Aussie Gamers Beware: Fictional Characters are people too!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

That's right, this is a message board, it doesn't really do anything but let people share ideas and opinions. Thing is, the ideas and opinions that matter and get repeated are the ones that people back up with decent argument and reference to facts.

You haven't even tried to support anything you've said. You made a big claim about 100% recidivism, I disputed it, you asked for proof and I provided it. Then you decided reality didn't matter, because other people out there are under the same misapprehension as you.

But it comes down to one thing, substantiate your argument or concede. Otherwise you're just some guy who likes making claims about stuff he doesn't know anything about.

**BloodofOrks**

Frazzled wrote:
You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

Wait, if we have the death penalty for pedophiles, then won't they just kill the kid when they are done? If they face the same punishment then wouldn't they kill the kid to leave one less witness? Since they get the death penalty no matter what once they have molested a kid, it would be in their best interest to do away with the child so that they could never report them or testify in court.

Edit: Also, I live in Georgia (USA) we still have people on our state's sex offender list who were arrested for consensual homosexual sex. So yes, you can overreact.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

In the case of the Australian man with simpson porn, I would say that, while distasteful, it is not a crime. However, being unfamiliar with Aussie law, I could be wrong. Can anyone tell me if there are any laws on the books that explicitly make hentai/cartoon of minors illegal?

Frazzled wrote:
Exterminate him and be done with it to protect society. He's going to be a predator if he isn't already. They basically have a 100% recidivism rate if caught.

What I really find disturbing Frazz is that you advocated the death penalty for this man because he's going to be a predator if he isn't already. So not only are you advocating death for all Pedophilles (which I don't necessarily disagree with as a gut reaction), but anyone who has ever watched child porn or anyone who has ever seen a cartoon or other interpretation of a child meant to derive sexual pleasure. The constitution protects people from cruel and unusual punishments, even if this isn't a free speech issue (which is what I believe it is). I find it disheartening that a fellow American would be willing to ignore article 1 and article 8 of the Bill of Rights in favor of a knee-jerk reaction to a guy (maybe) getting his jollies from watching cartoon kid porn. I'll leave the whole punishing someone to prevent a crime not yet committed thing alone and assume you were tired and/or drunk.

I think the guy is creepy. I can certainly understand a level of revulsion at his behavior, especially if you are a parent. But I think this is clearly a free speech issue - especially since, from what I can see, no one has been able to prove that anyone was harmed or that any law was broken other than this silliness that "cartoons are people." As much as I hate to paraphrase an unfortunate phrase, "you're either for free speech, or you're against it."

If you could provide some evidence that the recidivism rate is 100% or some high number, I think it might help your case.

**Frazzled**

If he made the video he committed the act. Its sick. He's sick. For the good of society exterminate him.

-This is not free speech. By making it he's committed the crime.
-Only 100% method of insuring no recividism. One recidivist is too many. Statistics are meaningless on that basis.
-Shows that society will not tolerate this, at all.
-Saves the parents the trouble of doing him in themselves.

But don't worry. I'm equal opportunity. I'm all for the execution of rapists and murderers too. But I'm more liberal on the opic then many-I still have an open mind about used car salesmen and lawyers...

Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me. Enjoy yourselves.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:If he made the video he committed the act. Its sick. He's sick. For the good of society exterminate him.

If he threaten the life of another being he's a sadist. Its sick. He's sick... sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?

Frazzled wrote:
-This is not free speech. By making it he's committed the crime.

There is no crime against illustration.

Frazzled wrote:
-Only 100% method of insuring no recividism. One recidivist is too many.

Of course, that doesn't do anything about the actual issue of pedophilia, but lets not that get in the way of catharsis.

Frazzled wrote:
-Shows that society will not tolerate this, at all.

I think that's already pretty clear.

Frazzled wrote:
-Saves the parents the trouble of doing him in themselves.

Which is, of course, not at all what the justice system is about.

