when we see it" approach.  It's not perfect, but's the best we can do.

Also being a sex criminal in Texas basically ruins your life.  You will never have a good job or be able to live in peace again even after you get out of prison.  Having that sword hanging over your head for not actually being sexual with any living person is pretty terrifying.

But then perhaps in Canada the penalties are less draconian.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:59:00 AM
The article doesn't specify Hentai, is says Manga. Tentacle sex with schoolgirls is found in non-Hentai Manga.

Regardless of the artistic merit of Manga, Soap Operas, Bodicerippers etc.etc. It's not up to the public at large (or the jury pool) to decide, it is a right of the consumer.

If it's got tentacle sex it's hentai and a small subset of it at that.

Rereading the article, it doesn't specify that the manga was hentai, but I can't imagine the custom officer would arrest someone over something mainstream like Dragonball or Naruto or whatever. If they did the case will get thrown out. If it was hentai he'll get convicted.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:02:17 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:58:51 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:55:29 AM
I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them? :huh:

By the way, here is the law in question: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html

A few questions

Quote(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

This is a bit unclear to me, "photographic" is an adjective, yet, it is followed by a comma. The questions is really to my mind at least is if the law covers drawings at all. The definition suggests to me that it only includes still and moving images acquired using means including digital still or video cameras and analog still or video cameras.

Quote(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

The law seems to suggest that a defense under this law is to say that no children were harmed. So, what are the definitions of "undue", "risk" and "harm"? No children were harmed or abused in the making of manga, that seems to be a sufficient defense.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 10:07:49 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:56:47 AM

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

Does canadian law distinguish between visual and non-visual media? Can a sentiment expressed in image form be proscribed while the same sentiment expressed in text does not? That sort of defeats the purpose of prohibiting that attitude. I don't see how you can maintain the argument. Text is ok because it is free speech yet drawings are bad because they encourage the attitude that sex with children is ok. As far as I can tell both drawings and text do exactly the same direct harm to children, the only difference is with the text the images are in the head while with the images the context is in the head.

Yes.  Canadian law distinguishes between visual and non-visual media (it also distinguishes audio recordings).

I don't see how recognizing that different media are, well, different, will "defeat the purpose" of any prohibition.  A single image of explicit sexual activity with a child is enormously powerful - a power a single sentence of text can not match.  You really might say "a picture is worth a thousand words" in this case.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 10:14:17 AM
Also being a sex criminal in Texas basically ruins your life.  You will never have a good job or be able to live in peace again even after you get out of prison.  Having that sword hanging over your head for not actually being sexual with any living person is pretty terrifying.

But then perhaps in Canada the penalties are less draconian.

Penalties are certainly less draconian in Canada, but a conviction for child porn on your record is still going to fuck your life up pretty good.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 10:18:18 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:02:17 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:58:51 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:55:29 AM
I don't care what the particular law in question is - if you assume that the justice system is arbitrary, corrupt, and malicious it can be used to destroy good people.

Well we are supposed to assume that and try to write good laws instead of relying on good people because if all men were angels we would not need laws or government to begin with.  At least that is supposed to be the American tradition.

And what is "bad" about the child porn laws as I described them? :huh:

By the way, here is the law in question: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html

A few questions

Quote(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

This is a bit unclear to me, "photographic" is an adjective, yet, it is followed by a comma. The questions is really to my mind at least is if the law covers drawings at all. The definition suggests to me that it only includes still and moving images acquired using means including digital still or video cameras and analog still or video cameras.

Quote(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

The law seems to suggest that a defense under this law is to say that no children were harmed. So, what are the definitions of "undue", "risk" and "harm"? No children were harmed or abused in the making of manga, that seems to be a sufficient defense.

First question - a "visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means" certainly covers drawings and paintings to me.

Second question - you missed the word "and".  In order to qualify as a defence there must be both a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, art, etc. AND not pose an undue risk of harm.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:18:54 AM

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 10:07:49 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:56:47 AM

As a visual representation, you probably don't get involved in the "dominant purpose" question - it is whether or not it depicts people under 18 being engaged in "explicit sexual activity".

Plus artistic merit defense.

Does canadian law distinguish between visual and non-visual media? Can a sentiment expressed in image form be proscribed while the same sentiment expressed in text does not? That sort of defeats the purpose of prohibiting that attitude. I don't see how you can maintain the argument. Text is ok because it is free speech yet drawings are bad because they encourage the attitude that sex with children is ok. As far as I can tell both drawings and text do exactly the same direct harm to children, the only difference is with the text the images are in the head while with the images the context is in the head.

Yes.  Canadian law distinguishes between visual and non-visual media (it also distinguishes audio recordings).

I don't see how recognizing that different media are, well, different, will "defeat the purpose" of any prohibition.  A single image of explicit sexual activity with a child is enormously powerful - a power a single sentence of text can not match.  You really might say "a picture is worth a thousand words" in this case.

So, the practice in canadian law is to regard anything that turns paedos on as child pornography as long as it isn't text. Is that correct?

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:44:37 AM

QuoteThe law in Canada is complex, and not entirely satisfactory - but as I said there are no easy answers to this stuff.

I guess I find the arbitrariness of it concerning.  All they need to do to turn you, Barrister Boy, into a paedophile criminal is declare some piece of Media you have, such as a set of GRRM books, child pornography.  I would never think sitting alone and writing stories for your own private use to be a crime.  I mean laws like that could be used to destroy completely innocent people if you interpret them broadly enough.  I guess you just have to trust on good people to make sure bad laws do not turn into tyranny.

Indeed. There is an extremely robust body of case law from the European Court of Human Rights and European constitutional courts, striking various criminal laws as unconstitutional on account of such laws being ambiguous and thus not allowing a clear distinction between a prohibited and a permitted activity.

BB's arguments are nothing more than a testament to the moral panic surrounding this issue.

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 10:25:32 AM
So, the practice in canadian law is to regard anything that turns paedos on as child pornography as long as it isn't text. Is that correct?

:huh:  Uh, no.  How did you get that from what I said?

For visual representation, anything that depicts those under the age of 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity, or the dominant characteristic is the depiction of a sexual organ or anal region, is prohibited.

For written material, anything whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 is prohibited.

Excepting of course the various defences.

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 10:29:49 AM
BB's arguments are nothing more than a testament to the moral panic surrounding this issue.

Why don't you go back and read my posts and we can have a discussion about child porn?   :)

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:46:16 AM

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Well, my point is that either the job attracts the kind of people who think that way, or you eventually start thinking that way as a result of the job. Every cop I've ever discussed this kind of subject with has reasoned the same way. It is illegal, and any question as to why is irrelevant.

I expect that if you are the kind of person who will easily consider the gray areas, you may perhaps not become that efficient at your job whether you're a police officer or a prosecutor.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 10:38:51 AM

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:46:16 AM

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Well, my point is that either the job attracts the kind of people who think that way, or you eventually start thinking that way as a result of the job. Every cop I've ever discussed this kind of subject with has reasoned the same way. It is illegal, and any question as to why is irrelevant.

I expect that if you are the kind of person who will easily consider the gray areas, you may perhaps not become that efficient at your job whether you're a police officer or a prosecutor.

No, instead I think it's that prosecutor's and cops just get really, really tired of people trying to argue their charges.

If you think (to pick the obvious example) that marijuana should be legal - that's great.  Go write a letter to the editor, join a political party, protest at the capital.   But don't start arguing what the law "should be" when you're in court.  It is not the time or place for those kind of political discussions.  Don't argue how speeding laws are unjust to the cop who is writing you a speeding ticket.

I'm perfectly able to discuss what the law "should be" - in the right arena.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:55:21 AM

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 10:38:51 AM

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:46:16 AM

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Well, my point is that either the job attracts the kind of people who think that way, or you eventually start thinking that way as a result of the job. Every cop I've ever discussed this kind of subject with has reasoned the same way. It is illegal, and any question as to why is irrelevant.

I expect that if you are the kind of person who will easily consider the gray areas, you may perhaps not become that efficient at your job whether you're a police officer or a prosecutor.

No, instead I think it's that prosecutor's and cops just get really, really tired of people trying to argue their charges.

If you think (to pick the obvious example) that marijuana should be legal - that's great.  Go write a letter to the editor, join a political party, protest at the capital.   But don't start arguing what the law "should be" when you're in court.  It is not the time or place for those kind of political discussions.  Don't argue how speeding laws are unjust to the cop who is writing you a speeding ticket.

I'm perfectly able to discuss what the law "should be" - in the right arena.

So it's a work-related injury, rather than a defect that makes you particularly suitable for the job.  :D

For all you who are really interested in Canadian Child pornography laws and not just trolling BB here is the link to one of the leading cases involving an accused writing about underage sex.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html

As BB said the law is complex.

Here are a few snippets from the head note dealing with some of the issues Viking et al have raised.

