Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
>>575140874 fuck england then, i'm no pedo but if this guy was just faping to cartoons of kids and not actually hurting anyone i don't think it's that bad, even didn't use actuall CP...and they ruined his life anyway.
I think the idea that these characters are children is basically the whole reason this shit happens. Personally, I think if these characters were labelled as, say, baby-faced adults? I don't think things would be the same.
In October 2012, after being reported August 2011 by his wife, a 36 year old man named Christian Bee in Monett, Missouri entered a plea bargain to "possession of cartoons depicting child pornography", with the US attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri recommending a 3 year prison sentence without parole. The office in conjunction with the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force argued that the "Incest Comics" on Bee's computer "clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value"
>>575140874 No. And likely won't be safe anywhere besides Japan soon enough.
Also the judge is a prick.
Judge Tony Briggs said the pictures were manufactured, stylised, and “repulsive” to varying degrees.
“This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without. Its danger is that it obviously portrays sexual activity with children, and the more it’s portrayed, the more the ill-disposed may think it’s acceptable.”
The legality of digital images in general is basically stupid: >Every picture is just made out of 0s and 1s >Programs can interpret colors out of them using file formats. >If Microsoft Photo Viewer can interpret illegal content out of "00100101011" those number row must be illegal >If Those number row is illegal, "11011010100" must be illegal too if you can write an interpreter resulting in the same image as before. >Therefore all number rows must be illegal, because a program on the world can create illegal shit out of it.
Lawyers still havn't found a solution
>>575147484 Lass es einfach nicht drauf ankommen. Irgendwo war mal ein Artikel über jemanden hier, der in den Bau musste für Loli.
>>575147342 Turned in by his own goddamn wife. Jailed for three years for looking at drawings. Fuck.
The Miller Test for obscene material is absolute bullshit, by the way. The general public is going to consider anything most of them don't like as obscene. You can't tell me there's no artistic value in those drawings just because they depict something you don't like
>>575150243 >They aren't in office. The Tories are. >All in all you really fucked up that post, anon. Labour will be taking power in 2015, Torys are essentially a minority government in power anyway. Scotland is infested with Labour.
Red Ed Milliband wants to turn the UK into a 3rd world paradise full of shitskins and muslims.
Now listen here newfaggots, to a solution to your woes.
What ya'll ought be doing is making one of them there threads where you fill it up with every goddamn image of loli and CP you can think of, then somebody drops it off in the judge, prosecutors, defense attorney, whatever nigger from the house of lords was there, and the jury's mailboxes.
If yall britbongs had any sense of fun bout ya you would already be on this.
Yall bonggas cant stop them thar laws, but yall can still troll o lo lo lo.
Best wishes from murrica, where cartoon CP is legal in most states as of right now
If you want to protest just start drawing a bunch of baby porn.
The whole idea behind something like child porn being illegal is the fact of if taking advantage of an innocent child, but the law forgets that, or at least here.
Its not illegal to desire to have sex with a child any more then it is to desire to murder someone. I could be thinking of a child being raped in my mind right now and it would and should be ok because its my fucking thoughts. Until the line is crossed where someone actually fucks a child or or views or takes part in anything that takes advantage of a child sexually then they've done nothing wrong.
who the fuck is the law protecting this scenario?
I don't agree with this mans actions but I'll stand up for his right to do them!
In October 2010, 33-year-old Idaho man Steven Kutzner entered into a plea agreement concerning images of child characters from the American animated television show The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts. In January 2011, Kutzner was sentenced to serve 15 months in federal prison for downloading, receiving, and viewing sexually explicit images of actual children for at least eight years
>>575152161 >Its not illegal to desire to have sex with a child any more then it is to desire to murder someone. It's starting to be that way. Go tell your therapist you're a pedo and you'll be put on the sex offender list.
>>575140874 And rape porn is legal?! I enjoy some loli from time to time, and I know that it's probably not normal, but who cares. Especially if lolis are depicted as sexually active human beings. Hell I don't know what I would do if a 12 year old girl wanted to have sex with me. So I'm probably a pedo. But the point is: No 12-year-old does such a thing! So as long as you don't force yourself on someone (doesn't matter which age) there shouldn't be a problem. I find rape porn much more dangerous, but maybe that's just my opinion, because I like loli and I don't like rape porn.
cp is illegal because it hurt kids and affects their mind loli is images from the imagination of some guy or girl that isnt created by hurting any living child the first and second are now in the eyes of the law they're both different if fake children is illegal all kinds of things should be like any shooter at all, all games where you do llegal acts no matter how minor the offense, porn with themes like rape and snuff, its fake but that doesn't matter.
