Thought-Crime in America

[aquatus1]

IA man pleads guilty to having obscene drawings

Associated Press

3:45 PM CDT, May 20, 2009

DES MOINES, Iowa - A Glenwood man has pleaded guilty to possessing drawings of children being sexually abused.

Christopher Handley entered his plea Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Des Moines.

Officials with the U.S. attorney's office say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement intercepted a package coming into the U.S. from Japan that was addressed to Handley. Inside the package were books containing Japanese manga drawings of minor females being sexually abused.

Additional obscene drawings of sexual abuse were seized from the 39-year-old Handley's house.

Federal law prohibits the possession of any visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct, including drawings, cartoons, sculptures or painting.

Handley faces up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing hasn't been scheduled.

Source>>>Chicago Tribune

So, here we have an interesting case in which a man has been arrested and is on trial for child pornography, however there are no actual children involved. If convicted, he will be sent to jail, and thereafter be registered as a sex offender, without ever actually having had sexual contact of any kind with any child.

Australia set the precedent for this. How should the US react?

[KRS-One]

God knows this is going to get ugly, but...

Given that:

1.) No children were exploited in drawing or creating artwork.

2.) No children were harmed by this man's fetish for this artwork.

3.) The man was not proselytizing his belief that children should be sexually exploited.

I do not think what he did was illegal.

Further ideas:

1.) The possesion of Jacky Chan films does not mean I physically assault my enemies.

2.) Receiving Nazi paraphernalia videos does not make me a Nazi, nor necessarily indicate I will commit hate crimes.

3.) Purchasing Faces of Death videos does not indicate I will seek to kill people to watch them die.

All of these things are potentially disturbing and morally ill-guided, but none of them should be illegal unless acted upon in a way that violates the law.

[AROCES]

So, here we have an interesting case in which a man has been arrested and is on trial for child pornography, however there are no actual children involved. If convicted, he will be sent to jail, and thereafter be registered as a sex offender, without ever actually having had sexual contact of any kind with any child.

Australia set the precedent for this. How should the US react?

Put in in rehab and maybe 6 months in jail. 15 years in prison and $250K penalty is rediculous.

[KRS-One]

Put in in rehab and maybe 6 months in jail.

For what?!

This is less than a victimless crime.

One adult drew another adult a picture.

[__Kratos__]

With no victim, it would quality as free speech to me. I don't have to like it but I also don't have to look at it.

The US should retain it's freedom of expression and it's rule of law to protect actual children. All that money wasted on Handley could have been spent funding resources to crack down on real crimes. What a waste of tax payer money.

[AROCES]

For what?!

This is less than a victimless crime.

One adult drew another adult a picture.

For the disgusting habit.

Child pornogrphy is against the law and that is some form of child pronography, agree?

[KRS-One]

For the disgusting habit.

Child pornogrphy is against the law and that is some form of child pronography, agree?

No. I entirely don't.

Because this isn't child pornography.

Child pornography entails REAL children being REALLY harmed and exploited.

This was one man drawing another man a picture.

If I drew a picture of Hitler having sex with the Statue of Liberty should that be illegal because it's gross and offensive?

[AROCES]

No. I entirely don't.

Because this isn't child pornography.

Child pornography entails REAL children being REALLY harmed and exploited.

This was one man drawing another man a picture.

If I drew a picture of Hitler having sex with the Statue of Liberty should that be illegal because it's gross and offensive?

AGAIN, any form of pic, drawing or whatever that depicts or show minors haing sex is considered a form of child pornography.

Are you saying an animated or computer image of child pronogrpahy should be legal?

[InHuman]

If I drew a picture of Hitler having sex with the Statue of Liberty should that be illegal because it's gross and offensive?

It should be illegal because its TRUE>

I kid I kid.

[KRS-One]

AGAIN, any form of pic, drawing or whatever that depicts or show minors haing sex is considered a form of child pornography.