QuoteAn objective approach must be applied to the terms "dominant characteristic" and "for a sexual purpose".  The question is whether a reasonable viewer, looking at the depiction objectively and in context, would see its "dominant characteristic" as the depiction of the child's sexual organ or anal region in a manner that is reasonably perceived as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers.  Innocent photographs of a baby in the bath and other representations of non-sexual nudity are not covered by the offence.  As for written material or visual representations that advocate or counsel sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years that would be an offence under the Criminal Code, the requirement that the material "advocates" or "counsels" signifies that, when viewed objectively, the material must be seen as actively inducing or encouraging the described offences with children.

QuoteParliament has created a number of defences in ss. 163.1(6) and (7) of the Code which should be liberally construed as they further the values protected by the guarantee of free expression.  These defences may be raised by the accused by pointing to facts capable of supporting the defence, at which point the Crown must disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defence of "artistic merit" provided for in s. 163.1(6) must be established objectively and should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art.  Section 163.1(6) creates a further defence for material that serves an "educational, scientific or medical purpose".  This refers to the purpose the material, viewed objectively, may serve, not the purpose for which the possessor actually holds it.  Finally, Parliament has made available a "public good" defence.  As with the medical, educational or scientific purpose defences, the defence of public good should be liberally construed.

I would never troll BB in these matters.

Seriously.

I know it is extremely important to him and actually I always enjoy debating people who are earnest on Languish.

Anyway thanks for the links.

The Canadian law is not really in dispute though, I thought that much was clear. The question was whether it's reasonable that a cartoon depiction falls under the same law as a photographic depiction.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 11:24:28 AM
The Canadian law is not really in dispute though, I thought that much was clear. The question was whether it's reasonable that a cartoon depiction falls under the same law as a photographic depiction.

Well no, Canadian law here isn't clear at all.  I have no idea which way this case will go.

If you try and distinguish between photos, and cartoons, however things are going to get tricky.  What is "real" is hard to tell in this era of advanced computer graphics and Photoshop.  For example, you can take a live picture and "cartoonify" it - but there is still a depiction of a live person.  You can take a picture and alter it so the subject looks older, younger, taller, shorter, etc.

Not to mention that a good artist can draw/paint an almost photo-realistic image using only some basic paints and inks.

In this case the law then doesn't try and distinguish between types of visual images, and puts them all together, and only attempts to distinguish based on the content, not the specific medium.

And R v Sharpe, which CC linked to, is *the* case on the issue.

I like the idea that the Crown can decide that anyone is a child pornographer. I trust that the good people in power make sure that they know it when they see it and I would gladly live in Canada.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 12:21:05 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 11:24:28 AM
The Canadian law is not really in dispute though, I thought that much was clear. The question was whether it's reasonable that a cartoon depiction falls under the same law as a photographic depiction.

Well no, Canadian law here isn't clear at all.  I have no idea which way this case will go.

If you try and distinguish between photos, and cartoons, however things are going to get tricky.  What is "real" is hard to tell in this era of advanced computer graphics and Photoshop.  For example, you can take a live picture and "cartoonify" it - but there is still a depiction of a live person.  You can take a picture and alter it so the subject looks older, younger, taller, shorter, etc.

Not to mention that a good artist can draw/paint an almost photo-realistic image using only some basic paints and inks.

In this case the law then doesn't try and distinguish between types of visual images, and puts them all together, and only attempts to distinguish based on the content, not the specific medium.

And R v Sharpe, which CC linked to, is *the* case on the issue.

What I meant was, and perhaps here lies the meat of the apparently great divide: The Law, while perhaps not crystal clear, is not really interesting to debate here. What the exact interpretation of the law is, is for Canadian courts to decide and whatever bitching and moaning by laypersons is 100% irrelevant since Interpretation is a matter for the legal body. What is interesting to discuss is whether cartoons depicting children in sexual situations should be criminalized or not.

If you're going to argue from the basis of this particular law while your detractors argue from the basis of what the law should be then naturally it's going to be hard to reach any sort of consensus, or even understand eachother.  :hmm:

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) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfen_Lied) 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).

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. :frusty:  He also gives a bunch of these photos to the girl's dad. :frusty: :frusty:

So of course he gets charged with distributing child porn.

The pothead charge should have been sufficient. Surely they go straight to execution? :mad:

 :lol:

I hope you threw the book at him.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 12:49:50 PM
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?

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 12:49:50 PM
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. :frusty:  He also gives a bunch of these photos to the girl's dad. :frusty: :frusty:

So of course he gets charged with distributing child porn.

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

Quote from: Syt on June 27, 2011, 12:40:59 PM
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) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfen_Lied) 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.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
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.

QuoteMcDaniel 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

Quote from: Jacob on June 27, 2011, 12:55:34 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 12:49:50 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 01:08:43 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 01:13:52 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 01:08:43 PM
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.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 01:08:43 PM
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.  :)

Quote from: Habbaku on June 27, 2011, 01:20:56 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 01:08:43 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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?

Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2011, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Surely there is an area between protecting and endorsing something and making it a crime.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:47:08 PM
In this case, its either one or the other, yes.

So unless it is a public good it is a crime?  Are you allowed to masturbate because the state benefits in some way?

Quote from: Viking on June 27, 2011, 09:28:32 AM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:22:46 AM
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.

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.

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.

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

And yes - something like explicit cartoons ARE some of those hard cases.  Is what is depicted "explicit"?  Is the "dominant characteristic" displaying underage sexual activity?  Does it have sufficient "artistic merit" for that defence to qualify?

I dunno.

How cannot this argument be used to ban "Scarface", "Sin City", "True Blood", "Game of Thrones" etc.etc.

" Is the "dominant characteristic" displaying underage sexual activity?".
this.

It goes to "artistic merits" (and I won't debate that), but, True Blood is not a XXX tv series.  The plot of True Blood doesn't revolve around a situation wich will lead to sexual intercourse between men, women and... other creatures.  There's a story to be told and sex is part of the story to advance the plot.
In a XXX movie, the whole story is based around the sex scene.

So that's the difference between True Blood and Twilight a XXX Parody.

A nude picture in Playboy is pornography, a nude painting is art.

There's your distinction.  And I'm debating on the merits of this, just stating the facts as they are.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 01:47:11 PM
Surely there is an area between protecting and endorsing something and making it a crime.

Perhaps I am not expressing myself good enough in english. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are protected by the law. These are vital protected interests because a liberal democracy requires it to function. They are not without bonds however. Freedom of speech is not without limits. Over here, freedom of speech ends when it collides with a legitimate protected interest. That makes threats, racist remarks or whatever against the law, despite that they could be argued to be protected as free speech.

So, over to cartoon child porn. Clearly it is a form of expression and as such it starts out as a protected right. Then we weigh that against the public interest of having as few people as possible getting sexually aroused by children. The balance of the scales tip over in favour of a ban. If there had been some form of legitimate protected reason to allow it anyway, it might have tipped the scales back towards allowing it anyway. But since I fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever for someone to read child porn cartoons, I think it is fine that it is prohibited. The final step is to check if the limit to freedom of expression is proportional to the public interest, and I think it is. 

I guess the question is one of cost/benefit.

Is cartoon child pornography a cost or a benefit to society? Criminalizing it for the "ick" factor is frankly good enough (since that's what we do most of the time anyway), but I suppose a case could also be made for the proliferation of this type of porn being a gateway to crimes with actual victims. You would have to prove that watching cartoon porn incites paedophiles who haven't yet crossed into active molestation, however.

On the other hand, I expect a case could also be made for the fact that the availability of cartoon child porn may in fact reduce the risk of acting on the inclinations since it could perhaps be a way for the paedophile to fulfill his needs without resorting to kiddie diddling.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
But since I fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever for someone to read child porn cartoons,

:huh: Really?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Methadone for paedos.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:02:42 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
But since I fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever for someone to read child porn cartoons,

:huh: Really?

:huh: Irony?

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2011, 09:44:37 AM
I would never think sitting alone and writing stories for your own private use to be a crime.

it ain't a crime either.  Distributing such material is a crime, however.

QuoteI mean laws like that could be used to destroy completely innocent people if you interpret them broadly enough.  I guess you just have to trust on good people to make sure bad laws do not turn into tyranny.

Laws in general are pretty broad, so as to avoid people skipping through the nets.  Technically, murder is illegal.  However, there is the case of legitimate defense that can be used, under certain circumstances.  A prosecutor could still charge you for murder though.  A prosecutor's guideline is to charge someone when they believe they can make a case.  There are goofy cases sometimes.  Generally, though, common sense prevails.

Our societies are filled with bad laws and we have to trust on good people to make sure these bad laws do not turn into tyranny, that's why we have democracies, I suppose.

A man killing his child's murdered would be applauded as a hero by many, yet, he would be prosecuted for violating the law.

Drinking and driving is bad, we all know that.  But someone at 0,09 at 11:00pm is not the same as someone 0,09 at 11:00am.  Yet, they share the same punishment.

Justice is imperfect in itself, so that's why we invented trials with judge & jury to try to see if there aggravating or attenuating circumstances.  Even then, it may not work.  In both directions.  A drunk driver killing someone will get jail time, a pot user will get community work.  Some judges are morons, some are good, some are corrupt.

