I think cartoon pornography is meant to be amusing, not arousing, anyway.

I don’t believe CP is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it is illegal because it IS child abuse.

mdmarq on December 9, 2008 at 1:49 AM
The discussion is primarily about whether computer generated images are child pornography.

MarkTheGreat on December 9, 2008 at 7:52 AM

I know what this discussion is about, I was responding to another post – did you not read the quoted item?

Besides, half the posts on this thread don’t even mentioned the CG aspect of this discussion.

Oh, and no, I don’t believe CG can be considered child pornography.

No, it has not.

Good thing “Fritz the cat” hasn’t made it to the Cartoon Network……………………. yet.

Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM

Off-topic rant: although it would be totally inappropriate to air Fritz on CN, it’d still actually be more fitting than the completely non-animated stuff they’ve been showing sometimes. It’s the Cartoon Network, not the ‘oh, let’s put anything on that kids might like’ network. If you’re going to name your network after cartoons, animation had better be involved somewhere in every one of your shows/movies. They don’t have wildlife shows on the Food Network, nor do they have home improvement shows on the History Channel.

I thought I was the only one who knew what that was!! :P

the point is that child pornography leads to child abuse, and therefore it should be illegal.

Gaunilon on December 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM

No. It doesn’t matter what it may or may not lead to. As I said before, we do NOT prosecute “Future Crime”. We prosecute crimes already committed. Child Porn (CP) is ALREADY abusing a child. That’s enough for a conviction right there.

Now, if you meant “leads to” in the sense that it helps prop up the CP industry, then yes, I would agree with you. but only because that’s another current crime, abetting child abuse.

This is why Cartoon porn is NOT illegal in the US. Because there is no real live child that was abused, there is no crime at any stage. either creation, or viewing and collecting. Now, it may be vile, but it’s NOT a crime.

I don’t believe CP is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it is illegal because it IS child abuse.

mdmarq on December 9, 2008 at 1:49 AM

The discussion is primarily about whether computer generated images are child pornography.

Gaunilon on December 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM

A proper analogy would be arresting people for possession of alcohol, because drunk driving kills people.

Would you have a problem with thought policing him? Tapping his phones? Arresting him? Or even purposely entrapping him by way of undercover agents so that we can lock him up?

I’m asking because it’s a question all lovers and upholders of the U.S. Constitution must ask themselves. It’s easy for us to get self righteous about defending Larry Flint’s right to be a disgusting pig, but what about the right of some keyboard jihadist?

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

If someone shows jihadist tendencies, it is perfectly legitimate to investigate him further. If it can be found that he has engaged in either criminal acts or a conspiracy to commit criminal acts, then bust his butt on the spot. But no, merely looking at the material is not enough for an arrest.

Ditto, CG kiddy porn. It would be grounds for a more thorough investigation, but it would not be grounds for an arrest.

Relevance?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Pointing out that you failed to answer the question is irrelevant?

Did you study logic in a mail order course?

Therefore if child pornography is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it follows that the man in this case should be prosecuted regardless of whether the video showed real or fictional children.

I don’t believe CP is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it is illegal because it IS child abuse.

Therefore if child pornography is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it follows that the man in this case should be prosecuted regardless of whether the video showed real or fictional children. Either way, he’s breaking the law, and endangering children in the process.

Totally, 100% agreed.

But I think you need this Simpsons clip in this post to drive the point home:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

“Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!?”

although it certainly is a copyright infringement of the most unsympathetic kind.

Nah. More like some form of kinky parody.

Bubba Redneck on December 8, 2008 at 8:25 PM

A scoundrel dates a woman three years his junior?

Excuse me?

If I catch a 19 year old fooling around with my 16 year old daughter he need not worry about the law. His mind will be on the shotgun that I’ve inserted where the sun don’t shine………

All I need is one dad with daughters on the jury……….. :)

Bubba Redneck on December 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM

That’s why she’ll keep him a secret from you Cavedude. And if your daughter is watching you shove something up another man’s sunless regions, aren’t you exposing her to precisely the type of stuff from which you seek to protect her?

I could never understand the violent and homoerotic impulses of some angry men.

The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM

My job as a father is to protect her from 19 year olds who want to date 16 year olds in addition to other scoundrels, naredowells as well as the assorted scum and villainy.

Angry? Hardly.

Homoerotic? Please….

Knowing who my daughter dates. All the time.

I must point out that the picture for this post shows Bart’s and Lisa’s hands touching Maggie’s butt. Child porn!

James on December 8, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Good thing we are not in Australia!!

Would you have a problem with thought policing him? Tapping his phones? Arresting him? Or even purposely entrapping him by way of undercover agents so that we can lock him up?

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

For me:

1. Yes
2. Depends on who his friends are.
3. Yes
4. Depends on what the entrapment is; if it’s along the lines of Dateline’s To Catch a Predator series, I’d be alright with that.

People have a right in this country to believe the US is wrong on any number of levels and even to go so far as to sympathize with terrorists; however, once they do anything that actually helps terrorists, by donating money or sending along information (more than the New York Times), they’ve abused that right.

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

If a person is in contact with persons outside the US and with ties to terrorists, then yes we should monitor them. If a person is planning to kill someone and the FBI/CIA become aware of them through their associations or activities, then yes, we should monitor them. In context, if someone is visiting known pedo sites/chans, then it might be worth monitoring them as well.

In general though, if a young person has a problem with the US and its policies and wants to plan an attack on the US (bombs and what-not), then I don’t think that we shouldt be monitoring him unless he starts engaging in questionable activities. We (the US government) should have a very good reason for invading someone’s privacy/rights, and only for the protection of the other citizens. On one hand, this would be a serious crime, on the other, teenagers are often “all talk”. You can’t start monitoring citizens based purely upon what they might do.

So, for your example, I’d say, “no” we shouldn’t monitor him.

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM

I haven been just as concerned about the fact that entrapment has gone from a crime to a normal procedure in recent decades. I understood when it was implemented to take down a crime lord or something, but now it seems like every level of law enforcement practices it on a regular basis, and judges ignore it as part of defense all the time. Scary precedent.

A follow-up: Just to be clear, there is a very large distinction between thought-policing for the sake of averting potential mass attacks that could results in thousands or millions of deaths of Americans, and thought-policing what people jerk off to. One is a threat to national security. The other is a problem that pales in comparison.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM

True. But there have been cases that really border on entrapment, where undercover agents seek out the dumbest young guy in the mosque and practically turn him into a jihadi in order to arrest him. There was a case in NYC like that, and I found it just bizarre. It was as if these special NYPD “war on terror” units were trying to justify their existence in the same way that the ATF did in the 1990s by creating problems where none existed.