Manga images 'not child porn', says Sweden's Supreme Court
497 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sanius;36370246]yes it does[/QUOTE]
a study have shown that even if you legalize these things, even [I]real[/I] child pornography, [URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html]child molestation will decline.[/URL]
if lolicon increases the demand for anything, it would be more lolicon.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
it doesn't logically make sense anyways, as those who produce lolicon are obviously not the same people who produce child porn, so encouraging lolicon producers with the massively and obviously encouraging viewcounts on your copied image somewhere on the internet can't encourage child pornographers as they are entirely unrelated.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36370284]a study have shown that even if you legalize these things, even [I]real[/I] child pornography, [URL=http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html]child molestation will decline.[/URL]
if lolicon increases the demand of anything, it would be more lolicon.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
it doesn't logically make sense anyways, as those who produce lolicon are obviously not the same people who produce child porn, so encouraging lolicon producers with the massively and obviously encouraging viewcounts on your copied image somewhere on the internet can't encourage child pornographers as they are entirely unrelated.[/QUOTE]
Illegalising lolicon would do [I][B]far[/B][/I] more harm than good in a lot of places
[QUOTE=Sanius;36370246]yes it does[/QUOTE]
Dumbest thing I've heard all year.
[quote]Sarah Goode describes the accumulation of lolicon materials as being "a medium through which disaffected men may choose to express their sense of anomie and disconnection with society". When questioning the relationship of lolicon to "finding children in real life sexually attractive", Goode presents the argument of a lolicon fan "that even if I could be classified as a kind of anime lolicon, it'd NEVER translate into RL pedophilia. This is predicated on the belief that the anime lolis I like DO NOT EXIST in RL."[/quote]
[url]http://books.google.com/books?id=pKcQY5fUfFAC&pg=PA29&dq=lolicon&hl=en#v=onepage&q=lolicon&f=false[/url]
[quote]...sexual abuse of minors in Japan has declined since the 1960s and 70s,[/quote]
[url]http://www.imageandnarrative.be/index.php/imagenarrative/article/viewFile/127/98[/url]
[QUOTE=Sanius;36370216]yep because everybody knows that hilariously unrealistic depictions of murder in video games increases the demand for snuff films as much as lolicon increases the demand for child pornography (it doesn't)[/QUOTE]
I'm just going to ignore the fact that you just claimed that the existence of lolicon increases the demand for actual child porn since other people already pointed out why that is wrong.
What I would like to point out is that you just used the fact that murder in video games is unrealistic as an argument against lolicon, implying that lolicon is realistic. (it isn't)
This might have been posted, but if you want to see the images the guy was charged for, here's the link: [url]http://blogg.tianmi.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mangabilderna.pdf[/url]
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I see now it was posted a few pages back, but it's worth reposting for everyone to see how ridiculous the charge was.
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;36370331]Illegalising lolicon would do [I][B]far[/B][/I] more harm than good in a lot of places[/QUOTE]
Basically I think this goes for illegalizing anything that doesn't have a direct victim.
Illegalizing drugs have caused so much shit, the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's caused a gigantic clusterfuck situation, rape was higher when pornography was illegal..
And as I mentioned before, this can be applied even to real child porn. When it is illegal, parents sometimes gets arrested for totally innocent pictures they took. Even children sometimes get into legal trouble because of pictures they take.
When a video of a murder pops up on the internet, or of someone abusing an animal, the police instantly find it and can then use it to find the perpetrator. Illegalizing child porn has driven it underground and as such they cannot as easily find the actual rapists.
It's just such a weird thing that, it wouldn't go to upload an image of a naked child, because that would be oh so harmful and disgusting and illegal, but it is perfectly fine if said child has just been [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0]showered with napalm[/URL].
We've got this immense hysteria towards sex that has been here since forever, leading to complete hypocrisy. We really need to stop being so retarded when it comes to everything that has to do with sex and abnormal sexualities.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;36370563]Basically I think this goes for illegalizing anything that doesn't have a direct victim.