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. 

Quote from: Tyr on June 27, 2011, 02:03:30 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Methadone for paedos.

I think its the other way around, viagra for paedos...

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:03:54 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:02:42 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
But since I fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever for someone to read child porn cartoons,

:huh: Really?

:huh: Irony?

You really don't see any legitimate reason? That's just bizarre.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:06:48 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:03:54 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:02:42 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
But since I fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever for someone to read child porn cartoons,

:huh: Really?

:huh: Irony?

You really don't see any legitimate reason? That's just bizarre.

:huh:
Ok, vilket skulle det skyddsvärda intresset vara för att tillåta tecknad barnporr? Konkret, utan att hänvisa till yttrandefrihet alltså.

Quote from: Tyr on June 27, 2011, 02:03:30 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Methadone for paedos.

:lol:

Exactly. Very well put.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:08:30 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:06:48 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:03:54 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:02:42 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
But since I fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever for someone to read child porn cartoons,

:huh: Really?

:huh: Irony?

You really don't see any legitimate reason? That's just bizarre.

:huh:
Ok, vilket skulle det skyddsvärda intresset vara för att tillåta tecknad barnporr? Konkret, utan att hänvisa till yttrandefrihet alltså.

Varför måste det ha ett skyddsvärt intresse, din kommunistdjävel.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 12:51:40 PM
The pothead charge should have been sufficient. Surely they go straight to execution? :mad:

It should have been, unfortunately it's not really a crime in Canada :(

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:08:30 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:06:48 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:03:54 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:02:42 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:58:33 PM
But since I fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever for someone to read child porn cartoons,

:huh: Really?

:huh: Irony?

You really don't see any legitimate reason? That's just bizarre.

:huh:
Ok, vilket skulle det skyddsvärda intresset vara för att tillåta tecknad barnporr? Konkret, utan att hänvisa till yttrandefrihet alltså.

One legitimate reason for someone to read child porn cartoons that comes to mind is masturbation.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:10:51 PM

One legitimate reason for someone to read child porn cartoons that comes to mind is masturbation.

Oh, you were just trolling.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:55:21 AM

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 10:38:51 AM

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 06:46:16 AM

While in many ways, it's good to see those charged with enforcing the law standing up for the law as written (otherwise, taken to an extreme, why even have written laws--just let them enforce their own individual views), but when not acting in an official capacity, it does take a lot of the wind out of their arguments when their position boils down to, "Activity A should be against the law because the law says that activity A is illegal".  A bit of circular reasoning there.

Well, my point is that either the job attracts the kind of people who think that way, or you eventually start thinking that way as a result of the job. Every cop I've ever discussed this kind of subject with has reasoned the same way. It is illegal, and any question as to why is irrelevant.

I expect that if you are the kind of person who will easily consider the gray areas, you may perhaps not become that efficient at your job whether you're a police officer or a prosecutor.

No, instead I think it's that prosecutor's and cops just get really, really tired of people trying to argue their charges.

If you think (to pick the obvious example) that marijuana should be legal - that's great.  Go write a letter to the editor, join a political party, protest at the capital.   But don't start arguing what the law "should be" when you're in court.  It is not the time or place for those kind of political discussions.  Don't argue how speeding laws are unjust to the cop who is writing you a speeding ticket.

I'm perfectly able to discuss what the law "should be" - in the right arena.

But you aren't, really. You are arguing like a prosecutor in the court room. But, newsflash! We are not in a court room. We come here exactly for that kind of abstract discussions. And your obvious inability to do so makes you a rather dull conversationalist.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:12:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:10:51 PM

One legitimate reason for someone to read child porn cartoons that comes to mind is masturbation.

Oh, you were just trolling.

Why do think I am trolling? If masturbating isn't a legitimate reason to read porn then we have left Planet Reasonable.

So the thread has turned from BB being a square to Hortlund being a troll? Sometimes it feels like we are just going through the motions.

Wait, Bluebook is Hortlund?

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

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
No, not Hortlund, I was Oxenstierna back in the old forum. We have been over this several times before.

I refuse to believe there are more idiotic Swedes like this. You are Hortlund. Stat.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:14:36 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:12:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:10:51 PM

One legitimate reason for someone to read child porn cartoons that comes to mind is masturbation.

Oh, you were just trolling.

Why do think I am trolling? If masturbating isn't a legitimate reason to read porn then we have left Planet Reasonable.

No, someone wanting to masturbate to child porn is not a legitimate reason to allow cartoon child porn.
Im sorry, Im just not going to take you seriously anymore in this thread.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:21:54 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:14:36 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:12:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 02:10:51 PM

One legitimate reason for someone to read child porn cartoons that comes to mind is masturbation.

Oh, you were just trolling.

Why do think I am trolling? If masturbating isn't a legitimate reason to read porn then we have left Planet Reasonable.

No, someone wanting to masturbate to child porn is not a legitimate reason to allow cartoon child porn.
Im sorry, Im just not going to take you seriously anymore in this thread.

It's OK, I'll sort you with BB under "victimless crimes = win".

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 02:21:31 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
No, not Hortlund, I was Oxenstierna back in the old forum. We have been over this several times before.

I refuse to believe there are more idiotic Swedes like this. You are Hortlund. Stat.

:huh:  Please don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

Quote from: Habbaku on June 27, 2011, 02:24:54 PM:huh:  Please don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

That would severely limit his ability to post here.

Oh, wait a second... :mad:

Quote from: Habbaku on June 27, 2011, 02:24:54 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 02:21:31 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
No, not Hortlund, I was Oxenstierna back in the old forum. We have been over this several times before.

I refuse to believe there are more idiotic Swedes like this. You are Hortlund. Stat.

:huh:  Please don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

Shh.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:04:34 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 27, 2011, 02:03:30 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Methadone for paedos.

I think its the other way around, viagra for paedos...

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.

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.

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 02:12:20 PM
But you aren't, really. You are arguing like a prosecutor in the court room. But, newsflash! We are not in a court room. We come here exactly for that kind of abstract discussions. And your obvious inability to do so makes you a rather dull conversationalist.

Marti, I've spent quite a bit of time in this thrad today (it's a slow day at work).

Why don't you pick one of my posts and address some of the points I've made?  So far you've only made a couple of drive-by ad hom attacks.  I mean if that's all you feel up to, that's fine, but I'd be more interested to see you actually say something. :)

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 02:37:16 PM

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.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 02:37:16 PM
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.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 02:40:41 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 02:37:16 PM

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.

Quote from: viper37 on June 27, 2011, 02:04:13 PM

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.

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
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?

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:47:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2011, 01:45:39 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 01:43:50 PM
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.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 02:40:41 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 02:37:16 PM

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.

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 02:50:01 PM
Wasn't Bluebook back on the old forum some female Brit that was a friend of Brazen's?  Or was that Bluebird?

swallow?

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 02:47:50 PM

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.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 02:47:50 PM

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 02:40:41 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 02:37:16 PM

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.

Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2011, 02:53:40 PM

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 02:50:01 PM
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?   :D

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 09:22:46 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 01:30:56 AM

Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2011, 08:32:42 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2011, 06:40:08 PM
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.

QuoteLaws 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteSo 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.

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.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 03:01:05 PM
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.

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 03:01:05 PM
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!

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
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!

:menace:

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 03:21:42 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
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!

:menace:

:lol:

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 03:21:42 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
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!

:menace:

Well, 6 out of 3 of them, anyway.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:29:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 03:21:42 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
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!

:menace:

Well, 6 out of 3 of them, anyway.

That math seems a bit suspect.

Quote from: dps on June 27, 2011, 03:36:36 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:29:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 03:21:42 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
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!

:menace:

Well, 6 out of 3 of them, anyway.

That math seems a bit suspect.

:lol: Sorry, out of 9.

I've been thinking about BDSM cartoons vs child porn cartoons. I can't think of any obvious big differences between them. Maybe I'm missing something?

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
I've been thinking about BDSM cartoons vs child porn cartoons. I can't think of any obvious big differences between them. Maybe I'm missing something?

BDSM (the activity, no the comics) has consenting adults.  Child sexual abuse has no consent.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
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!

They haven't gone after BDSM, they have gone after an accusation of rape.  Not that I'm an expert, but not all BDSM involves one of the participant to lose consciousness.

The case is really silly.  The woman, married/dating her "rapist" complained about it only a few months later, after their couple splitted.
It stinks of falsa accusation, but that was a difficult ruling.

Ruling like this may attack legitimate consensual sex if one of the partners is a bitch.
Ruling against the women might have meant anyone could strangle a woman, claim she had given consent before and rape her.

That's the kind of case that should never have reached the court to get such stupid rulings.  But it will emphasize the need for people to carefully select their sexual partners when they want to something a little more spicy.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 03:52:01 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
I've been thinking about BDSM cartoons vs child porn cartoons. I can't think of any obvious big differences between them. Maybe I'm missing something?

BDSM (the activity, no the comics) has consenting adults.  Child sexual abuse has no consent.

Frequently BDSM cartoons and written porn depict non-consensual situations, though.