Frazzled wrote:
Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me.

Then why bother posting at all? Because it makes you feel better? Why does it do that if you don't feel this matters?

Regardless, no one is attacking you, just your perspective on this issue.

**Frazzled**

Edit: deleted by FRAZZLED for not being an appropriate response to another poster.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me. Enjoy yourselves.

What happens is someone presents an argument, then the other side presents a counter argument. Both sides explain their point in detail, and provide evidence for any contentious claims. While it's not often that someone comes around to another person's POV entirely, in any decent discussion both sides will normally gain a better understanding of the other side, and likely modify their own position a little. It's a good way to develop a sophisticated view on a topic.

What you're arguing for is for people to jump on to the board, post their already formed opinion and never bother to think about anything anyone else is saying. It's about the fastest route to ignorance I can think of.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Now you can go back to self righteously attacking me. Thats fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and you're not trying to convince me. Enjoy yourselves.

What happens is someone presents an argument, then the other side presents a counter argument. Both sides explain their point in detail, and provide evidence for any contentious claims. While it's not often that someone comes around to another person's POV entirely, in any decent discussion both sides will normally gain a better understanding of the other side, and likely modify their own position a little. It's a good way to develop a sophisticated view on a topic.

What you're arguing for is for people to jump on to the board, post their already formed opinion and never bother to think about anything anyone else is saying. It's about the fastest route to ignorance I can think of.

Yes, because arguing on the intranets, on a message board about toy soldiers in a section debating the merits of DC vs. Marvel Comics, is the path to true enlightenment...

There's nothing in the Off Topic Section that states this has to be a debate. We can poist our opinions and are free to argue or not about them.
Actually this thread probably should have been immediatley deleted, along with a bunch of others, but since I posted I'm not going to MOD it as that would be less than ethical. Just because its Off Topic does not mean everything should be allowed.

**Greebynog**

Frazzled wrote:

Yes, because arguing on the intranets, on a message board about toy soldiers in a section debating the merits of DC vs. Marvel Comics, is the path to true enlightenment...

There's nothing in the Off Topic Section that states this has to be a debate. We can poist our opinions and are free to argue or not about them.
Actually this thread probably should have been immediatley deleted, along with a bunch of others, but since I posted I'm not going to MOD it as that would be less than ethical. Just because its Off Topic does not mean everything should be allowed.

I don't think anyone's saying anything particularly contentious or offensuve, no-one's supporting paedophillia (that's the British spelling btw), we're just debating attitudes to punishment. Like you said, in the sam board as this there's a thing about comics and another about sending each other snacks. That's what I like about the OT board, stimulating serious debate and frivolity side by side, it works, and I've certainly gained a lot of knowledge on certain topics, and been smacked down for unsubstantiated and gut-based opinions before, and I feel I've learned from that.

It is a little frustrating when someone refuses to substantiate their position fully, that's all, no-one's attacking you personally. Obviously, this is a topic that sparks off the emotional side in anyone, and strikes up a primeaval sense of paternity and disgust in all, but I'm glad that laws aren't based on those gut reactions, it is humanity's greatest gift to be able to rise above such base instincts and use rationale and logic when dealing with society's ills. I'd be interested to find out at what stage you believe the execution should be applied, what level of crime are you thinking? The guys who drew this? The guys who watched it? Or not at all in this case?

**Frazzled**

It is a little frustrating when someone refuses to substantiate their position fully, that's all, no-one's attacking you personally. Obviously, this is a topic that sparks off the emotional side in anyone, and strikes up a primeaval sense of paternity and disgust in all, but I'm glad that laws aren't based on those gut reactions, it is humanity's greatest gift to be able to rise above such base instincts and use rationale and logic when dealing with society's ills. I'd be interested to find out at what stage you believe the execution should be applied, what level of crime are you thinking? The guys who drew this? The guys who watched it? Or not at all in this case?