Rape (fantasy) porn is fine because the participants are consenting adults. Children can't consent, but we're not even talking about children. These are just pixels; not children. Pixels which were created without harming a child. Pixels which will lead to the harming of children just as much as murder in video games results in the murder of 3D humans **which is not at all**.
>>575149935 is someone who has the impulse to have sex with someone, but doesn't, a rapist? is someone that looks at pictures of non real child like humanoids a pedophile? you seem to think so.
You're countries are seriously taking away all the rights you have, you seriously cant even draw that now, and your cuntry is so brainwashed they just immediately say pedos should be shot, but you cant even do that because guns are banned too.
Lolicon has been 'illegal' for years in Britain. Because a lot of it was clearly cartoon filters and tracings of real photos so to stop any ambiguation they just implemented it under the same rule as cp.
Before Amerifats get too excited in picking our flaws lets not forget you live of cops shooting 7 year old girls in the head.
>mfw all these thought crimes >mfw pedophilia isn't illegal, only child molestation >britbongs, amerifats and ausfalians won't say shit because some soccer mom will be screaming about the CHILLUNS >these niggers take plea bargains and set precedents for more of this bullshit >distinguished judges have ruined a mans entire life over pixels
I miss the days when I thought adults had their shit together.
>>575157924 That's the problem. You'll never see a mass movement like the gay one recently because anyone who vocally supported it would be labeled a pedophile and have their life ruined by white knights.
>[...] as well as any adults where the "predominant impression conveyed" is of a person under the age of 18
Okay. So you can't even have a consenting adult fulfil a fantasy by dressing/speaking in a certain way, perhaps wearing make-up to assist with the fantasy. **Not that I'd want that 3DPD crap.**
You're pretty fucked (no pun intended) if you're a young-looking, yet adult, individual who wants to make a porno; because some may consider you to be conveying the impression that you are younger than 18, all involved would get v&.
There is no other way to describe this than "thought crime".
What will they do next? Vary the age of consent based upon how old someone appears?
My fear is that it'll soon be treated like recreational drugs are in the U.S., with mass witch hunts and mandatory jail time for possession. And because the prison system here is a fucking business you'll never see it change.
>>575140874 Mixed feelings, on one hand "punishment for cartoons" seems silly. On the other hand, the article states he won't actually go to jail if he doesn't do anything else illegal for the next 9 months. I mean who wouldn't like that? "Yeah she was 17 when I fucked her... but I promise I won't fuck another 17 year old again" "Ok that's good enough for us!
>>575162595 But his name is mud now. Although this wasn't the case in this instance, imagine the hypothetical situation of having that slammed on you whilst you're still in education. You finish up with your education, keep your nose clean, time to look for a job. Additional to how daunting that already is for many, now you have this conviction which you'll need to carry around with you for the rest of your life (?).
>Any images or videos that depict children in a pornographic context are to be considered child pornography in Sweden, even if they are drawings. A "child" is defined as a "person" who is either under the age of 18 or who has not passed puberty. > [...] > On 15 June 2012, the Supreme Court found him not guilty. They decided that the images were not realistic and could not be mistaken for real children [...]
Nah that's cool. Sand niggers are literally ass raping the country, but we've served justice to a NEET fapping to drawings. Un fucking real.
I am not delusional about the moral group that all pedophiles trample over by jerking off to lolis. I am fully aware of the concern that people have, and I fully understand the disgust of realizing there are people who jerk off to little kid drawings. I get it. What I don't understand is who the fuck did this guy hurt, how did he hinder the government or the country, who the fuck was inconvenienced by this guy jerking off inside his own room/basement?
>>575165223 Here you are, lazy faggot: http://www.businessinsider.com/british-politician-pedophile-coverup-2014-7 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-mp-warned-of-powerful-paedophile-ring-30-years-ago-8507780.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/a-big-political-cover-up-of-1980s-pedophile-ring-in-u-k-parliament/ http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/green-party-leader-trittin-admits-to-approving-document-on-pedophilia-a-922442.html And this was just 60 seconds of research.