And what about infantilist porn? The line between that and depictions of sex with children without actual children being involved is rather blurry, too.

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 04:09:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 03:52:01 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
I've been thinking about BDSM cartoons vs child porn cartoons. I can't think of any obvious big differences between them. Maybe I'm missing something?

BDSM (the activity, no the comics) has consenting adults.  Child sexual abuse has no consent.

Frequently BDSM cartoons and written porn depict non-consensual situations, though.

And what about infantilist porn? The line between than and depictions of child porn without actual children being involved is rather blurry, too.

And from what I understand, written child porn depicts oddly precocious and sexually consenting children.

It's the risk of that behaviour being transferred into real life that is considered, not the risk of the activity being displayed in the written work.

I'm not sure what "infantilist porn" is - porn involving characters who are of age, but dressed and acting younger?

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 04:13:10 PM
I'm not sure what "infantilist porn" is - porn involving characters who are of age, but dressed and acting younger?

That's the problem with you square prosecutor types - you do not know the subject well enough yet you seem to have opinions on it that have rather far reaching consequences.

Infantilist porn is porn where at least one of the participants dresses up as a child or a baby (I guess it's to child porn what furry porn is to bestiality porn). I suspect there isn't much overlap between consumers of that porn/fetish and pedophiles but who knows - in any case if you go after depictions of child sex in text, why not go after a badly disguised adult pretending to be a baby?

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 04:18:45 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 04:13:10 PM
I'm not sure what "infantilist porn" is - porn involving characters who are of age, but dressed and acting younger?

That's the problem with you square prosecutor types - you do not know the subject well enough yet you seem to have opinions on it that have rather far reaching consequences.

Infantilist porn is porn where at least one of the participants dresses up as a child or a baby (I guess it's to child porn what furry porn is to bestiality porn). I suspect there isn't much overlap between consumers of that porn/fetish and pedophiles but who knows - in any case if you go after depictions of child sex in text, why not go after a badly disguised adult pretending to be a baby?

I would think that would be something that might be prosecuted as kiddie porn under US law.  As I've posted before, if you have a porn movie in which a 20-something port star portrays a character that's supposed to 17, you can get prosecuted for kiddie porn.  Actually, as I understand it, it's a gray area, there's not a lot of case law on the matter, and what there is varies (nothing from the Supreme Court that I'm aware of, just lower court opinions that differ).  I would think that in general, the stuff you are talking about would actually be safer from prosecutions, because it would be more visually obvious that the person playing the part isn't really that young.

What the hell kind of porn are you watch, marti? :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 04:18:45 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 04:13:10 PM
I'm not sure what "infantilist porn" is - porn involving characters who are of age, but dressed and acting younger?

That's the problem with you square prosecutor types - you do not know the subject well enough yet you seem to have opinions on it that have rather far reaching consequences.

Infantilist porn is porn where at least one of the participants dresses up as a child or a baby (I guess it's to child porn what furry porn is to bestiality porn). I suspect there isn't much overlap between consumers of that porn/fetish and pedophiles but who knows - in any case if you go after depictions of child sex in text, why not go after a badly disguised adult pretending to be a baby?

So I need to watch a lot of porn in order to prosecute child porn cases? :huh:

And do you really need all the ad hom insults Marti?

I think I've heard of that particular kink.  I think it has a lot more to do with submission and power - kind of just a particular twist on S&M - rather than an attraction to infants.  Plus I'm, unaware of anyone progressing from that kind of porn to child sexual abuse.

Quote from: HVC on June 27, 2011, 04:25:36 PM
What the hell kind of porn are you watch, marti? :lol:

You faux-prude. Don't tell me you've never jerked off to a vid of a 50 year old man in diapers nursing from a hideously ugly woman.

Quote from: Slargos on June 27, 2011, 04:30:26 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 27, 2011, 04:25:36 PM
What the hell kind of porn are you watch, marti? :lol:

You faux-prude. Don't tell me you've never jerked off to a vid of a 50 year old man in diapers nursing from a hideously ugly woman.

ok once. but i was really drunk :blush: :P

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 04:29:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 04:18:45 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 04:13:10 PM
I'm not sure what "infantilist porn" is - porn involving characters who are of age, but dressed and acting younger?

That's the problem with you square prosecutor types - you do not know the subject well enough yet you seem to have opinions on it that have rather far reaching consequences.

Infantilist porn is porn where at least one of the participants dresses up as a child or a baby (I guess it's to child porn what furry porn is to bestiality porn). I suspect there isn't much overlap between consumers of that porn/fetish and pedophiles but who knows - in any case if you go after depictions of child sex in text, why not go after a badly disguised adult pretending to be a baby?

So I need to watch a lot of porn in order to prosecute child porn cases? :huh:

And do you really need all the ad hom insults Marti?

I think I've heard of that particular kink.  I think it has a lot more to do with submission and power - kind of just a particular twist on S&M - rather than an attraction to infants.  Plus I'm, unaware of anyone progressing from that kind of porn to child sexual abuse.

I didn't say you need to watch all that porn - I don't. But you have to at least know it exists.

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
I didn't say you need to watch all that porn - I don't. But you have to at least know it exists.

Not really.

Child porn in particular here in Alberta all gets handled by our Specialized Prosecutions unit.  In Yukon those cases were handled by a single experienced prosecutor (and it's not as if we got very many of them).

Being a Canadian prosecutor I do have some special knowledge of this area that I can try to share with Languish, but this is not my particular area of expertise.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 05:01:15 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
I didn't say you need to watch all that porn - I don't. But you have to at least know it exists.

Not really.

Child porn in particular here in Alberta all gets handled by our Specialized Prosecutions unit.  In Yukon those cases were handled by a single experienced prosecutor (and it's not as if we got very many of them).

Being a Canadian prosecutor I do have some special knowledge of this area that I can try to share with Languish, but this is not my particular area of expertise.

:rolleyes:

You can't come to Languish and make statements outside your area of expertise, you pretentious schmuck! It cheapens the forum. :rolleyes:

Really... what's this place coming to?

I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 05:11:00 PM
I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

It took me 2 secodns to find that Australia does.  I'm sure so do many other countries.

What research have you done to come to the immediate conclusions that "the gateway argument is certainly not compelling enough"?

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 05:16:32 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 05:11:00 PM
I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

What research have you done to come to the immediate conclusions that "the gateway argument is certainly not compelling enough"?

Well, for one, the studies you linked to earlier in this thread provided contradictory results.  From those results, while it seems such a link *may* exist, it doesn't seem conclusive enough to warrant convicting someone based on the gateway argument. Some studies have reached the opposite conclusion. 

Secondly, my above claim notwithstanding, the onus really isn't on me to prove that there *isn't* a causal link and that people shouldn't be arrested.  Rather, it must be the state that proves that a strong enough link exists to warrant arresting, sentencing and giving someone a large social stigma for the rest of their life.  And so, absent such convincing evidence for what is a very controversial claim with such far-reaching implications (and which is also not a crime in many western countries), I am not simply willing to take the Crown's word on it. 

And beyond the gateway argument, there don't seem to be many other reasonable arguments left.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 03:52:01 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2011, 03:42:56 PM
I've been thinking about BDSM cartoons vs child porn cartoons. I can't think of any obvious big differences between them. Maybe I'm missing something?

BDSM (the activity, no the comics) has consenting adults.  Child sexual abuse has no consent.

But the activity associated with child porn cartoons isn't always the same as the activity depicted. Just like BDSM. Many BDSM porn cartoons depict non-consensual rape and torture. Only a subset of those who use BDSM cartoons actually enjoy and in some cases engage in non-consensual rape and torture. Many people's activities associated with BDSM cartoons involve situations different from those depicted, ie consensual situations. To these people the cartoon is simply a fantasy, a fantasy that they find arousing as a fantasy but are not at all interested in making a reality because they are not aroused by the reality. If we look at child porn cartoons I don't see a significant difference. Age play among consenting adults where one part plays the part of a child is fairly common. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many people who like this use child porn cartoons. And I have no reason to doubt that many of them have no interest in having sex with an actual child, just like I have zero interest in torturing a woman who doesn't consent. If this is so only a subset of those who use child porn cartoons actually want to have sex with a child.

I don't see the big difference between the two things. They are both used by adults to fuel real life consensual encounters of adults. They are also AFAIK used by sadistic rapists and child molesters, respectively.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 05:32:02 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 05:16:32 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 05:11:00 PM
I'm still not sure why a drawing or a text depicting underage sex is worthy of criminal prosecution, while depictions of every other crime are not, including acts of supreme violence. 

Well, that's not entirely true, I know why - the hysteria around this particular issue shuts off the rationality valve in most people's minds (to the extent it was even there in the first place).  But I can't think of a compelling and convincing reason.  The evidence surrounding the "gateway" argument is certainly not compelling enough to warrant locking people away and ruining their entire lives.

Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

What research have you done to come to the immediate conclusions that "the gateway argument is certainly not compelling enough"?

