[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 13 KB, 165x162, 1286476722877.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6291889 No.6291889 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.avclub.com/articles/man-faces-10-years-in-prison-for-downloading-simps,46424/

One of my defenses for my loli folder is now down the drain. Western cartoons are now considered taboo as well. It might be getting close to hard drive nuking time.

>> No.6291895

land of the free to be fucked in the ass

>> No.6291912

TrueCrypt that shit, that said if you have over 70 fucking images you might as well just turn yourself in

>> No.6291919

lol police states. here in the third world the police only cares about drugs.

>> No.6291928

well looks like im gonna be up all night formatting my hardrive.

>> No.6291934

>70 Images
>He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.

I wonder how many years I'll get for 40,000-ish

>> No.6291946

Wasn't this the guy who was found downloading porn in a LIBRARY?

Also, a) he was a middle school teacher and b) pleaded guilty.

>> No.6291950

Get out cell-mate, I'm piss.

>> No.6291951

Good thing Flandre is "approximately 495 years" old.

get out bart I'm piss

>> No.6291954

Why are humans so horrible? What's wrong with using drugs and fapping to drawn pictures? Why people aren't against it?

>> No.6291956

What about all of the ads for Simpsons/Family Guy/Disney porn on almost every streaming site?

Not that I browse such sites, Mr. FBI.

>> No.6291958

> 33-year-old Steven Kutzner immediately resigned and pled guilty at a subsequent hearing
Morons, morons everywhere.
Also,
>Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, Section 2256 of the US Code defines what constitutes child pornography in the United States. The key part of this definition is paragraph 8, including subparagraph A, which states in part: "'child pornography' means any visual depiction ... where the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor..."

>> No.6291960

I browsed 4chan during a CP raid on a state computer. Nobody noticed.

>> No.6291966

Jailed for having bad taste.
Good grief.

>> No.6291969

>>6291958
Do the Simpsons characters even count as minors considering they've been around for over 20 years.

Also, 'that' scene in the Simpsons movie. Do I have to go to jail after seeing Bart's penis in that?

>> No.6291974

>>6291958
>where the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor..."

The argument from the state would be that cartoon minors are minors too.

Face it, if the government wants you in jail, you're going to jail and there is nothing you can do about it.

Just keep your head down and don't browse porn in a library.

>> No.6291981

>>6291958
THINK OF THE FICTIONAL CHILDREN THEY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS TOO AND THEY'RE HURT EVERY TIME YOU FAP TO THEM AND YES THEY LIVE ON AN ALTERNATE DIMENSION IT IS OUR JOB TO PROTECT THEM

>> No.6291978

>>6291969
I'm pretty sure they don't draw penises in the Simpsons.

>> No.6291977

And people call us not "normal" yet they try to limit freedom of others in such things.

>> No.6291982

Suddenly I'm pretty happy about moving to a country where the only real concern the government has is not getting the shit bombed out of it.

>> No.6291985

>>6291969

I assume not, though Matt Groening will have a lot to speak for. At the very least, he deserves it for the later Simpsons seasons.

>> No.6291986

>>6291969
>Do I have to go to jail after seeing Bart's penis in that?

If there were any consistency in the enforcement of these laws, then yes, yes you would.

>> No.6291992

>http://www.avclub.com/articles/man-faces-10-years-in-prison-for-downloading-simps,46424/

Thank you OP. I thought i can't hate humans any more.

>> No.6291993

>>6291985

No, if you see a naked child, regardless of whether that child is real or not, you're a criminal.

>> No.6291996
File: 1.03 MB, 2262x5000, magnets7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6291996

I keep a magnet handy at all times.

>> No.6292002

>>6291993

>No, if you see a naked child, regardless of whether that child is real or not, you're a criminal.

Why not people go against it? It doesn't make any sense. Yes, i mad.

>> No.6292007

What /jp/ should be asking is, how did they catch him downloading? The cases so far were about printed loli and the defendants weren't very careful to hide it, but I've never heard of a US person being traced and arrested for downloading cartoon porn. That's pretty scary.

>> No.6292006
File: 54 KB, 550x699, 9422554.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6292006

>>6291981

If they have rights, I reserve the ability to take one as my bride!
I would gladly delete every single loli picture I have to do so!