>>575166729 Way to side-step the question. How about if someone you consider to be relatively infallible finds it inconceivable that you can be attracted to whatever you fap to? Will that affect your attraction or desires? Why would it fucking matter what they think? How can someone's opinion affect whether or not you're attracted to something? Do you think sexual attraction is something affected by such things?
>>575167612 it's not gonna happen. pedos have been around since the beginning. you might as well get used to it. they are literally everywhere.
you idiots think child molestation is so utterly awful. before the ad homini fly, researchers can't even prove that gentle sexual exploration with a child causes any kind of damage, despite what you moralfags insist. you're the ones damaging kids, not us. besides, anyone who hurts a kid isn't a pedo, but someone horrible, regardless of what they call themselves. you should really stop and think instead of getting all emotional about everything
>>575167612 This. If you give it more than a cursory thought, the demonizing of pedos only makes them more dangerous to children. What if we still treated people with [insert mental disorder] like they were possessed/evil/bad ju ju?
>>575168914 also this. you label us as subhuman child rapists, what do you think we'll become? your worst nightmares will realize themselves when serious abuse keep growing more common even as laws get harsher. and whose fault will that be?
>>575166729 According to kinsey (Which is of course, somewhat dated research.) Sexual attraction can be molded by social and societal factors. There is of course. A certain population which may very well be born with their ingrained preference; but paraphilias tend to be formed by experience and events as one develops through adolescence.
Of course none of this changes the fact that society on the whole views your fetish as an abhorred travesty even worse then coprophagia.
In summation- Only lolli tards defend lolli or give two shits about it. Everyone hates you and wishes you were castrated.
>>575166729 Edge-king right here. Check out that sickeningly deformed man he's posted for absolutely no reason. Look at that infuriating text blob he's conjured up; doesn't it make you upset? Keep an eye on this one, he means serious business.
so what did I learn today. I could legally fuck a 14-year old. If i take a picture of the sex up until the age of 18, i get arrested and raped by blacks for life. god, don't you just love justice, anons?
>>575147342 Apparently he plead out to avoid being prosecuted for the actual child pornography he had. Which seems to be the case with all of the recent convictions in the U.S. None of them solely concern Chinese Comics.
>>575170208 But as I said the sue won't get anywhere. This is Spain, not America. Here being sued is "Aham, fuck you" and if you really didn't do shit nothing will happen.
Fucking with a 13 year old was legal, the only reason her parents could decide to sue you was because they thought otherwise (almost no one knew the actual legal age). But the law is the law (or rather, was) and the only thing they were going to achieve is wasting a shitload of money in useless shit (the winner doesn't pay anything) without you getting in any trouble - here we don't put people into black lists for blank accusations.
So nope. They couldn't do shit. Sueing you was only detrimental for them.
>>575156229 >cp is illegal because it hurt kids and affects their mind I have a book called Erotic Victorian Photography. It was printed in England shortly before Al Gore invented the Internet. It contains photographs of nude prepubescent girls. The kids who were photographed might have been harmed or affected (although I highly suspect that they were much more harmed and effected by their poverty) and yet they all died before your parents were born.
That makes no fucking sense. The DA would offer him a plea if they didn't have a 100 percent case against him. Seeing as his crime turned out be possession of shit deemed illegal in dumbfuckistan there's no way he'd be able to spin that shit around, especially, if you consider the fact his own fucking wife sold him the fuck out. If he had any real cp he'd do at least a dime.
That's brave anon. Considering where I live I deleted my entire 4chan folder. No more waifus or reaction images. I don't fucking know what the people of republic of normal people going to deem as loli.
It sucks because both political parties in our shitty two party system are as corrupt and incompetent as each other.
>both parties rack up monstrous debt >sell public utilities and transport to rich friends who bankrolled their campaigns in order to pay off that debt >tell everyone they're economic geniuses >batshit laws everywhere >rinse repeat
>>575172183 WHAT? How does someone using a means of creating a meme automatically signify that they're underage? Funny, only someone who was underage would use that bullshit logic. Secondly, no. You want to fuck kids. You ruin lives and you want kids because they're naive, innocent and easy to control. I don't know how you could possibly justify that.