Well, for one, the studies you linked to earlier in this thread provided contradictory results.  From those results, while it seems such a link *may* exist, it doesn't seem conclusive enough to warrant convicting someone based on the gateway argument. Some studies have reached the opposite conclusion. 

Secondly, my above claim notwithstanding, the onus really isn't on me to prove that there *isn't* a causal link and that people shouldn't be arrested.  Rather, it must be the state that proves that a strong enough link exists to warrant arresting, sentencing and giving someone a large social stigma for the rest of their life.  And so, absent such convincing evidence for what is a very controversial claim with such far-reaching implications (and which is also not a crime in many western countries), I am not simply willing to take the Crown's word on it. 

And beyond the gateway argument, there don't seem to be many other reasonable arguments left.

You are aware that our child porn laws were given extensive scuriny by the Supreme court of Canada, wnd with a very narrow exception, were held to pass constitutional muster?

From the headnote of R v Sharpe:

QuoteIn adopting s. 163.1(4), Parliament was pursuing the pressing and substantial objective of criminalizing the possession of child pornography that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children.  The means chosen by Parliament are rationally connected to this objective.  Parliament is not required to adduce scientific proof based on concrete evidence that the possession of child pornography causes harm to children.  Rather, a reasoned apprehension of harm will suffice.  Applying this test, the evidence establishes several connections between the possession of child pornography and harm to children: (1) child pornography promotes cognitive distortions; (2) it fuels fantasies that incite offenders to offend; (3) it is used for grooming and seducing victims; and (4) children are abused in the production of child pornography involving real children. Criminalizing possession may reduce the market for child pornography and the abuse of children it often involves.  With respect to minimal impairment, when properly interpreted, the law catches much less material unrelated to harm to children than has been suggested.  However, the law does capture the possession of two categories of material that one would not normally think of as "child pornography" and that raise little or no risk of harm to children: (1) written materials or visual representations created and held by the accused alone, exclusively for personal use; and (2) visual recordings created by or depicting the accused that do not depict unlawful sexual activity and are held by the accused exclusively for private use.  The bulk of the material falling within these two classes engages important values underlying the s. 2(b) guarantee while posing no reasoned risk of harm to children.  In its main impact, s. 163.1(4) is proportionate and constitutional.  Nonetheless, the law's application to materials in the two problematic classes, while peripheral to its objective, poses significant problems at the final stage of the proportionality analysis.  In these applications the restriction imposed by s. 163.1(4) regulates expression where it borders on thought.  The cost of prohibiting such materials to the right of free expression outweighs any tenuous benefit it might confer in preventing harm to children.  To this extent, the law cannot be considered proportionate in its effects, and the infringement of s. 2(b) contemplated by the legislation is not demonstrably justifiable under s. 1.

There is no such requirement for scientific proof before passign legislation.

The entire judgement is found here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html



What irks me is not that you might come to a different conclusion - its a democracy, and different people have different views.  But that you would make such sweeping declarations on a topic that has received a lot of careful and considered thought...

Quote from: Pitiful PathosAnd beyond the gateway argument, there don't seem to be many other reasonable arguments left.

Beeb expressed the notion that if we permit people to create artistic works depicting sex with minors, people will see the depicted activity as "less bad."  This rationale would apply to a far broader range of material, including politically protected speech.  I don't understand how you could honestly limit this reasoning to materials determined obscene (by other metrics).  Is this what the SCC calls a "cognitive distortion"?

Something else I'm curious about is the actual content of the comic.  Like, were the "victims" (lol) actually 10 years old?  16 years old?  17 and 364 days?  Stated to be 18 but not intended to be?  Unstated entirely?  If either of the latter two options, is a Canadian judge empowered to determine the age of a complete fiction, even in the face of an author's stated intent, or deliberate ambiguity?

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 05:54:13 PM
There is no such requirement for scientific proof before passign legislation.

The entire judgement is found here:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc2/2001scc2.html

What irks me is not that you might come to a different conclusion - its a democracy, and different people have different views.  But that you would make such sweeping declarations on a topic that has received a lot of careful and considered thought...

Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   :)

I don't get it. The way I read that opinion is that the court is actually agreeing with us that banning text or other material that does not involve victims is not justified. Yet apparently they didn't struck that down. What the fuck? Why can't lawyers write in English?

Quote from: Iormlund on June 27, 2011, 07:03:58 PM
I don't get it. The way I read that opinion is that the court is actually agreeing with us that banning text or other material that does not involve victims is not justified. Yet apparently they didn't struck that down. What the fuck? Why can't lawyers write in English?

No, they were agreeing that writings or drawings that would otherwise be covered by the statute weren't if they were kept solely by the person that wrote or drew them for their own personal use.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 05:16:32 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 05:11:00 PM
Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

It took me 2 secodns to find that Australia does.  I'm sure so do many other countries.

The US, too.

QuoteIn an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

Quote from: ulmont on June 27, 2011, 08:57:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 05:16:32 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 05:11:00 PM
Is there any civilized country other than Canada that prosecutes this?

It took me 2 secodns to find that Australia does.  I'm sure so do many other countries.

The US, too.

QuoteIn an obscenity first, a U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

However, he pled guilty.  It would've been more interesting to see what would have happened had he fought it.

QuoteThe lawyer declined to describe the details. "If they can imagine it, they drew it," he says. "Use your imagination. It was there."

I'd better not.  Thought crime is death these days.

Another reason not to have laws like this is the chilling effect on acceptable speech.  I'm reasonably confident that the Claudius duology does not comprise a pornographic text, but there's a lot of prurient interest material in there.  The BBC show even moreso, insofar as the actress portraying Messalina is mad hot.  The point is that the BBC series was essential for a well-read teenager who also didn't have regular access to pornography.  Incidentally, the character Messalina?  Conceivably under 18.  But, anyway, more importantly, Tiberius.

What if some jackass decides Robert Graves was peddling kiddie smut?  More importantly, what if the next Robert Graves says, "Fuck, I'd better not put in the part where Tiberius sodomizes children."

Incidentally, there's a restaurant called "Little Minnows" in Minnesota.  Heh.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 09:35:44 PM
However, he pled guilty.  It would've been more interesting to see what would have happened had he fought it.

More interesting for us.  Quite possibly much less interesting - or more interesting in all the wrong ways - for Christopher S. Handley.

Also, from the plea agreement (factual stipulations at the end), I don't think Mr. Handley would have been a sympathetic defendant:

QuoteIn May 2006, customs officials intercepted a mailed package from Japan addressed to the defendant at 1004 Timber Lane, Glenwood, lA that contained approximately seven books of Japanese manga, specifically cartoon drawings ofminors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Each book contains obscene images, with one book containing images of bestiality, including images of sex between a male pig and a minor human female, and images of a minor human female engaging in oral and genital intercourse with a male dog.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 06:49:30 PM
Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   :)

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

Quote from: ulmont on June 27, 2011, 09:47:21 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 09:35:44 PM
However, he pled guilty.  It would've been more interesting to see what would have happened had he fought it.

More interesting for us.  Quite possibly much less interesting - or more interesting in all the wrong ways - for Christopher S. Handley.

Also, from the plea agreement (factual stipulations at the end), I don't think Mr. Handley would have been a sympathetic defendant:

QuoteIn May 2006, customs officials intercepted a mailed package from Japan addressed to the defendant at 1004 Timber Lane, Glenwood, lA that contained approximately seven books of Japanese manga, specifically cartoon drawings ofminors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Each book contains obscene images, with one book containing images of bestiality, including images of sex between a male pig and a minor human female, and images of a minor human female engaging in oral and genital intercourse with a male dog.

Oh, I can agree to all that.  Instead of "interesting," perhaps I ought to have said "conclusive."  Some really cursory research indicates that Protect Act virtual child porn cases haven't rised beyond a circuit court of appeals panel.

I don't want to generalize, but the last panel decision I read was an utter piece of shit, as far as legal reasoning went.  (Coyote Publ., Inc., v. Miller, 9th Circuit, another free speech case, although here it was commercial speech, specifically the advertising of lawful brothels, that was being restrained.  Did a paper on how bad the decision was--the law governing commercial speech in cases like this is so clear cut the district decision striking the law, that the panel reversed, was nigh-on summary.  Got an A, so I guess my opinion was at least well-argued.)

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 09:35:44 PM
I'd better not.  Thought crime is death these days.

Another reason not to have laws like this is the chilling effect on acceptable speech.  I'm reasonably confident that the Claudius duology does not comprise a pornographic text, but there's a lot of prurient interest material in there.  The BBC show even moreso, insofar as the actress portraying Messalina is mad hot.  The point is that the BBC series was essential for a well-read teenager who also didn't have regular access to pornography.  Incidentally, the character Messalina?  Conceivably under 18.  But, anyway, more importantly, Tiberius.

What if some jackass decides Robert Graves was peddling kiddie smut?  More importantly, what if the next Robert Graves says, "Fuck, I'd better not put in the part where Tiberius sodomizes children."

