UK's dangerous cartoons act

[Darkside55]

Hot off Australia's heels, you can now be imprisoned for three years and are added to the registered sex offender list if you possess underage scribbles.

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?page_id=547

 

[Acepilotf14]

I thought the UK already had a law like that.

Also inb4 vegeta argument

 

[AtomicSpark]

Scribbles are people too?

 

[Dekstar]

Wow, I don't like this kind of stuff, but this law is still ridiculous. The addition that they don't seem to be protecting against shotacon or whatever is completely hypocritical and shows a complete lack of the overall picture.

So yes, completely against this.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Scribbles are people too?

Incoming Civil Rights act for the fictional oppressed.

 

[Viperidae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa6tQm5suf4

 

[VirusType2]

Oh look, another unnecessary law to include more censorship. Hope you guys are voters. You may not ever be able to get this stricken, so it would be good to make sure you study the candidates background carefully in the future.

 

[Higlac]

And people say Americans are stupid?

 

[Danimal]

NWO etc.

 

[lord_raken]

I just watched Pirate Radio last night (awesome movie by the way) and I think I'm detecting some similarities.

 

[CptStern]

From April 6th 2010 it will be illegal to possess “non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse” in England and Wales. Thousands of fans of Japanese anime, hentai and graphic novels face a maximum three years’ imprisonment and a place on the Sex Offenders Register for possessing sexually themed cartoons.

...umm why is there sex/sexual situations involving children in "Japanese anime, hentai and graphic novels"?

this law might be overkill but the thought of people being a "fan" of child sex even in cartoon form is more than a little disturbing.

 

[Eejit]

Sure is, but doesn't mean it should be criminalised.

 

[CptStern]

I didnt say it was however I wouldnt want one of those types of "fans" within a thousandfeet of my kids. would you?

 

[Ennui]

I'm loathe to touch this argument since I know all you pedos will just trash me for it, but who the hell cares? Being overexposed to the internet and encouraging your sexuality to become deviant just because you're too pathetic to get laid and turn to anime child porn to get off doesn't mean that you are in the right for doing so. This is one bit of morality I dare say I don't particularly have a problem legislating in view of how many VASTLY bigger fish I have to fry politically. I don't really think it should be a law but frankly I couldn't care much less about fighting for some pedo's right to fantasize about raping 12 year old anime characters.

 

[Eejit]

I didnt say it was however I wouldnt want one of those types of "fans" within a thousandfeet of my kids. would you?

Nope, not by a long shot.

 

[CptStern]

I'd want them within punching reach of my fist though :E

 

[Vegeta897]

I didnt say it was however I wouldnt want one of those types of "fans" within a thousandfeet of my kids. would you?

You wouldn't know if they were near your kids or not, unless you could read minds. Thoughts != action. Fantasy != reality.

just because you're too pathetic to get laid and turn to anime child porn to get off

Yeah, um, that's not how it works at all. :|

 

[15357]

I'm loathe to touch this argument since I know all you pedos will just trash me for it, but who the hell cares? Being overexposed to the internet and encouraging your sexuality to become deviant just because you're too pathetic to get laid and turn to anime child porn to get off doesn't mean that you are in the right for doing so. This is one bit of morality I dare say I don't particularly have a problem legislating in view of how many VASTLY bigger fish I have to fry politically. I don't really think it should be a law but frankly I couldn't care much less about fighting for some pedo's right to fantasize about raping 12 year old anime characters.

Yeah well, you know what they say:

"When they came for the Catholics...











I helped."

Seriously, though, when has loli ever hurt anyone? I mean, compare it to the communist manifesto. Which one has killed more people? I think that banning "dangerous books" might come before banning "dangerous comics".

 

[Llama]

I'm loathe to touch this argument since I know all you pedos will just trash me for it, but who the hell cares? Being overexposed to the internet and encouraging your sexuality to become deviant just because you're too pathetic to get laid and turn to anime child porn to get off doesn't mean that you are in the right for doing so. This is one bit of morality I dare say I don't particularly have a problem legislating in view of how many VASTLY bigger fish I have to fry politically. I don't really think it should be a law but frankly I couldn't care much less about fighting for some pedo's right to fantasize about raping 12 year old anime characters.