I’ve stated my opinion. There are just others as equally ignorant as myself on the topic trying to debate it. Unless Dogma and Sebster are closet prosecutors/police/criminal psychiatrists they have no more standing then I to debate this topic. We can all cite studies from the intranets which are supposed to mean something.

But to your direct point.
-If you are convicted of making, selling, or purveying child pornography then it should be electrode time for you.
Why:
1) Cures recidivism 100%.
2) Demonstrates this is the greatest crime that can be done in society.
3) On a personal level, I have no problem in society exacting vengeance for certain crimes. Or put another way, criminals must atone for what they have done. There are certain crimes such that that atonement may only be obtained through execution.

This is fundamentally different to me then arguing politics, economics etc. The fact people are defending this is some manner on free speech grounds is repugnant to me.
I’m leaving the thread now. I’ve had to edit myself already. You can go back to feeling enlightened and slamming the thoughts of the troglodyte troll, until you’re a father anyway. Then your views on a whole many things will change.

**Greebynog**

Frazzled wrote: We can all cite studies from the intranets which are supposed to mean something.

I'd like it if you could please, it might help, even if you think it means jack. I don't think you're a troglodyte, I'm just trying to gain an understanding of a view that goes against my own. I don't think you less of a person for holding it.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:Yes, because arguing on the intranets, on a message board about toy soldiers in a section debating the merits of DC vs. Marvel Comics, is the path to true enlightenment...

To true enlightenment? Probably not. But it is the quickest way to a more informed opinion.

There's nothing in the Off Topic Section that states this has to be a debate. We can poist our opinions and are free to argue or not about them.

Yes, we can post our opinions, no-one is talking about your right to post your opinion. But do you, as an individual, have an obligation to yourself to make sure your opinion relates to reality?

Here's a question... if Jonny made a claim, and Davo disputes that claim and provides references showing that claim as false, and then Jonny replies 'I can post what I want, it's my opinion and you can't change it'... what would be your opinion of Jonny?

Actually this thread probably should have been immediatley deleted, along with a bunch of others, but since I posted I'm not going to MOD it as that would be less than ethical. Just because its Off Topic does not mean everything should be allowed.

If that's the policy the owners of the forum want to enforce, fair enough. It's a little odd to me, because this thread is just about a legal decision the best legal approach to paedophilia, it hardly seems all that shocking to me, but I don't own this place...

**Da Boss**

When I posted the thread I was being very tongue in cheek and not serious. I was poking fun at the slapdash way that the law had been enforced in this case. To my mind, if you want to do something like that, at least make it less open to abuse. The examples I posted were only supposed to provide amusement.
The discussion itself has been interesting as usual. Like a lot of discussions on politics here, it has had many differing ideologies clashing and arguing. I think that's one of the best parts of the OT board.
The arguments one way or another are pretty interesting. Sorry that you felt it wasn't appropriate for the board Fraz. You know I have absolutely nothing personal against you or anyone else here.

**Orkeosaurus**

Da Boss wrote:When I posted the thread I was being very tongue in cheek and not serious.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Okay Arctik, I'm not quite sure I follow you with the last paragraph.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The gaming examples will never be applicable because they do not concern child abuse legislation,
Does this need to be said?

and you don't have to shoot a guy in the head, record it, and then play it back for that to occur in a video game sequence.
You don't need to molest children to draw someone molesting children.

The vast majority of child pornography involves someone doing something illegal with/to a child, THEN distributing it. That's more than one offense.
This isn't about the vast majority, this is about a case where nothing illegal with a child was done.

Unfortunately people probably will try to use this as an excuse to try to ban gaming AGAIN. It's a good thing they're misguided idiots.
People will use any inane reason they can come up with. I think there was a Law and Order episode where people went on murdering sprees because of Grand Theft Auto. It was hilariously terrible. Anything to get ratings up, no doubt.