I'm fairly certain "I, Claudivs" would be exempted due to both artistic license, depiction of history, and the fact that it can't be reasonably be deemed pornographic, because it's not the main sense of the story to depict sex in a prurient and explicit manner. So would be "Lolita" as well. As much as I loathe R. vs. Sharpe for its gross and wide-opened limitation of free speech when no one is harmed but the piece of paper, somewhere we must trust that the judges would use common sense.  Academics and free speech activists would be up in arms for these, anyway, and there would be pressure on Parliament to vote a "screw you SCC" bill on the matter. But for the scribblings of a pedophile drawing kids being sodomized, either distributed or for used for private consumption, not so much.

They did ban Caligula in 1979, at least in English Canada, as it was considered obscene. In Quebec it was allowed for mature audiences only, as Quebec has its own cinematographic watchdog office.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:06:44 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 06:49:30 PM
Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   :)

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

No, I am saying show me a rational reason why this law makes sense / conclusive evidence that supports the gateway theory - and preferably something other than "because the courts say so."

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 11:07:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:06:44 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 06:49:30 PM
Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   :)

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

No, I am saying show me a rational reason why this law makes sense / conclusive evidence that supports the gateway theory - and preferably something other than "because the courts say so."

Parliaments law making power has never depended on "conclusive evidence".

There is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.  That's good enough for me.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 11:14:42 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 11:07:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 10:06:44 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2011, 06:49:30 PM
Well, you'll find no argument from me that it's always necessary to have overwhelming scientific proof before passing a law.  Such a claim would not be in the public interest and would make changing and making laws a nightmare.

Nor am I arrogant enough to simply dismiss the laws of parliament or the decisions of the Supreme Court out of hand.  Obviously, something that was held to pass the muster by the Supreme Court of a lawful society warrants careful consideration to say the least.

But the alternative is probably worse.  Taking the approach of, "well, it's been decided by our MP's and the Supreme Court so it's probably not worth it for little old me to question their reasoning" isn't really compatible with a democracy or a just society either.

So in essence, when we look at the gateway argument, which lacks conclusive evidence, we're just left with the circular argument that "it's the law because our wise lawmakers have deemed it so." 

Now, a part of me would like to see people with writings or drawings of children of an obvious sexual nature have the book thrown at them, just on the "ick" factor alone.  So if we did find good reason to believe that such people really do pose a danger to actual children, I would be quite happy in that sense.  But as it stands, the law is not a sound one IMO.  However, I am more than willing to change my mind about it given further evidence or explanation.   :)

So wait - you're taking the wiki page that I linked to, and saying that refutes a 100page plus SCC decision?

You are free to disagree with Parliamentary and SCC decisions.  But such decisions are entitled to deference, and if you're willing to say the SCC is out to lunch you'd better have a pretty good reason for doing so.

No, I am saying show me a rational reason why this law makes sense / conclusive evidence that supports the gateway theory - and preferably something other than "because the courts say so."

Parliaments law making power has never depended on "conclusive evidence".

There is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.  That's good enough for me.

Fair enough, although I will point out before concluding this debate that, in spite of the blanket label you just used, in fact it is prosecution for possessing drawings and texts that don't involve real people that's at issue here.  Obviously the real thing needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

So I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.   :cheers:

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 11:14:42 PM
Parliaments law making power has never depended on "conclusive evidence".

Err. What the hell is that supposed to mean? We are discussing the rationale behind passing such law, and whether this is sufficiently reasonable. If your justification for the law being passed is that it has been passed, then I fail to see why you even participate in this thread.

Seriously, it's almost amusing to see you staying in your little box on this issue and apparently being unable to move outside it. You are probably wondering why everyone else does not see the wisdom of your words, either.  :lol:

QuoteThere is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.

Show us that evidence. (But please link to actual study conclusions, not a court decision where the court says there is such evidence by using an argument by assertion).

Question to practicing lawyers: does the $150k legal defense figure the CBLDF is throwing around seem high to you? Actual question, don't have the experience to judge. :unsure:

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 11:14:42 PM
There is strong but not conclusive evidence that child porn leads to child sexual abuse.  That's good enough for me.

Do these studies see a difference in this regard between real child porn and child porn cartoons?

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 02:43:59 AM
Question to practicing lawyers: does the $150k legal defense figure the CBLDF is throwing around seem high to you? Actual question, don't have the experience to judge. :unsure:

It depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Btw, are such costs sunk in Canada or can they be recovered from the Crown assuming the defendant is acquitted?

Btw, I'm deeply opposed to "prosecution bargain" deals, i.e. situations where the defendant pleads guilty to a smaller crime or gets charged with a more serious crime. Something like this would be illegal in Poland, and this really questions the entire role prosecution plays in the criminal trial (i.e. that it should aim at serving justice and establishing the truth, not just "scoring points").

Obviously many people who use BDSM cartoons fantasize about being the victim in the activities portrayed. My impression is that these people are less likely to become real life rapists/torturers than the people who fantasize about being the perpetrator. How many of those who use child porn cartoons fantasize about being the child? I don't know.

I know that BDSM cartoons don't lead to rape/torture. I find it unlikely that child porn cartoons are that much different.

Is there something you want to tell us, Brain?

[Yeah, I'm implying Brain is so enthusiastic over BDSM because he is himself a pervert]

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 05:49:09 AM
Btw, I'm deeply opposed to "prosecution bargain" deals, i.e. situations where the defendant pleads guilty to a smaller crime or gets charged with a more serious crime. Something like this would be illegal in Poland, and this really questions the entire role prosecution plays in the criminal trial (i.e. that it should aim at serving justice and establishing the truth, not just "scoring points").

Sometimes it is the best way to get justice.

Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2011, 07:47:11 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 05:49:09 AM
Btw, I'm deeply opposed to "prosecution bargain" deals, i.e. situations where the defendant pleads guilty to a smaller crime or gets charged with a more serious crime. Something like this would be illegal in Poland, and this really questions the entire role prosecution plays in the criminal trial (i.e. that it should aim at serving justice and establishing the truth, not just "scoring points").

Sometimes it is the best way to get justice.

From over here, it often looks like it's the first option, rather than the last.

But then, I suppose plea makes for better TV.

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 07:08:56 AM
Obviously many people who use BDSM cartoons fantasize about being the victim in the activities portrayed. My impression is that these people are less likely to become real life rapists/torturers than the people who fantasize about being the perpetrator. How many of those who use child porn cartoons fantasize about being the child? I don't know.

That's a good point. I believe at least as far as the infantilism fetish is concerned, the main drive is to be the "baby", and not the other party, too.

Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2011, 07:26:53 AM
Is there something you want to tell us, Brain?

[Yeah, I'm implying Brain is so enthusiastic over BDSM because he is himself a pervert]

I thought we already know Languishites are perverted enough for a talk about "normal" BDSM not requiring "are you trying to tell us something" spiel?

It's as if garbon said he likes guys and you asked him if he is trying to tell us he is gay.  :huh:

And yeah, TheBrain is right. A real dominant partner is fucking hard to find. It's power bottoms everywhere.  <_<

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 08:13:02 AM

Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2011, 07:26:53 AM
Is there something you want to tell us, Brain?

[Yeah, I'm implying Brain is so enthusiastic over BDSM because he is himself a pervert]

I thought we already know Languishites are perverted enough for a talk about "normal" BDSM not requiring "are you trying to tell us something" spiel?

It's as if garbon said he likes guys and you asked him if he is trying to tell us he is gay.  :huh:

Garbon is a fag?  :o

Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2011, 08:29:18 AM
Garbon is a fag?  :o

You mean you weren't intentionally leading me on? :angry:

I just don't know any more. :weep:

Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2011, 08:39:14 AM
I just don't know any more. :weep:

Oh, you were hoping to turn me gay!

Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2011, 08:40:50 AM

Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2011, 08:39:14 AM
I just don't know any more. :weep:

Oh, you were hoping to turn me gay!

:shifty:

Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2011, 07:26:53 AM
Is there something you want to tell us, Brain?

[Yeah, I'm implying Brain is so enthusiastic over BDSM because he is himself a pervert]

I don't know. What have you heard?

Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2011, 06:20:18 AM
Just a thought - I'm gonna save a couple of my legal opinions among my porn stash - then claim legal privilege. :smarty:

I've never understood why people in this day and age need a "porn stash" (well, a porn 'stache I understand.) The porn industry has been doing the "cloud thing" longer than anyone. the porn is all out there on other hdds. Cloud Pron ftw.

Quote from: Slargos on June 28, 2011, 08:29:18 AM


Garbon is a fag?  :o

Of course not.  garbon is a person who happens to be gay.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 08:15:26 AM
And yeah, TheBrain is right. A real dominant partner is fucking hard to find. It's power bottoms everywhere.  <_<

Depending on how far a sub wants to go, it can get uncomfortable.  I just want a blowjob, damn it.

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 02:21:31 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
No, not Hortlund, I was Oxenstierna back in the old forum. We have been over this several times before.

I refuse to believe there are more idiotic Swedes like this. You are Hortlund. Stat.

Stat?

Quote from: MartinusIt depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Yeah, I hadn't thought about experts.  I would bet the figure takes into account appeals, but it's not clear.