Are you saying an animated or computer image of child pronogrpahy should be legal?

Yes, because that's exactly what we're talking about here.

A piece of "art" that does not illegally exploit or harm children or whoever its subjects may be is not illegal. Nor should it be.

Furthermore the argument is moronic on its surface if you consider even basic comic book art. Human monster disembowels people graphically. A man kills another man in cold blood. Monstrous, murderous images drawn by imagination. But now that a personal line has been crossed, suddenly the depiction of crimes should be illegal?

[InHuman]

AGAIN, any form of pic, drawing or whatever that depicts or show minors haing sex is considered a form of child pornography.

Are you saying an animated or computer image of child pronogrpahy should be legal?

Its not legal here (or atleast its REALLY taboo) but that ****s pretty prevelant in japan.

And no, its NOT the same as children getting hurt.

[KRS-One]

Also, despite the fact that I do not think this should be illegal, and will continue to argue for its existance, I would like to just express the following sentiment:

"Eeeewwww!"

[MirrorImage]

God knows this is going to get ugly, but...

Given that:

1.) No children were exploited in drawing or creating artwork.

2.) No children were harmed by this man's fetish for this artwork.

3.) The man was not proselytizing his belief that children should be sexually exploited.

I do not think what he did was illegal.

Further ideas:

1.) The possesion of Jacky Chan films does not mean I physically assault my enemies.

2.) Receiving Nazi paraphernalia videos does not make me a Nazi, nor necessarily indicate I will commit hate crimes.

3.) Purchasing Faces of Death videos does not indicate I will seek to kill people to watch them die.

All of these things are potentially disturbing and morally ill-guided, but none of them should be illegal unless acted upon in a way that violates the law.

I have to agree with you. There was no real crime...isnt it better he draw these pictures for his fantasies than go out and either buy real kiddie porn which exploits real kids, or goes out and molests a child?

The WORST that should happen to him is for the judge to ASK him if he is willing to under go counseling, but I dont see a real crime here.

I FULLY understand the desire to PREVENT actual child molestation, and the reason for the law being written as it is, but it doesnt make the law right, or reasonable.

My other issue is: What if, rather than depecting children, the pictures depict dwarfs or young looking adults? I know that 18 year olds who look 10 (and there are some) are legal,BUT if you take the law to its exact letter, then even if the girl is 18, but is on a site for guys who like them to look little, its illegal...right? Well its out there all over the place, so why not bust them too?

[AROCES]

Its not legal here (or atleast its REALLY taboo) but that ****s pretty prevelant in japan.

And no, its NOT the same as children getting hurt.

So you would allow animated or computer image child pornography?

[MirrorImage]

So you would allow animated or computer image child pornography?

As sick as it is, its better than them actually acting on the fantasy.

Id rather have the creep next door in his house looking at that than out hurting children

Edited May 23, 2009 by MirrorImage

[Fluffybunny]

Also, despite the fact that I do not think this should be illegal, and will continue to argue for its existance, I would like to just express the following sentiment:

"Eeeewwww!"

I am disgusted by goose liver pate, it doesn't mean I want to outlaw it. it is an image out of someones imagination. No one was hurt. It is a slippery slope of offensiveness from that, to any other kind of cutting edge artwork. Then beyond that you have someone that gets offended by someones political satire...it all goes downhill.

[AROCES]

As sick as it is, its better than them actually acting on the fantasy.

Id rather have the creep next door in his house looking at that than out hurting children

so why not sell it then at Adult stores, as long as it is animated. Or maybe 2 years old doing a 60 year old man.

It is animated anyway, right?

[KRS-One]

So you would allow animated or computer image child pornography?

Yes. Because once again, no one and nothing is being hurt by this.

Just because you think something is "gross" doesn't make it illegal.

so why not sell it then at Adult stores, as long as it is animated. Or maybe 2 years old doing a 60 year old man.

It is animated anyway, right?

That's entirely legal. And it should be.