Illegalizing drugs have caused so much shit, the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's caused a gigantic clusterfuck situation, rape was higher when pornography was illegal..
And as I mentioned before, this can be applied even to real child porn. When it is illegal, parents sometimes gets arrested for totally innocent pictures they took. Even children sometimes get into legal trouble because of pictures they take.
When a video of a murder pops up on the internet, or of someone abusing an animal, the police instantly find it and can then use it to find the perpetrator. Illegalizing child porn has driven it underground and as such they cannot as easily find the actual rapists.
It's just such a weird thing that, it wouldn't go to upload an image of a naked child, because that would be oh so harmful and disgusting and illegal, but it is perfectly fine if said child has just been [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0"]showered with napalm[/URL].
We've got this immense hysteria towards sex that has been here since forever, leading to complete hypocrisy. We really need to stop being so retarded when it comes to everything that has to do with sex and abnormal sexualities.[/QUOTE]
thank the media for capping everyone in a shell based around sexuality
[QUOTE=demoguy08;36370514]This might have been posted, but if you want to see the images the guy was charged for, here's the link: [url]http://blogg.tianmi.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mangabilderna.pdf[/url]
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I see now it was posted a few pages back, but it's worth reposting for everyone to see how ridiculous the charge was.[/QUOTE]
I find it weird how the thumbnails (duplicates) are considered images in themselves. It raises the count of images considerably, it shouldn't even be at 38 images. So if I have a folder with 1000 copies of the same image, it would apparently be worse than having just one. "He got 1000 pornographic images on his computer". Which is dumb as fuck.
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371053]I find it weird how the thumbnails (duplicates) are considered images in themselves. It raises the count of images considerably, it shouldn't even be at 38 images. So if I have a folder with 1000 copies of the same image, it would apparently be worse than having just one. "He got 1000 pornographic images on his computer". Which is dumb as fuck.[/QUOTE]
duplicates of images are still images
[QUOTE=Sanius;36371076]duplicates of images are still images[/QUOTE]
But how the fuck does it matter, they are digital.
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371081]But how the fuck does it matter, they are digital.[/QUOTE]
information on a hard drive is physical data. if images on a hard drive are "just digital" then photos are "just sheets of light-senitive paper"
[editline]1[/editline]
or just sheets of paper with light-sensitive chemicals, I forget how that works
[editline]2[/editline]
help I forgot how photographs work
[QUOTE=Sanius;36371101]information on a hard drive is physical data. if images on a hard drive are "just digital" then photos are "just sheets of light-senitive paper"
[editline]1[/editline]
or just sheets of paper with light-sensitive chemicals, I forget how that works[/QUOTE]
So, you're seriously equating digital images to physical? Wow.
[QUOTE=Sanius;36371101]information on a hard drive is physical data. if images on a hard drive are "just digital" then photos are "just sheets of light-senitive paper"
[editline]1[/editline]
or just sheets of paper with light-sensitive chemicals, I forget how that works[/QUOTE]
you can make infinite copies of a digital item for no cost
not something you can do with a 'physical' item
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371139]So, you're seriously equating digital images to physical? Wow.[/QUOTE]
digital images are physical just as all data stored on hard drives are physical
somebody who understands how data is stored on hard drives can explain it better than me. something to do with magnets
[QUOTE=Sanius;36371154]digital images are physical just as all data stored on hard drives are physical
somebody who understands how data is stored on hard drives can explain it better than me. something to do with magnets[/QUOTE]
But the case stands, copies can be made and deleted in seconds on a computer, I don't understand what you are trying to prove here.
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371171]But the case stands, copies can be made and deleted in seconds on a computer, I don't understand what you are trying to prove here.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what you're trying to prove either. the fact that images stored on hard drives are easy to copy does not make them not images or whatever you're trying to argue
hey sanius, not trying to be all annoying or anything but are we just pretending that the shit on the last page never existed now?
I find that this is how these arguments usually go. First you get the thunderstorm of baseless hate and idiotic arguments, then we provide counter arguments, then the thread dies with no responses to those, and then we wait for the next similar thread to pop up and go through the whole rigmarole again.