All I was saying is that the child abuse legislation is in place for a very good reason. No such laws have been put into effect regarding violent video games, because there's no good proof that it makes violent out of people, but you don't have to go far to get 'paedophile' out of this one.
Even if he just thought it was funny or something, he was fortunate not to be jailed. Like it or not, that's the law here. You just can't draw children having sex in Australia. You might have to be a bit misguided to actually draw it, yeah... but not being the author and still deliberately owning it is even worse.

The only reason they were defined as 'people' is because the guy tried to use it in his defense. But they weren't defined as 'people' per se - an image of a person on a screen isn't an actual, breathing person, and everyone knows that. What it was respresenting is obvious enough, and that's why he went down. Acts of sexual nature involving children < 16. Consent has nothing to do with that age category. The law isn't about abusing children directly, he was fined for possession.

Law and Order is a mockery of justice, and everyone knows it (except perhaps for the creators... but people who watch and take it seriously are just as bad as child molesters).

A little lesson on Free Speech:
Free Speech is protected in certain countries. PROTECTED. Just like in America people are 'protected' by guns. But protection isn't immunity. If you're going to use either in a way that is obviously illegal, don't be surprised when you're arrested.

**Arctik_Firangi**

double post... quoted instead of edited...

**Frazzled**

To quote Transformers:

"Prepare for termination."

3 - 2 - 1 ....

**Arctik_Firangi**

Transformers? That cartoon has a LITTLE BOY in it! They put him inside that MACHINE!

You're going to to jail, son.

(Dare to be stupid, dare to be stupid...)

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
I’ve stated my opinion. There are just others as equally ignorant as myself on the topic trying to debate it. Unless Dogma and Sebster are closet prosecutors/police/criminal psychiatrists they have no more standing then I to debate this topic.

So a person's position is now somehow indicative of their capacity to reason with respect to a given topic? Come on Fraz, that's just preposterous and you know it.

Frazzled wrote:
We can all cite studies from the intranets which are supposed to mean something.

"Yeah, but those are just words." -Michael Scott

Frazzled wrote:
3) On a personal level, I have no problem in society exacting vengeance for certain crimes. Or put another way, criminals must atone for what they have done. There are certain crimes such that that atonement may only be obtained through execution.

Society is not supposed to exact vengeance at all. The law is supposed to be above such human pettiness.

Frazzled wrote:
This is fundamentally different to me then arguing politics, economics etc. The fact people are defending this is some manner on free speech grounds is repugnant to me.

Who here has defended pedophilia? Not one person. The entire matter has been about whether or not the creation of pornography that does not directly impact anyone can be treated as pedophilia.

Frazzled wrote:
I’m leaving the thread now. I’ve had to edit myself already. You can go back to feeling enlightened and slamming the thoughts of the troglodyte troll, until you’re a father anyway. Then your views on a whole many things will change.

Maybe it will, though I surely hope not. I'd like to think I can rise above my gut reaction. Either way, you accused me of self-righteousness earlier, which I find shocking considering that the maintenance of an emotional opinion without any regard for actual evidence is about as close to self-righteousness as one can get.

**Miguelsan**

I posted in this thread not to defend pedophiles (as already pointed I don´t think anyone is doing that) but to defend the idea of free speech, and how quite often (distateful or not) free speech is threatened by laws put in place by our goverments in response to media hyped crimes. The first thing these laws will do usually is to attack common sense and being laws put up in a haste they´ll have big loopholes that either will make them unconstitutional in some cases or will need of additional legislation to fix, e.g. statutory laws in the US

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

and how some of them had to be fixed:

wikipedia wrote:Often, teenage couples engage in consensual sexual conduct as part of an intimate relationship. This may start to occur before either participant has reached the age of consent, or after one has but the other has not. In such cases, the older of the two participants is technically guilty of statutory rape. Most jurisdictions, as previously stated, consider the act itself to be prima facie evidence of guilt, as any consent between partners, even if freely given, does not meet the standard of law as it is given by a minor. The accused in these cases normally has no defense.