Btw, plea bargaining is pretty great--although prosecutors might occasionally use a "wham" charge as leverage, if the defendant is adequately represented I don't see that as a serious danger.  Are you opposed to civil settlements?

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 02:39:34 PM

Quote from: MartinusIt depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Yeah, I hadn't thought about experts.  I would bet the figure takes into account appeals, but it's not clear.

Btw, plea bargaining is pretty great--although prosecutors might occasionally use a "wham" charge as leverage, if the defendant is adequately represented I don't see that as a serious danger.  Are you opposed to civil settlements?

Civil settlements are a different matter. They are, ultimately, about resolving a dispute (and there is a "parity of arms", on both sides, at least in theory). In criminal prosecution, it is about justice, and the "Crown" has a much stronger position, however which also puts a requirement on it to act in the public interest, rather than in the interest of "winning" at all cost. 

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 02:31:41 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 08:15:26 AM
And yeah, TheBrain is right. A real dominant partner is fucking hard to find. It's power bottoms everywhere.  <_<

Depending on how far a sub wants to go, it can get uncomfortable.  I just want a blowjob, damn it.

From personal experience (in both roles), I can tell that subs are quite exacting and controlling about the way they want it to be done, which is quite counterintuitive. In fact, the "dom" is often little more than a prop. :P

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:00:39 PM
*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.

Hard to say.  Once upon a time, I would say that it would be alright, but the busybodies have been trying to stamp out freedom of expression in any way they can, and that would probably fall under 'hate speech'.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 02:43:53 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 02:39:34 PM

Quote from: MartinusIt depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Yeah, I hadn't thought about experts.  I would bet the figure takes into account appeals, but it's not clear.

Btw, plea bargaining is pretty great--although prosecutors might occasionally use a "wham" charge as leverage, if the defendant is adequately represented I don't see that as a serious danger.  Are you opposed to civil settlements?

Civil settlements are a different matter. They are, ultimately, about resolving a dispute (and there is a "parity of arms", on both sides, at least in theory). In criminal prosecution, it is about justice, and the "Crown" has a much stronger position, however which also puts a requirement on it to act in the public interest, rather than in the interest of "winning" at all cost.

While I fully agree with what you said, I don't understand wat that has to do with plea bargains.   :huh:

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
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!

One wonders if Parliament had much to do with it.  The SCC is a law unto itself at this point, and Parliament doesn't have the courage to have the lot of them disposed of, but they certainly show what minds bereft of morality, ethics or reason can do when applied to the law.

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2011, 04:29:17 PM
I think I've heard of that particular kink.  I think it has a lot more to do with submission and power - kind of just a particular twist on S&M - rather than an attraction to infants.  Plus I'm, unaware of anyone progressing from that kind of porn to child sexual abuse.

But surely they're creating a virtual minor?

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 02:43:53 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 02:39:34 PM

Quote from: MartinusIt depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Yeah, I hadn't thought about experts.  I would bet the figure takes into account appeals, but it's not clear.

Btw, plea bargaining is pretty great--although prosecutors might occasionally use a "wham" charge as leverage, if the defendant is adequately represented I don't see that as a serious danger.  Are you opposed to civil settlements?

Civil settlements are a different matter. They are, ultimately, about resolving a dispute (and there is a "parity of arms", on both sides, at least in theory). In criminal prosecution, it is about justice, and the "Crown" has a much stronger position, however which also puts a requirement on it to act in the public interest, rather than in the interest of "winning" at all cost.

I dunno.  Civil disputes are about justice, too.  The law doesn't (or tries not to) offer unjust remedies, or unjust causes of action, or unjust procedural requirements.

As for the unlevel playing field in a criminal prosecution, the State is generally restrained from exercising its full power over a defendant.  I can agree, however, that some prosecutors (not all, perhaps not most, and indeed none I've ever talked to personally or professionally) don't recognize a difference between working in a civil litigation firm (what is best for my client is the biggest settlement or judgment at the least cost, and the system will ensure fairness) and working for the common weal (what is best for my client is what is just, and I have to ensure fairness).

Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2011, 02:49:13 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 27, 2011, 03:00:39 PM
*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.

Hard to say.  Once upon a time, I would say that it would be alright, but the busybodies have been trying to stamp out freedom of expression in any way they can, and that would probably fall under 'hate speech'.

My eyes have been opened a great deal over the past few years on the difference between the American, or (usually) correct, approach to speech and expression issues, and the approach that seems to be embraced by every other Western country, which is to say a deeply troubling, sometimes tyrannical and occasionally even truly evil approach.  And the Euros and Canadians I talk to don't even seem to realize how their rights have been limited and their societies made poorer and less safe for it.

Quote from: Barrister BoyWhile I fully agree with what you said, I don't understand wat that has to do with plea bargains.

I took it to mean that Martinus believes that the State/Crown uses its full weight to lean on people to make settlements.  Which is not entirely incorrect, but the judicial system is fair enough that even when faced with an overzealous prosecutor--short of straight-up lying and fabricating evidence--a settlement made with an adequately represented defendant cannot be said to be unfair, and benefits the defendant at least as much as the State or Crown.  Like, I wouldn't say that a defendant is cheated when he or she trades a 5% chance of acquittal and a 95% chance of going to gaol for ten years for a 100% chance of only going to gaol for two, or one, or none.

One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 03:08:02 PM

My eyes have been opened a great deal over the past few years on the difference between the American, or (usually) correct, approach to speech and expression issues, and the approach that seems to be embraced by every other Western country, which is to say a deeply troubling, sometimes tyrannical and occasionally even truly evil approach.  And the Euros and Canadians I talk to don't even seem to realize how their rights have been limited and their societies made poorer and less safe for it.

I don't know about the situation in Canada, but you must realize that here in Scandinavia we've been exposed to a focused propaganda effort for decades (hell, in the case of Sweden almost a century's worth), and the average citizen doesn't really know or understand how limited his freedoms are and how much he's being lied to.

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

They sort of have.  A considered admission of guilt would allay most people's reasonable doubts.

On the other hand, you could argue you might as well beat a confession out of somebody.  Imprisonment is as fundamentally violent as a kick in the ribs.

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 03:46:12 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

but if you can't take a criminal at his word who can we trust? :(

How is different from someone confessing when they get arrested and entering a guilty plea? there's no trial there either.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 03:46:12 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

Please stop trolling Marti.

Every justice system in the world accepts a valid confession as proof of guilt.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 03:46:12 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

I don't really think that you can be trusted when it comes to discussing theories of law and justice.

Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2011, 03:49:37 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 03:46:12 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

Please stop trolling Marti.

Every justice system in the world accepts a valid confession as proof of guilt.

The confession must be believable and supported by circumstantial evidence, at least in the Polish system. If someone goes into the court and confesses to a crime, and there is no other evidence, a court under Polish law has to acquit.

Incidentally, there is a difference between confessing a deed (and then this deed being a subject of a court's assessment) and confessing to a specific charge (and this being part of the deal with the prosecution). As I said, the latter would be illegal under Polish law.

Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2011, 03:50:26 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 03:46:12 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 03:28:50 PM
One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

I don't really think that you can be trusted when it comes to discussing theories of law and justice.

I earn significantly more money than BB by practicing law. This by the very definition of the capitalist system makes me a better expert. Q.E.D. :P

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 03:08:02 PM
My eyes have been opened a great deal over the past few years on the difference between the American, or (usually) correct, approach to speech and expression issues, and the approach that seems to be embraced by every other Western country, which is to say a deeply troubling, sometimes tyrannical and occasionally even truly evil approach.  And the Euros and Canadians I talk to don't even seem to realize how their rights have been limited and their societies made poorer and less safe for it.

To be fair, I don't the 'poorer and less safe' thing is true.  At least in the bounds of Alberta, you just don't see the kinds of poverty and crime that are the norm in the US.  Mind you, the American approach to free speech is usually the correct one.

Still, I think it's only a matter of time before you guys get there too.

Ide has a flat plasma and no health care. He thinks we are poorer.

People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. That a confession in itself meets the reasonable doubt test is false.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 03:53:57 PM
I earn significantly more money than BB by practicing law. This by the very definition of the capitalist system makes me a better expert. Q.E.D. :P

You also misunderstand the capitalist system, but I suppose that's the order of things.

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. That a confession in itself meets the reasonable doubt test is false.

Indeed (and that's exactly the statement from HVC I was disagreeing with).

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. That a confession in itself meets the reasonable doubt test is false.

well since they're in court/jail to begin with i'm assuming that there is evidence. I don't think if you walked into a jail and confessed to taking the lindenburg baby they'd lock you up.

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 04:09:36 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. That a confession in itself meets the reasonable doubt test is false.

well since they're in court/jail to begin with i'm assuming that there is evidence.

:D

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 04:16:25 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 04:09:36 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. That a confession in itself meets the reasonable doubt test is false.

well since they're in court/jail to begin with i'm assuming that there is evidence.