Holy misinformed but opinionated rage, Batman!

Actually adding a proper reply:
I loathe anime and pictures of that nature but I haven't yet the checked the law and therefore worry about the following - If I take the piss out of my mate by drawing a non descript *stick-figure* sex picture of me nailing his 15-yo sister, am I a sex offender?

 

[Dekstar]

I'm loathe to touch this argument since I know all you pedos will just trash me for it, but who the hell cares? Being overexposed to the internet and encouraging your sexuality to become deviant just because you're too pathetic to get laid and turn to anime child porn to get off doesn't mean that you are in the right for doing so. This is one bit of morality I dare say I don't particularly have a problem legislating in view of how many VASTLY bigger fish I have to fry politically. I don't really think it should be a law but frankly I couldn't care much less about fighting for some pedo's right to fantasize about raping 12 year old anime characters.

Hate to use the term, but this is a very slippery slope. A lot of clean manga books still have slight up-skirt shots, or revealing poses. It's just part of the society that is Japan. Even Naruto, which was aimed at 12-year-olds when it first came out, had Naruto (12 at the time) use sexy-no-jutsu to transform into a naked female version of himself.
It's crude, but used entirely for comical effect. Under this law, chances are those entirely safe mangas would be outlawed too.

So yes, while completely against pedo's whacking off to this stuff, your case seems an extreme one. The majority of people that actually do that is probably miniscule to the amount of legitimate fans of manga/anime that this law will hurt.

 

[Remus]

If I take the piss out of my mate by drawing a non descript *stick-figure* sex picture of me nailing his 15-yo sister, am I a sex offender?

According to this law, techincally you're not a sex offender but, if caught with it it's jail time for you anyway. Which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[CptStern]

Hate to use the term, but this is a very slippery slope. A lot of clean manga books still have slight up-skirt shots, or revealing poses. I

you guys need to read the actual law; it covers sex acts not nudity.

 

[Darkside55]

The main point here isn't whether you should be "fighting for some pedo's right to fantasize about raping 12 year old anime characters," but rather considering the ramifications of a law that regulates morality rather than preventing and punishing an actual crime.

Like the Dangerous Pictures Act before it, the Dangerous Cartoons Act does not need a victim to consider you a criminal. And while you and those of like mind might say, "Well good, even if there isn't a victim I don't like those people and I think they SHOULD be punished," just keep in mind that it's not too far-fetched to believe lawmakers are banking on exactly that attitude. Because where better to start a gradual shift in policing what people can view than with something the majority of the public is opposed to? You just pick your battles where the public will support the criminalization of victimless crimes, and just keep moving down the list.

 

[Sparta]

Holy misinformed but opinionated rage, Batman!

Actually adding a proper reply:
I loathe anime and pictures of that nature but I haven't yet the checked the law and therefore worry about the following - If I take the piss out of my mate by drawing a non descript *stick-figure* sex picture of me nailing his 15-yo sister, am I a sex offender?

I agree with just about everything Ennui said, but this kind of thing worries me.

I remember about ten years back when my older cousin was living with my family here in Melbourne. I was sitting next to her and talking to her as she was checking her email (I was 13 and she would've been in her mid to late 20's). Someone sent her "Peanuts" pornography thinking it was hilarious. According to a similar law we have here in Australia, she should be a registered sex offender simply for opening that email on our computer.

That's ****ed.

I'm regularly in LF on SomethingAwful and if I go into the wrong thread at the wrong time, I could end up in jail and as a registered sex offender for it. Given that's the absolute worst case scenario, the fact that it's even possible is concerning.

 

[CptStern]

The main point here isn't whether you should be "fighting for some pedo's right to fantasize about raping 12 year old anime characters," but rather considering the ramifications of a law that regulates morality rather than preventing and punishing an actual crime.

Like the Dangerous Pictures Act before it, the Dangerous Cartoons Act does not need a victim to consider you a criminal. And while you and those of like mind might say, "Well good, even if there isn't a victim I don't like those people and I think they SHOULD be punished," just keep in mind that it's not too far-fetched to believe lawmakers are banking on exactly that attitude. Because where better to start a gradual shift in policing what people can view than with something the majority of the public is opposed to? You just pick your battles where the public will support the criminalization of victimless crimes, and just keep moving down the list.

slippery slope. you have no idea of what this will lead to. you're fear mongering

and the court is a check and ballance system for laws; if it's not right it wont stand up to a challenge so the system fixes itself. Anyways like Ennui said earlier: I wont shed a tear for anyone prosecuted under these laws. it's up to them to disprove the allegations before them

 

[Darkside55]

if it's not right it wont stand up to a challenge so the system fixes itself.

Hahaha, this is what some people actually believe.

it's up to them to disprove the allegations before them

"Under the basic principles of English law, every man is innocent until speculated."

 

[CptStern]

Hahaha, this is what some people actually believe.

what, you mean like people taking a leap of faith that a system put in place will actually do what it's supposed to do? oh dear god lets not have any faith in government and the lawyers we hire to represent ourselves to defend us from government when they drop the ball. you sound like kathaksung. surprisingly enough this facet of you only materialises after a debate about anime as child pornography ....hmmmmmmm

look read the actual law, not once is there any mention of cartoon or anime or whatever. this is just a reactionary alarmist article from some paranoid anime fan who thinks he' ll be targetted next. how do you porpose they do this? door to door anime search? the law is provisionary so that if you're caught with IMAGES of children ENGAGED in sex AND convicted you're on a sex offender list. if you're caught with drawings of children having sex then it's up to the discretion of the arresting officer UNTIL he has his day in court and baring any defense the prosecution would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was indeed breaking the law. leaving a huge door open for any lawyer worth his salt to contest that what the defendent was actually looking at wasnt pornography

I dont see how this is any different than any other country with obscenity/child pornography laws

 

[Darkside55]

what, you mean like people taking a leap of faith that a system put in place will actually do what it's supposed to do?

That stupid laws are always challenged and "fix themselves."

leaving a huge door open for any lawyer worth his salt to contest that what the defendent was actually looking at wasnt pornography

Like how Chris Handley's lawyer told him to take a plea because the jury would see no difference between his anime collection and actual child pornography, right?

I dont see how this is any different than any other country with obscenity/child pornography laws

Because one is laws against child pornography, the other is a law against drawings. You don't see the difference in that?

 

[Eejit]

That stupid laws are always challenged and "fix themselves."

To be fair the UK's Law Lords >> US Supreme Court with that kind of thing.

 

[CptStern]

That stupid laws are always challenged and "fix themselves."

yes, that's what a court is there to. once they're charged they have to be proven guilty so at that point the defense can challenge the prosecution's argument; that's exactly how it "fixes" itself

Like how Chris Handley's lawyer told him to take a plea because the jury would see no difference between his anime collection and actual child pornography, right?

yes because charges brought upon someone living under american laws is a good comparison for a UK law that was just put into effect yesterday. you're being alarmist and jumping to conclusions. most likely because you have a personal stake in this

Because one is laws against child pornography, the other is a law against drawings. You don't see the difference in that?

haha ffs at least read the actual laws. it doesnt say ANYTHING about drawings. the guy who wrote the article is simply linking that law to his "hobby" . there's no guarentee it'll even be prosecuted. this is alarmist nonsense and slippery slope thinking.

 

[L3N!N]

Is it just me, or do these type of threads crop up every few months or so?

 

[Darkside55]

it doesnt say ANYTHING about drawings.

Did YOU read the laws? It says that all that's required is for the image to have been created for the purpose of sexual arousal, which would include drawings.

(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

It's the same thing with the Dangerous Pictures Act, which criminalizes images depicting torture, bestiality, necrophilia, or are "otherwise grossly offensive," whether simulated or otherwise. I suppose you're also going to say I have a personal stake in those too, durr hurr hurr.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Are you saying that you don't?

 

[Darkside55]

I'm just saying that if a man enjoys seeing some staged bdsm/snuff/horse pictures in the privacy of his own home, he should be allowed to, is all. Ain't hurtin' nobody.

 

[CptStern]

Did YOU read the laws? It says that all that's required is for the image to have been created for the purpose of sexual arousal, which would include drawings.

and? they would still have to depict sexual activity. otherwise the law isnt clear and they'd have to prove it in court because I could argue that an image of anything could be sexually arousing:

"An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. "

the meat of the law is that it has to fit one of the following criteria:

An image falls within this subsection if it—

(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or

(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).

(7) Those acts are—

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;

(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

It's the same thing with the Dangerous Pictures Act, which criminalizes images depicting torture, bestiality, necrophilia, or are "otherwise grossly offensive," whether simulated or otherwise. I suppose you're also going to say I have a personal stake in those too, durr hurr hurr.

I dont know ..are you a fan of images depicting torture, bestiality, necrophilia, or are "otherwise grossly offensive,"? if so I'd say you have a personal stake in it just like you have a personal stake in the issue presented in the OP ..because you like anime/hentai etc ...so what's the problem here?


also you conveniently ignored my other points

 

[Darkside55]

And if it was reasonably proven to have been created expressly for sexual arousal then it would be against the law, despite having no victim. That's still the issue here.


As for all this "personal stake" nonsense, Stern, do you have a personal stake in every news story you post or every argument you're in? I saw this in the news today. We've had a few multipage threads on this topic before, so I thought I'd make one since now UK has a law against it as well. If I were to have any "stake" in this issue it's that it's a law of morality, where people can serve time for not actually causing harm.

For you to keep throwing out things like, "surprisingly enough this facet of you only materialises after a debate about anime as child pornography," and "because you like anime/hentai etc" is just you trying to foist this personal stake shit on me. It really has nothing to do with the topic itself.

 

[Vegeta897]

For you to keep throwing out things like, "surprisingly enough this facet of you only materialises after a debate about anime as child pornography," and "because you like anime/hentai etc" is just you trying to foist this personal stake shit on me. It really has nothing to do with the topic itself.

Welcome to arguing with Stern.

 

[kupocake]

And we were all splatted... by a roboplegic wrong-cock.

 

[CptStern]

And if it was reasonably proven to have been created expressly for sexual arousal then it would be against the law, despite having no victim. That's still the issue here.

that's the theory presnted by the anime fan who wrote that article, yes. however just look at the law. there is no mention of drawing but rather of "image" ..that can loosely be interpreted to mean drawing but the law is there expressly to cover photos. admittedly it's far reaching but again I'm not all that concerned if a bunch of anime fans are afraid their subgenre of tentacle porn might be might come under scrutiny of this law

As for all this "personal stake" nonsense, Stern, do you have a personal stake in every news story you post or every argument you're in? I saw this in the news today. We've had a few multipage threads on this topic before, so I thought I'd make one since now UK has a law against it as well. If I were to have any "stake" in this issue it's that it's a law of morality, where people can serve time for not actually causing harm.

man you're a fan of anime. the author contends access to anime is at stake. it's not that big of a stretch of the imagination to suggest you might have a personal stake in this ruling

For you to keep throwing out things like, "surprisingly enough this facet of you only materialises after a debate about anime as child pornography," and "because you like anime/hentai etc" is just you trying to foist this personal stake shit on me. It really has nothing to do with the topic itself.

ok the first one was probably a low blow even though I said it in jest; I compared you to kathaksung and ended it with a question and a arsenio hall "hmmmmm". but that last one was honest, you're somewhat biased because you're an anime fan ..also I'm not even exactly sure what hentai is except anime porn so it's you linking it to child pornography not me. I didnt even know there was a subgenre of anime that involved children in sexual situations; I thought it was limited to big eyed teens, animal-human hybrids, and tentacles

 

[Darkside55]

there is no mention of drawing but rather of "image" ..that can loosely be interpreted to mean drawing but the law is there expressly to cover photos. admittedly it's far reaching

So basically, you spent a few posts and a lot of multiquotes, wherein you told me to read the law, proceeded to post pieces of the law verbatim, laughed at me and said that the law has nothing to do with drawings...only to realize that the law's vague definitions can encompass drawings.

Hunh.

but again I'm not all that concerned if a bunch of anime fans are afraid their subgenre of tentacle porn might be might come under scrutiny of this law

So basically you subverted this thread with your multiquote menace and "in jest" personal attacks on an issue you don't give a shit about.

Nice dude. Nice.