>pedos molest kids >quick, give them child porn and lolicon so they don't molest kids >pedos have child porn >quick, take their child porn away, it's immoral >pedos have lolicon >quick, take their lolicon away, it's immoral too
now pedos have the choice of >molesting kids, which is illegal, and is what they wanted to do in the first place, or >looking at child porn, which is also illegal, or >looking at lolicon, which is illegal now too
what do you think they will choose? do you think this will stop them from molesting kids? no way. you take away their only other outlet and you will increase child sex abuse a hundredfold
>>575174420 You know that people did fap even before there was porn, right? You don't need any kind of visual stimulation. I don't disagree that the laws are stupid but so is your argument. Their argument is the other way around btw. They say loli has to be taken away because it leads to getting perverted and maybe leading to child fucking. That's at least the position in german law.
You bring up a legitimiate point. People are fucking entitled on all ends. They think they're entitled to material that they can jerk off too. The idea behind a government is to create that safe haven for people to live safely and enjoy perks like having something aside from your imagination to jerk off to.
>They say loli has to be taken away because it leads to getting perverted and maybe leading to child fuckin
That's a slippery slope fallacy and is easily countered by offering porn as an example.
>>575175145 i certainly didn't need lolicon or child porn to make me pedo and want to touch up kids. kids did that. but whatever. you've still gotta think about what pedos can do to satisfy their urges. yes, they could fap to nothing. but why would you when there are better alternatives?
if you're presented with three things, each one has the same disadvantage (it's illegal and will get you arrested), but one of those choices is clearly better/more satisfying, which are you going to go for?
>>575167612 Slightly off-topic since that's a legitimate crime which affected a real, physical child. I very much agree that such acts are reprehensible, to the point of being unsure whether or not we should put down those who act on such desires.
But that's what's important to remember: cartoons (which in no way harm a child) should not be equatable to real CP (photographs of real children).
Taking such photos of a real child is damaging and reprehensible. It fills me with fury. And this passionate hate towards such criminals is what causes me to passionately hate those who say pixels (which were created without harming a child, and will not lead to the harming of a child) are equivalent to the heinous crime of actually molesting and photographing a real child.
It would be similar to someone, let's call him Bob, getting angry about his prison sentence for possession of a small amount of weed being the same as the prison sentence for a mass-murder. This is a purely hypothetical example, try to suspend your disbelief. Bob could be angry because he believes this means mass-murder is relatively acceptable. "Relative" is the important word here. Let reprehensibility be denoted by unit R. Let's say Bob thinks possession of such an amount of weed is 10R, mass-murder is 1,000,000R, and littering is 100R. The justice system has its own method of measuring reprehensibility: in the form of sentence duration (yeah, yeah, and fines, community service, etc, I know). So, if Bob's possession of weed earns him N years, and a mass-murderer typically gets N years (or close to N years), Bob sees that as the justice system saying "Mass-murdering isn't bad, it's only as bad as possession for a small amount of weed". So, Bob thinks, "What?! They're saying mass-murdering is only 10R?!". This makes Bob frustrated because he sees it as the justice system belittling the reprehensibility of mass-murdering. (Continued)
>>575174420 in America a pedo that grooms and fucks a 13yr old will go to prison for typically 4 yrs. But a pedo that downloads that picture of a nude 13yr old will typically go to prison for 10-15 yrs. so actually the rational choice by far is to molest real children.
>>575176085 (Continued) That is what I think about equating pixels to real CP, and equating pixels to instances of individuals acting upon their desires. I am aware that the guy didn't get as many years as a mass-murderer, but it's important that it's understood what I mean by relativeness of reprehensibility. I am also aware that possession of weed doesn't net you the same sentence as a mass-murderer. It was just an example. If you were unable to handle the analogy, then you can think of it as: If C1 gets the same sentence as C2, C2 must be as bad as C1. But if C1 is a victimless crime and C2 has many victims, C2's sentence should be vastly longer, or C1's sentence should be vastly shorter (or non-existent). If a victimless crime gives the same sentence as C2, it's as though C2 didn't have any victims. Whatever, I'm rambling.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.