This has often been considered unjust, leading to the passage of so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which serve to reduce or eliminate the penalty of the crime in cases where the couple's age difference is minor and the sexual contact is only considered rape because of the lack of legally-recognized consent. Such laws vary, but can include:

Providing an affirmative defense to statutory rape based on the small difference in the participants' ages, or on evidence of a pre-existing sexual relationship between actor and victim that did not constitute statutory rape.
Reducing the severity of the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor, which prevents loss of civil rights and reduces available penalties
Reducing the penalty in such cases to a fine, probation, and/or community service
Eliminating the requirement that the convicted participant register as a sex offender, or reducing the duration of such registry from life to 1, 5 or 10 years. [ ]

An example is Texas Penal Code, Section 22.011(e). It provides an affirmative defense to a charge of sexual assault if all of the following apply:

the actor was fewer than 3 years older than the victim at the time of the offense,
the victim was older than 14 years of age at the time of the offense,
the actor was not at the time registered or required to register for life as a sex offender,
the conduct did not constitute incest, and
neither actor nor victim would commit bigamy by marrying the other (in other words, neither was married to a third person).

So everybody will have to ask himself is he or she wants laws to protect our rights or laws enacted in a kneejerk response to satiate the yellow press need for blood and further the political careers of certain type of law officials more interested in getting revenge through a tough sentence than Justice.

Do I want sexual predators running around? Of course no, but neither I want the police raiding my home because I have so called child porn in the way of the traditional "look this is a naked bathing 1 year old you." And if a judge decided that a cartoon is child porn another could decide that inocent family photos are too.

M.

**Arctik_Firangi**

If someone was having sex with the 'bathing one-year-old child', then you might have cause for concern.

If someone had doctored the images so that it looked like a couple of bathing one-year-olds were 'doing business', then you might have cause for concern.

If you had your so-called 'family photo' is a box of crusty towels... I don't need to go on, surely?

What you've just demonstrated is knee-jerk paranoia. The media in question was not 'a cartoon'. It was an appropriation of a cartoon in the form of child pornography. There is no question as to whether or not the Australian man broke an Australian law - if you're not breaking any in your country, you'll be fine too.

Here's a good example of the unfair situation you're talking about:
When police seize a stash of drugs, the person's 'intent to supply' is pretty much up to authority. Most authorities base this on how much of the controlled substance there is. For example, if you're busted with a marijuana plant in Australia, you're pretty much guilty of 'intent to supply' - your potential for wrongdoing is unlimited, in their eyes.
Authorities don't seem to understand how much some people will smoke. I've known many a dude who'd easily blow eighty bucks of weed out of his pipe every bloody day of the week. To a first-time smoker, this would seem utterly impossible.
Now that you've been pinned as a drug dealer, they'll make an estimate of the 'street value' of said controlled substance. This is also grossly overinflated - whenever you hear the 'street value' of a drug bust on the news, pretty much cut it in half right off the bat. This is knee-jerk at its finest.

...please note that marijuana is completely in my past nowadays.

Now look at it this way. The paedophile probably doesn't need to have a photo to get off. He can do it all in his head, which is a lot scarier than the one-in-a-billion chance you'll be wrongfully accused of 'mistreating' a family photo. Laws bend just as easily as rights in a courtroom, so basically, if you want to end up in jail...

Be An Idiot.

**dogma**

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
What you've just demonstrated is knee-jerk paranoia. The media in question was not 'a cartoon'. It was an appropriation of a cartoon in the form of child pornography. There is no question as to whether or not the Australian man broke an Australian law - if you're not breaking any in your country, you'll be fine too.

What if a 17 year old boy had a picture of a 15 year old, bikini-clad ex-girlfriend in a vaguely suggestive pose? Is that child pornography? If not, does it become pornography if he keeps the picture until he is 25? 35? Longer? How do you pare sentimentality away from sexuality without taking into consideration the victimization of the subject in the image itself?