:D

:P

they got far enough to offer the deal so something has to be there. whether its strong enough is for the defendent to decide

Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2011, 03:57:01 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 03:08:02 PM
My eyes have been opened a great deal over the past few years on the difference between the American, or (usually) correct, approach to speech and expression issues, and the approach that seems to be embraced by every other Western country, which is to say a deeply troubling, sometimes tyrannical and occasionally even truly evil approach.  And the Euros and Canadians I talk to don't even seem to realize how their rights have been limited and their societies made poorer and less safe for it.

To be fair, I don't the 'poorer and less safe' thing is true.  At least in the bounds of Alberta, you just don't see the kinds of poverty and crime that are the norm in the US.  Mind you, the American approach to free speech is usually the correct one.

Culturally poorer, I mean.  As for safety, I don't mean crime, but rather an unrestrained State that can't be easily escaped or profitably opposed.  If a new law is passed that places the average citizen under threat of being exposed to violence because of their words or thoughts, I'd suspect the average citizen is indeed "less safe" than they were before.

QuoteStill, I think it's only a matter of time before you guys get there too.

But we're Exceptional.

Quote from: MartinusIde has a flat plasma and no health care. He thinks we are poorer.

It's an LCD.

I think Europeans deliberately impoverish their culture, yes.  It's amazing that the same country could hale its greatest living novelist before a court on charges of "racism" and turn a few years later and pull the most audacious act of institutional bigotry since America in the 1960s by outlawing niqabs as well as Batman costumes.  But it shouldn't be that surprising.  This is also the same country that has criminalized the mockery of its flag or national anthem.

All these acts come directly from the same tyrannous impulse, and by controlling expression that the state disagrees with, what you will eventually be left with is a cultural discourse that no longer has anything to talk about except perhaps how boring it is.

That's rich coming from a country that has a national tv meltdown because an aging pop star shows a nipple on tv.

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 04:09:36 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 28, 2011, 04:00:31 PM
People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. That a confession in itself meets the reasonable doubt test is false.

well since they're in court/jail to begin with i'm assuming that there is evidence. I don't think if you walked into a jail and confessed to taking the lindenburg baby they'd lock you up.

We're certainly well aware of the concept of "false confessions".

Techniques such as "holdback information" is common place as a result.

But certainly we convict people all the time when the key piece of evidence is their confession, without which we would not be able to obtain a conviction.

Maybe i just hold more respect for law inforcement then most, but i trust them in most cases. Not all. See Peel Region Police and false officers testimony. Later proven to be false and not looked into further by the crown (crown has to ask police force to look into allegation.sthey don't ask, no one looks).

Also, what's your take on rapists being deported? we hav e a fun thread going on.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 04:29:51 PM
That's rich coming from a country that has a national tv meltdown because an aging pop star shows a nipple on tv.

There isn't an outright ban on nipples, Martinus.  I wouldn't try arguing that the First Amendment protects comic book minor porn on billboards either.  The law this thread was originally about was, of course, about a total ban.  My understanding of Euro hate speech laws is also that any public dissemination is unlawful.

(In fairness, the criminalization of flag/anthem desecration in France is--but only after amendment--also limited by time and place.)

Also, I do not disagree that the reaction was abominably asymmetric, and it is the one area that the United States needs to address and fix in order to perfect our law in the sphere of cultural expression.

The US has much much stronger freedom of speech than European countries. Because Europeans do not think that free speech is important.

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 04:39:15 PM
Maybe i just hold more respect for law inforcement then most, but i trust them in most cases. Not all. See Peel Region Police and false officers testimony. Later proven to be false and not looked into further by the crown (crown has to ask police force to look into allegation.sthey don't ask, no one looks).

Also, what's your take on rapists being deported? we hav e a fun thread going on.

It's always safe to look at the hands of law enforcement. For one, they are usually dumb and, as a consequence, underpaid. Which makes them corrupt.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 04:41:00 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 04:39:15 PM
Maybe i just hold more respect for law inforcement then most, but i trust them in most cases. Not all. See Peel Region Police and false officers testimony. Later proven to be false and not looked into further by the crown (crown has to ask police force to look into allegation.sthey don't ask, no one looks).

Also, what's your take on rapists being deported? we hav e a fun thread going on.

It's always safe to look at the hands of law enforcement. For one, they are usually dumb and, as a consequence, underpaid. Which makes them corrupt.

Oh i agree (not the dumb part :P and IIRC they get paid pretty well with a great retirement package) and there should be a lot of scrutiny on officers. which is why the situation  i described distresses me.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 04:41:00 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2011, 04:39:15 PM
Maybe i just hold more respect for law inforcement then most, but i trust them in most cases. Not all. See Peel Region Police and false officers testimony. Later proven to be false and not looked into further by the crown (crown has to ask police force to look into allegation.sthey don't ask, no one looks).

Also, what's your take on rapists being deported? we hav e a fun thread going on.

It's always safe to look at the hands of law enforcement. For one, they are usually dumb and, as a consequence, underpaid. Which makes them corrupt.

You keep taking Poland as being representative of the West.

Police are quite well paid over here.

So are Crowns in most jurisdictions.  Like Alberta.  :yeah:

Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
Police are quite well paid over here.

Maybe, but not so well paid for the amount of danger that one has to put up with.

Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2011, 05:08:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
Police are quite well paid over here.

Maybe, but not so well paid for the amount of danger that one has to put up with.

You mean they could choke on a doughnut while tasing a pot smoking student?

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2011, 05:09:36 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2011, 05:08:35 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
Police are quite well paid over here.

Maybe, but not so well paid for the amount of danger that one has to put up with.

You mean they could choke on a doughnut while tasing a pot smoking student?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.venturacountystar.com%2Fgreenberg%2Farchives%2FGunMap420.gif&hash=174351bb17538d3c75f07dc0820111fad09266cd)

Why are the guns dripping blood?  That's why guns were invented, to avoid that sort of thing.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 05:59:45 PM
Why are the guns dripping blood?  That's why guns were invented, to avoid that sort of thing.

???

Things that you kill with a gun still bleed.

Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2011, 06:28:21 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 05:59:45 PM
Why are the guns dripping blood?  That's why guns were invented, to avoid that sort of thing.

???

Things that you kill with a gun still bleed.

???

Guns are distance weapons.  They tend to be ideal at avoiding getting blood on oneself.

Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2011, 02:31:49 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 27, 2011, 02:21:31 PM

Quote from: Bluebook on June 27, 2011, 02:20:23 PM
No, not Hortlund, I was Oxenstierna back in the old forum. We have been over this several times before.

I refuse to believe there are more idiotic Swedes like this. You are Hortlund. Stat.

Stat?

Already noted.  He doesn't actually know what it means.

Quote from: Habbaku on June 28, 2011, 06:37:23 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2011, 06:28:21 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 05:59:45 PM
Why are the guns dripping blood?  That's why guns were invented, to avoid that sort of thing.

???

Things that you kill with a gun still bleed.

???

Guns are distance weapons.  They tend to be ideal at avoiding getting blood on oneself.

Depends on the circumstances.  Still, they are proverbially soaked in blood.

No, those guns are literally soaked in blood.

Quote from: Habbaku on June 28, 2011, 06:55:41 PM
No, those guns are literally soaked in blood.

Our states are literally guns soaked in blood. :(

Are the guns minor children?

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 07:18:24 PM
Are the guns minor children?

Apparently on the video game front, Alito said that we're approach the age when a child will be able to feel the splatter of blood on his face and hands while playing a video game. :o

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 03:08:02 PM
I wouldn't say that a defendant is cheated when he or she trades a 5% chance of acquittal and a 95% chance of going to gaol for ten years for a 100% chance of only going to gaol for two, or one, or none.

It could be argued that the public interest is cheated in those circumstances, though.  But I can see why a prosecutor who knows that the accused is guilty of a crime for which they'd get 10-15 years, but wasn''t sure he could get a conviction would be willing to accept a plea to a charge that would get them 2-5 instead.

I don't have a problem with plea bargains in theory, but I don't think they should be so common that they're almost standard operating procedure, which appears to be the case in many jurisdictions.

Quote from: dps on June 28, 2011, 07:44:28 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on June 28, 2011, 03:08:02 PM
I wouldn't say that a defendant is cheated when he or she trades a 5% chance of acquittal and a 95% chance of going to gaol for ten years for a 100% chance of only going to gaol for two, or one, or none.

It could be argued that the public interest is cheated in those circumstances, though.  But I can see why a prosecutor who knows that the accused is guilty of a crime for which they'd get 10-15 years, but wasn''t sure he could get a conviction would be willing to accept a plea to a charge that would get them 2-5 instead.

I don't have a problem with plea bargains in theory, but I don't think they should be so common that they're almost standard operating procedure, which appears to be the case in many jurisdictions.

It's also an efficiency thing.  Which I can see why someone might think sucks, but on the other hand it's a real concern in a world with finite resources.

Quote from: garbonApparently on the video game front, Alito said that we're approach the age when a child will be able to feel the splatter of blood on his face and hands while playing a video game. :o

That's not the first thing I would use a holodeck for, but it might be the second. :punk: