Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
aquatus1

Thought-Crime in America

358 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Fluffybunny
Nope, just laying out what you believe in.

I believe in not putting people in jail for drawing a picture. Too Orwellian for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis
I believe ~~~ (snip) ... Too Orwellian for me.
Homeland Security taken to extremes would not be nice either. However, history does repeat itself.

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
I don’t think so.........but see drawing pictures of battle, is what a lot of boys do, and artists....some call it tasteful..(many boys and guys like the idea of going into battle and joining the army ect)............but drawings of sick perverted things is so OUT there...its not even funny...why would someone have those images going through their head?.......most artists do sketches of things that interest them......see where I am going with this?

I completely understand that the guy might be any of a number of things. I am not debating that fact- he may be idk. If he is, then he can be dealt with on other legal aspects.

I am debating only one thing, the drawing, and freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D1CKY D1AMOND

As sick of a fetish as he has, I have to agree with some of you no real crime has been committed. He just happened to have some art that was exploitative in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis
As sick of a fetish as he has, I have to agree with some of you no real crime has been committed. He just happened to have some art that was exploitative in nature.
Point is, Dicky_D, law as enacted by Government is law. Breach of law is a crime. No 'ifs' or 'buts'. That was the point of my earlier post; and laws can be passed to enforce anything.

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D1CKY D1AMOND
Point is, Dicky_D, law as enacted by Government is law. Breach of law is a crime. No 'ifs' or 'buts'. That was the point of my earlier post; and laws can be passed to enforce anything.

Karlis

I don't think there is a law in Canada that would make this illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
I completely understand that the guy might be any of a number of things. I am not debating that fact- he may be idk. If he is, then he can be dealt with on other legal aspects.

I am debating only one thing, the drawing, and freedom of speech.

And I FULLY 100% believe you have every right to...and I can see your point too....I never will jump into anything unless I feel strongly for it

I don't expect anyone to agree with my views lol.....I normally love a challenge instead LOL :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead
And I FULLY 100% believe you have every right to...and I can see your point too....I never will jump into anything unless I feel strongly for it

I don't expect anyone to agree with my views lol.....I normally love a challenge instead LOL :D

who knew :whistle::lol::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead
I don't think there is a law in Canada that would make this illegal.

Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Canada

Canadian law forbids the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. Prohibition covers the visual representations of sexual activity by persons (real or imaginary) under the age of 18 years and the depiction of their sexual organ/anal region for a sexual purpose, unless an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical justification can be provided and the court accepts it. It also includes the written depictions of persons or characters (fictional or non-fictional) under the age of 18 engaging in sexual activity.[68] Courts in Canada can also issue orders for the deletion of material from the internet from any computer system within the court's jurisdiction[69]

One early application of this law was the Eli Langer case. In 1993, this Toronto artist had an exhibition at the Mercer Gallery. His drawings included images of children in sexual positions. Police raided the gallery and confiscated the works. Langer was eventually acquitted after a trial because his work was considered artistic enough to be justified as protected speech.

Law that addresses dynamic aspects of the Internet by regulating the nature of live-time chatting and email communications that may relate to enticing children for pornographic (e.g., web cam) or other sexual purposes has passed in 2002.[70] It also criminalizes the intentional access of child pornography.[71]

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
who knew :whistle::lol::D

*winks *you know it :P it would bore the living drawings out of you, if you had to spend every last post with everyone nodding and agreeing with you :lol:

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D1CKY D1AMOND
Canadian law forbids the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography. Prohibition covers the visual representations of sexual activity by persons (real or imaginary) under the age of 18 years and the depiction of their sexual organ/anal region for a sexual purpose, unless an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical justification can be provided and the court accepts it. It also includes the written depictions of persons or characters (fictional or non-fictional) under the age of 18 engaging in sexual activity.[68] Courts in Canada can also issue orders for the deletion of material from the internet from any computer system within the court's jurisdiction[69

Drawings, paintings etc are protect under this law as it is art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere

All in all, a lot of catholic priests have done far worse to children & gotten away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
All in all, a lot of catholic priests have done far worse to children & gotten away with it.

Ehhhhhh....ok but see catholic priests are not the only guilty ones doing that to children...come on LOL......the world is full of dirty rotten perverted paedophiles..... ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
All in all, a lot of catholic priests have done far worse to children & gotten away with it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

For those of you saying essentially "Freedom of Speech is great, except when people talk about things I don't like." How do you draw the line? How can you make an argument that something is too "out there" by your opinion? Who can determine what's too far "out there" for all people in terms of free speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
Would that then mean that a person that draws pictures of medieval sword battles, WWII Normandy Beach landings, or Iraq combat scenes should be treated before they kill someone?

No, but if they were drawing pictures of them self committing murders I would. The scenario you drew seems to indicate that they wish to join the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

For those of you saying essentially "Freedom of Speech is great, except when people talk about things I don't like." How do you draw the line? How can you make an argument that something is too "out there" by your opinion? Who can determine what's too far "out there" for all people in terms of free speech?

I for one wasn't. I said this should be legal. All I suggested was that the man, who would appear to have problems, should seek help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

This is a troublesome topic to discuss. Naturally we are all against the idea of child pornography in any form but while we have our ethics we also have our logic.

Murder is illegal but portraying that in a fictionalized matter is legal. You can portray just about anything that is illegal in media and art.

The truth of the matter is that this type of 'art' does no harm to anybody and truly is a crime without a victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President-Elect Acidhead
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

For those of you saying essentially "Freedom of Speech is great, except when people talk about things I don't like." How do you draw the line? How can you make an argument that something is too "out there" by your opinion? Who can determine what's too far "out there" for all people in terms of free speech?

.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for

people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-- Noam Chomsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

So what, the government's going to start making of list of things people can and can't fantasize about? The moral standards of the court system has no right to judge anyone based on what they think people should be like if there is no victim.

Edited by Wickian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
So what, the government's going to start making of list of things people can and can't fantasize about? The moral standards of the court system has no right to judge anyone based on what they think people should be like if there is no victim.

The problem I see is then soemone who make plans on blowing up a building can say it was all fantasy.

And what about those who been caught on conspiracy to commit murder, can they now say it was all a fantasy and no one got hurt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
The problem I see is then soemone who make plans on blowing up a building can say it was all fantasy.

And what about those who been caught on conspiracy to commit murder, can they now say it was all a fantasy and no one got hurt?

Intent - (n-tnt) - n. - A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances.

...

Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent." Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to accomplish the precise act that the law prohibits—for example, a specific intent to commit rape. Sometimes it means an intent to do something beyond that which is done, such as assault with intent to commit rape. The prosecution must show that the defendant purposely or knowingly committed the crime at issue.

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/intent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

It seems that a lot of people who are making comments did not read the article too well.

The man is not an artist. He did not draw any pictures of little girls having sex with adults. He ordered it from a Japanese comic book site.

This type of comic genre is referred to as "Lolicon", short for "Lolita Complex", and is extremely popular in Japan, with several hundreds of titles out, and more being produced every month. It is a significant part of the erotic manga world, and many famous comic artists today had their start with such erotic books (it's generally viewed as the comic equivalent to singing in truck stop bars before making it big).

I can only wonder if the people saying this man should get help would suggest the same for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese readers as well.

Recent developments in the case have been interesting as well. Charges of child pornography have been all but dropped, but the man is still being prosecuted for "Transport of obscene material across state lines". Apparently, if he had bought these comics from a comic book store, he would be free and clear.

But are these charges even worthwhile? It's almost like he's being charged out of pettiness than any actual crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill

I think its like smoking a joint, the police say the victim is society/yourself. It could be argued that you halm society or yourself with these drawings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
I think its like smoking a joint, the police say the victim is society/yourself. It could be argued that you halm society or yourself with these drawings?

Smoking a joint is illegal because of narcotics laws. You physically take action to commit a crime by ingesting it.

Drawing pictures about things breaks no laws and is a form of expression protected under free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Smoking a joint is illegal because of narcotics laws. You physically take action to commit a crime by ingesting it.

Drawing pictures about things breaks no laws and is a form of expression protected under free speech.

It's like a woman can be in public in a bikini but not in her underwear . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.