Regardless, the point isn't that the inclusion of any illustrated imagery in the definition of pornography is a dangerous precedent. I know of many pieces of art that feature the blatant sexualization of children that I would never consider pornography as the child in the image was not a direct party to that sexuality. Are those pieces now pornographic?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Now look at it this way. The paedophile probably doesn't need to have a photo to get off. He can do it all in his head, which is a lot scarier than the one-in-a-billion chance you'll be wrongfully accused of 'mistreating' a family photo. Laws bend just as easily as rights in a courtroom, so basically, if you want to end up in jail...

Be An Idiot.

Anyone can do anything in their mind, and they should be able to. Its when those fantasies are written into the real world that trouble begins to arise. I imagine that everyone who has posted on this message board has had some form of criminal thought at some point in time, is that scary?

**Arctik_Firangi**

A picture of a fifteen year old bikini-clad girl isn't any sort of porn I've heard of. What sort of example is that? I've seen parents who dress toddlers in frigging bikinis. It's weird, but it's not porn.

Artists like Bill Henson... well, maybe he is a pervert, maybe he's not. But his exhibition in Sydney wasn't 'porn', and they closed that because of complaining parents. I disagreed with that. Inane, graphic Simpsons porn is just another thing, though.

I absolutely agree that you can do whatever you want in your head. I was just making a comparison between a sick person who would like to do certain things, and people who are wrongfully accused.

There was this old dude in my home town, really nice guy - I was a teenager at the time, but I remember a disgusting affair where an out-of-town parent started shouting at him, calling him a 'pervert', telling him to 'piss off' because he had wandered over to the local netball courts and was watching some teenaged girls playing on a sports day. That's all.

It has always saddened me that people are so paranoid on either side. A retired person can't reflect on the beauty of youth, or just watch children play... but an old woman would never have been treated that way. It's as much a survival mechanism as it is a social disease. I know it's a tough call, who's 'guilty', or whatever...

But basically, I said don't be an idiot. Don't keep your sentimental-picture-of-girlfiend between the pages of a stash of porno mags, or whatever. Who in their right mind would? That's what I mean. Neither of us live in a country where the court rules by the letter of the law, and refuses to hear reason where it is due. Texas might be a different place, but that might just be television. We all know the mass media can take a lot of blame for the 'knee-jerk' on both the authoritan and defensive sides.

**Miguelsan**

Perhaps I have sounded overly defensive with my example but lately I keep reading about unfortunate judicial sentences were common sense is totally absent that I have to wonder what´s going on.

M.

**chromedog**

Nah, that's just par for the course in an aussie court.

We have quite a few highly placed judicial types who need a good dose of reality.

**chromedog**

Nah, that's just par for the course in an aussie court.

We have quite a few highly placed judicial types who need a good dose of reality.

**Miguelsan**

In Spain a deaf and dumb single mother got punished got 45 days on jail and 1 year strangement order from the court because she hit, hit not beat to death or anything like that, his 9 year old because he threw a shoe at her instead of doing his homework.

The prosecutor appealed to get the maximun under the current law 63 days...... [faceslap]

M.

**Polonius**

I forget where I read it, so it may be apocryphal, but in many states you can get legally married under 18. A man had naked pictures of his 17 year old wife, and got busted for child pornography possession. I suppose, even if it didn't happen, it could. I know many people aren't wild about freaky sex, but it's really hard to demonize what somebody does in bed with their spouse.

There was another case of an immigrant family (legal) from south America that had pictures of their children in the tub at age ~5. Again, reported and arrested.

Now, these cases are pretty clear cut instances of non-predators, but it's worth showing why pretty much any inflexible standard will have some chilling effects.

**Frazzled**

And none of them are relevant to the penalties FOR A CONVICTION.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Where does 'inflexible standard' come from? Were those people convicted, or just arrested?

The Australian guy had child porn, and your examples almost certainly had a good defense case.