Did I mention that it feels like humans never learn through history?
[QUOTE=Sanius;36371196]I don't understand what you're trying to prove either. the fact that images stored on hard drives are easy to copy does not make them not images or whatever you're trying to argue[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to prove that a punishment should not be more severe if someone ctrl+c, ctrl+v's a few times. The number of UNIQUE images count.
Of course an image that is copied once becomes two images, I'm not denying that. But it does not MATTER if it isn't unique in this case.
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371280]The number of UNIQUE images count.[/QUOTE]
where in the law is that stated
besides, thumbnails of images are technically unique images
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371053]I find it weird how the thumbnails (duplicates) are considered images in themselves. It raises the count of images considerably, it shouldn't even be at 38 images. So if I have a folder with 1000 copies of the same image, it would apparently be worse than having just one. "He got 1000 pornographic images on his computer". Which is dumb as fuck.[/QUOTE]
Yeah the whole thing is a loopey clusterfuck.
Usually in these cases if someone has a bunch of legal pictures and one of them can be construed to be child pornography, they can usually just go right ahead and call the rest child porn as well because they somehow contaminate each other and because it sometimes boils down to thought-policing.
And that's also another reason why illegalizing any imagery is a dumb idea; computers automatically save thumbnail images in the file called thumbs.db I think it's called. With a special program you can open up this file and hey presto, anyone who has ever encountered cp is suddenly a criminal.
Thumbnails is just representations of the images themselves; they should not be considered a separate entity as it cannot exist on its own
[QUOTE=Sanius;36371300]where in the law is that stated
besides, thumbnails of images are technically unique images[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371280][b]should[/b][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Haxxer;36371315]Thumbnails is just representations of the images themselves; they should not be considered a separate entity as it cannot exist on its own[/QUOTE]
pretty sure that's false because thumbnails are cached
[QUOTE=UnMute;36371280]I'm trying to prove that a punishment should not be more severe if someone ctrl+c, ctrl+v's a few times. The number of UNIQUE images count.
Of course an image that is copied once becomes two images, I'm not denying that. But it does not MATTER if it isn't unique in this case.[/QUOTE]
If you murdered someone and somehow made 5 copies of the corpse... would you have comitted 5 murders?
My opinion that all imagery should be legal notwithstanding, I agree with you here, it should be for every unique image.
[QUOTE=Haxxer;36371315]Thumbnails is just representations of the images themselves; they should not be considered a separate entity [B]as it cannot exist on its own[/B][/QUOTE]
This isn't true. They're seperate files kept in thumbs.db if I remember correctly.
So if you've ever accidentally stumbled across child porn, you probably still technically possess it in that file. This is [I]another[/I] reason why these laws are fantastic.
[B]EDIT:[/B]
Try this:
Download a program called [URL=http://www.dmthumbs.com/]DM Thumbs[/URL]
Open AppData > Local > Microsoft > Windows > Explorer > thumbs.db [I](This is for Vista I think)[/I]
See for yourself what strange images you have lying about that you never knew you had.
[QUOTE=Sanius;36369641]yeah let's pray to god that we don't teach our children not to masturbate to child pornography[/QUOTE]
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/lmao2.PNG[/img]
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;36338628]think of the children
wont someone think of the children[/QUOTE]
trust me, I am :q:
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
that was terrible I should feel bad
[QUOTE=Sanius;36369641]yeah let's pray to god that we don't teach our children not to masturbate to child pornography[/QUOTE]
loli =/= CP.
No one gets hurt when people draw a child having sex.
hurt or not, you're still looking at/drawing pictures of children having sex and that is just deplorable and outright wrong.
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372421]hurt or not, you're still looking at/drawing pictures of children having sex and that is just deplorable and outright wrong.[/QUOTE]
We've acknowledged your opinion, you don't need to keep repeating it, not like it was a good one anyways
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372421]hurt or not, you're still looking at/drawing pictures of children having sex and that is just deplorable and outright wrong.[/QUOTE]
[B][I]stop thinking what I don't think is right[/I][/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.