Nuns taking a duece on the American flag, then burning it while giving "Heil Hitler" chants should be legal. It's something we call freedom of speech. Not "Freedom of things that don't freak us out a lot". Christ almighty.

Edited May 23, 2009 by KRS-One

[MirrorImage]

so why not sell it then at Adult stores, as long as it is animated. Or maybe 2 years old doing a 60 year old man.

It is animated anyway, right?

As long as no child is being hurt, Id rather have it out there for these creeps to get to. Hell, maybe if we make it easy for them to get they'll find another fetish that doesnt involve hurting children.

[Fluffybunny]

I always worry when someone wants to control what others think, specially if it has no harm on anyone else.

[AROCES]

As long as no child is being hurt, Id rather have it out there for these creeps to get to. Hell, maybe if we make it easy for them to get they'll find another fetish that doesnt involve hurting children.

And might as well manufacture sex dolls of children.

And when one go after a live one, you be one of those wondering why.

[KRS-One]

And might as well manufacture sex dolls of children.

And when one go after a live one, you be one of those wondering why.

And might as well manufacture GI-Joes.

And when one go and shoot a live one, you be one of those wondering why.

And might as well manufacture action films.

And when one go after an automatic weapons duel with opponents you be one of those wondering why.

And might as well manufacture sex toys of giant black dildos

And when one go after a live one, you be wondering why.

And might as well manufacture movies about Wolverine.

And when one go after trying to have an indestructable exo-skeleton and get killed you be one of those wondering why.

And might as well manufacture sentence of terrible construction and grammer

And when one go after a well written one you be one of those wondering why.

[Beckys_Mom]

I do not think what he did was illegal.

Really? so you TOTALLY missed this --> Federal law prohibits the possession of any visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct, including drawings, cartoons, sculptures or painting.

WTF was he drawing children being sexually abused for anyway?.............most likely a sick fantasy......creepy git! He deserves to be locked up...If I sat next to anyone that was drawing a pic of a child being sexually abused, I'd kick the living b`jebies out of them...that just disgusts me...perverted creep!!

[Beckys_Mom]

I always worry when someone wants to control what others think, specially if it has no harm on anyone else.

I 'd find it worrying if I saw someone drawing kids being sexually abused..thats just sick.....cant imagine WHY they would have those thoughts going through their minds to create such images!!!!!!

[KRS-One]

Really? so you TOTALLY missed this --> Federal law prohibits the possession of any visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct, including drawings, cartoons, sculptures or painting.

WTF was he drawing children being sexually abused for anyway?.............most likely a sick fantasy......creepy git! He deserves to be locked up...If I sat next to anyone that was drawing a pic of a child being sexually abused, I'd kick the living b`jebies out of them...that just disgusts me...perverted creep!!

I literally can't believe I'm arguing this, but:

Yes it's gross. Yes it's creepy. Yes it's morally objective. Yes it's royally ****ed up.

But it is not and should not be illegal to draw pictures. Of anything.

You should be able to draw and write and speak about literally everything (and this is the truest gift you could ever have been given).

It should be legal for the KKK to draw pictures of lynched black people, and to say that they hate black people, and that they wished they and all the jews in the entire world were dead.

And the minute they act on any of these things they should be struck down and crushed for their hatred. But they MUST be allowed to hold their beliefs and ideals.

We must let christian fundamentalists teach their children creationism, we must let them believe that they, and only they are the chosen. We must let them practice what they do, so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

We must let people burn flags, and gather in the streets, and speak to each other, no matter how much we disagree and how wrong we may know they are.

All of these things, and everything that they entail, no matter how immoral or incorrect you find them MUST be allowed in a free society. No one is harmed. No one is cheated. When someone IS harmed or cheated by the action, rather than the belief of the group, then it becomes a legal matter. But not until then. Not EVER until then. The right to hold and practice a belief, no matter how repulsive is the truest expression of speech and freedom.

Edited May 23, 2009 by KRS-One