>> No.6292009

>>6292002
Because going against that means you're a pedophile.
Logic? What's that?

>> No.6292013

>>6292002
>Why not people go against it?

Most people aren't aware that the implications of a lot of these rulings makes criminals out of all of them.

Remember, the police choose which laws to enforce.

>> No.6292025

>>6292009

>Because going against that means you're a pedophile.

I am pedo only for 2D

>Logic? What's that?

I mean at least doing more "productive" things instead of basically throwing fear on people for doing such little things. I see problem in that. World ... or rather most humans are worse with every day. This goes beyond "usual" levels of ignorance.

>> No.6292027

>>6291993
Sure is UK in here.

>> No.6292039

>>6292013

>Most people aren't aware that the implications of a lot of these rulings makes criminals out of all of them.

Don't you find it sad? I do.

>Remember, the police choose which laws to enforce.

And yet again people act as sheep instead of being autonomous in these manners and try to live without other conflicts. OP thread is just rageworthy.

>> No.6292043

Oh america, u so crazy

>> No.6292054

>>6291889

Hmmm... Perhaps the images where created before 2005. If so, the characters would still be under 18 - but then that would include Marge and Homer. Maybe that's the police's reasoning.

>> No.6292056

I wonder if this article was serious because it seems this site in someway has a relation to ONN. Comments where pretty laughable.

>> No.6292061

>>6291889

This is actually a good thing, not a bad thing. He took the prosecutors deal rather than actually fight his case. The judge never even made his ruling. Being that he didn't fight the case means we dont have a deal with whatever the ruling of a judge from a 40% mormon hellhole like Meriden Idaho. If the judge actually ruled, we'd have shit on our hands because then it would have precedent and the only way out of that would be to see if appealed up to the supreme court. And when it comes to cases like this, it would be best to wait until scalia finally croaks before the case goes before them.

Basically this means nothing has changed. Loli is still a gray area and isn't illegal yet.

>> No.6292063

>>6292056
Yea, but it has two links inside to other sources. One of them is BBC.

>> No.6292066

>>6292061
>isn't illegal yet.

Doesn't matter, you'll still probably go to prison for it.

>> No.6292068

>>6292056

Serious? No.
Legit? Probably.

The A.V. Club is basically a good version of /tv/, with less pedos and more "Internet hipsters."

>> No.6292095

>mein Gesicht when Americans consider other countries' legal precendents

So why aren't women committing adultery getting stoned to death yet?

>> No.6292103

>>6292095

Banning loli serves to put undesirables in prison. Stoning women doesn't.

>> No.6292109 [DELETED] 

>>6292095
Try shuffle, should be quite easy.
Use AGTH since it's just the hooker, and is really useful to use with a dictionary (read: download translator aggregator)

>> No.6292131

>>6292103
But it puts undesirables 7 feet under, which is better.

>> No.6292133

>>6292095
We don't. That's just bad wording on their part.

>> No.6292143

>>6292095

The US has it's own precedents in regards to such cases. Luckily, this guy plead guilty, so another one cannot be established.

One of arguments used in the previous case was that since there is no demand in the U.S. free market for lolicon, people are forced to import it from Japan. There are tons of examples of licensed shows and games that counter this. Not all hope is lost.

>> No.6292165

>>6292143
To what end was that particular argument put forward? An in what case?

Posting useful resource, related to the decision when they struck down the old loli prohibition as unconstitutional (before partly reinstating it terms of that hateful concept 'obscenity')
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-795P.ZO
(change extension to pdf)

>> No.6292170

>>6291889
>onion.

>> No.6292168

I think if I'm right in what pictures they found, this guy would actually have gotten convicted based on the current laws in effect and it would not be overruled.

You may know that pedo video with the "salty milk and coins" line? Well there's a Simpsons picture of that video (Lisa giving some guy a blowjob and saying that stuff).

Based on what >>6291958 posted:
>Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, Section 2256 of the US Code defines what constitutes child pornography in the United States. The key part of this definition is paragraph 8, including subparagraph A, which states in part: "'child pornography' means any visual depiction ... where the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor..."

That drawing is based on real CP. Therefore, it is illegal based on that ruling.

>> No.6292184

That's the guy that got caught in the library, and he made the mistake of pleading guilty. There hasn't been a case yet where someone was held and convicted over just images. If you plead guilty, you're getting convicted. If you don't they can't do anything.

>> No.6292182

>>6292165

I'm referring to the Christopher Handley case.

There were a ton of things wrong with his defense, and frankly, he deserved the guilty sentence after his lying (claiming it was yaoi manga) and incompetence. That aside, I read a .pdf of the court's opinion that had a lot of rage worthy material in it. Searching for it now.

>> No.6292196

Who the fuck seriously looks at Simpson porn? I know there are weird fetishes out there but what sort of fuckup do you need to be to find that style sexy? Same with family guy and that sort of shit.

>> No.6292197

Good lord, why are people so stupid?
I shot someone in a video game once. Am I a murderer?

>> No.6292198

Move along, people. Just another dumbass that plead guilty.

Don't people have decent lawyers anymore?

>> No.6292199

>>6292165

http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/index.php?searchword=Christopher+Handley&ordering=&searchphrase
=all&Itemid=2&option=com_search

>> No.6292202

>>6292196
It's not always drawn in the style of the cartoon. I've found some Lisa porn that was almost fappable! Still with yellow skin.

>> No.6292203

>>6292182
>he deserved the guilty sentence after his lying
So if you lie about murdering someone you deserve to be put to death?

>> No.6292211

Not sure what's sadder here. That some sorry guy watches Simpsons porn, or that an entire system of people is willing to unquestioningly put in so much effort to put him in jail for it.

As an average student and formerly unemployed for years, I'm still going to say some people need to get a real job.

>> No.6292233

>>6292203

I meant that figuratively. Obviously, he shouldn't have been sent to jail.

>> No.6292229

How do you catch someone for something like that? Or was this the dude in the library who was an idiot?

>> No.6292242

>>6292199
Thanks.

Found this:
>The Constitution prohibits “making mere private possession of obscene material a crime.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 568 (1969). The limited right to possess obscene materials in the privacy of one’s own home recognized in Stanley depended not on First Amendment grounds, but on the right to privacy in the home found in the Fourth Amendment. United States v. 12 200-Foot Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 126 (1973).

>> No.6292244

>>6292229
He was fucking dumb, because he plead guilty. First rule of getting arrested, is you keep your mouth shut until your lawyer gets there, and then only say what he tells you to.

>> No.6292246

>>6292202
>I found the pictures based on actual CP

>> No.6292247

I'm sure this will never be enforced, there are too many people that like it. Just keep your shit hidden. Worst case scenario it'll be the new weed, everyone does it but nobody talks about it.

>> No.6292253
File: 238 KB, 711x1000, suikaadult.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6292253

Now, there's a thought...

Let's say you have some art of a certain character that could be considered pornographic in nature, with an adult character. Except the character is only depicted as an adult by the artist, and is officially depicted as a child. Only while the character is depicted as a child, she is storywise considered to be not only an adult mentally, but far older than any possible human lifespan.
What happens?

>> No.6292255

>>6292247
>everyone does it but nobody talks about it.
I would love to live in a world like this.

>> No.6292263
File: 480 KB, 931x1280, BB08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6292263

>>6292196

>> No.6292272 [DELETED] 

>>6292253
No body would really care about the mental age explanation and several other depictions. What would matter to them are the images they found on hand. Good thing I live in a country where people would just heartily laugh about such things and be on their merry way.

>> No.6292283
File: 91 KB, 600x597, simpsons.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6292283

>>6292246
There's more than one of those? I don't think that's it. Here's the sort of thing I'm referring to.

>> No.6292282

>>6292253
N body would really care about the mental age explanation and several other depictions. What would matter to them are the images they found on hand. Good thing I live in a country where people would just heartily laugh about such things and be on their merry way. Right now they can't even be bothered to catch the real pedophiles.

>> No.6292287

If I print thousands of loli pics and dump the near schools, would the kids get arrested for seeing them?

>> No.6292289

>>6292247
Later stage of the propaganda campaign will be to put loli into mainstream entertainment.

>> No.6292292

>>6292253
Nothing would happen. As long as the character appears to be an adult and not a child they couldn't do shit. I mean fuck, you could probably get away with a Devil's Proof-esque defense in this case.

>> No.6292293

>>6292287
The specific relevant crime covers, depending on where you live, possession. Not 'seeing'.

>> No.6292305

>>6292293
Their minds possess the images.

Hey, if they can make up bullshit arguments, so can I.

>> No.6292307
File: 102 KB, 850x637, suikaprone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6292307

>>6292282

I'm glad if this is the case, because I seriously doubt anyone who'd bother putting in the effort to stick someone in jail for alternate age oni porn is smart enough to get their head around the whole issue.

That's a sad universal truth - people aren't either only smart or only dumb. Otherwise smart people usually turn dumb around something they hate.

>> No.6292311

>>6292293

Too many fucking loopholes.

What if you willingly go to a place like /b/ in hopes that someone posts underage images? You aren't possessing it, but you're willingly seeking it out. Where would that fall? A thought crime?

>> No.6292315

The ones who rag on hardest about loli are pedophiles in denial.

>> No.6292318

>>6292292
You forget in real life when a Devil's Proof occurs, the burden of proof is reversed. You would have to prove that she isn't underage.

>> No.6292321

The fact police can legally look at loli is proof you are living in a police state.

Why should they be allowed to possess it? If they can apparantly handle it, we can just as well.

>> No.6292325

>>6292311
That falls under being a perverse and mentally ill human being who is a danger to society and thus needs to be detained and monitored.

Don't get mad at me. Society's words, not mine.

>> No.6292330

>>6292305
If they had the means to look into your mind and identify the content they did not wish you to have, you can be damn sure they'd hold it against you.

>> No.6292337

>>6292321
How about the fact that the police have the authority to imprison people and take their property?

In your view, can police exist and function in any non-police state?

>> No.6292345

>>6292337
Are you trying to accuse me of anarchism?

Police can have some authority, but only as little as is necessary to make society function properly. Making a CP database to "fight pedophiles" goes far against what is necessary.

>> No.6292346
File: 241 KB, 500x477, suikaspawn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6292346

>>6292318

So, in order to get out of that kind of mess, you would have to procure a birth certificate for a Japanese ale troll...

I find it somewhat horrifying that seemlingly a court of law would be very interested in whether that oni is underage, but not in whether oni actually exist.

Got no love for pedophiles nor for child molesters, but got even less love for witch trials.

>> No.6292348

>>6292318
I meant more along the lines of the fact that since character in the image in question looks significantly different they can't technically prove that the characters are the same. And assuming that the character looks significantly adult like they couldn't logically charge you for that as otherwise the same would extend to other forms of pornography and they'd have a rather large civil liberties case on their hands after that.

I mean they could still attempt to prosecute you for such an image but it would be a terrible idea.

>> No.6292354

>Author Neil Gaiman had one of the best responses to the 2008 case, saying that the court had “just inadvertently granted human rights to cartoon characters,” and that “the ability to distinguish between fiction and reality is, I think, an important indicator of sanity, perhaps the most important. And it looks like the Australian legal system has failed on that score.”

Gaiman confirmed for sexual offender.

>> No.6292367

>>6292345
>Are you trying to accuse me of anarchism?
Maybe I was.
>Police can have some authority, but only as little as is necessary to make society function properly. Making a CP database to "fight pedophiles" goes far against what is necessary.
A database of banned things is quite useful for identifying and pursuing such banned things. Are you saying the police should, in the cause of consistency, destroy every last individual image of CP (and/or loli) after they identify it as such? Or are you saying possession of CP should be legal?

>> No.6292368
File: 213 KB, 715x1000, suikaadult2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6292368

>>6292345

Pretty much this.
For comparison, as a medieval reenactor I can't see why I shouldn't be allowed to carry a (blunted, wide-pointed and obviously peace tied) sword along with my other gear, in an environment where obviously nobody is offended or feels threatened by it. But at the same time, I'm happy there are laws in place to punish people who actually do commit violent crimes or act irresponsibly with their weapons.

The problem is way too often you get a Minority Report scenario where everyone who has the least ability to possibly commit any crime in any foreseeable future is immedeately considered guilty.

>> No.6292369

>>6292354

He's good friends with Alan Moore, who once wrote a comic series that had underage girls being raped.

>> No.6292374

>>6292369

Alan Moore? Friends?
Surely you jest?

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action