*Warning: NSFW - Dragonbyte Tech Convictions.

[Featherwing]

What he also did out of his own is activate the option from the ISP to block adult content sites, to protect him and his customers that run adult sites.

Mhm, a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has made a run for it. Or turning off the kitchen tap when half the house is underwater.

 

[Jazzbo]

Mhm, a bit like bolting the stable door after the horse has made a run for it. Or turning off the kitchen tap when half the house is underwater.

Or just something for the pedophile to protect himself, it does practically zero to protect the children or the animals

 

[we_are_borg]

Or turning off the kitchen tap when half the house is underwater.

You cant start cleaning up while water is still turned on.

 

[Ummagumma]

Guys, I will say this....
I have probably had more dealings with paedophilia and sexual abuse than most of you have. (Thankfully, maybe not..).
To that I will say that escaping custodial sentence is very, very, very rare given the nature of the crime(s).
So this makes me wonder;
What scale of the images were they? (Cat A aye, but in which context and cat a bestial or young?)
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time.
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time - but to be given non-custodial means they have a serious reason as to not serve time. Sorry, losing a loved one is not one of them - so what have they got which is so life devastating they cannot do time?
Some of the whole thing stinks to me.
You don't get caught, as a group, with child sexual abuse, esp with cat A. imagery, and all walk fekin free......
Unless the QC is high on meth...
Not unlike us, considering Brexit.

 

[MMA-San]

Guys, I will say this....
I have probably had more dealings with paedophilia and sexual abuse than most of you have. (Thankfully, maybe not..).
To that I will say that escaping custodial sentence is very, very, very rare given the nature of the crime(s).
So this makes me wonder;
What scale of the images were they? (Cat A aye, but in which context and cat a bestial or young?)
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time.
If they were really child aggressive they'd be serving time - but to be given non-custodial means they have a serious reason as to not serve time. Sorry, losing a loved one is not one of them - so what have they got which is so life devastating they cannot do time?
Some of the whole thing stinks to me.
You don't get caught, as a group, with child sexual abuse, esp with cat A. imagery, and all walk fekin free......
Unless the QC is high on meth...
Not unlike us, considering Brexit.

Huh?

 

[Paul M]

Someone was high in that post, not sure it was the QC though.

 

[rastaX]

Hoo-wee. Talk about a hot-button topic!
I've read the whole thread and I'm pretty sure the one thing everyone agrees on is child porn is abhorrent. I can't blame anyone for getting upset but what a well behaved discussion this has been.
The point I'd like to make is this;
If (and that's a humongous if) he was genuinely brought up on charges solely for anime, to me, this raises a lot of issues. The Japanese are, well, different. Very different. If he had thousands of anime files on his computer and they cherry picked those they deemed to be pornographic, that's a little more disturbing than if the offending files represented his entire collection. How could you assign a definitive age to a cartoon character? Certainly children can be accurately depicted, but what about a character dressed in a schoolgirl outfit? Beastiality is horrible to be sure. But what constitutes an animal? Tentacle porn is weird, but is it beastiality?
I know the intent of the law is to protect children and that's a really good thing. But I don't find anime to be as cut and dried as photographic depictions.
I certainly find a lot of anime to be weird to the point of disturbing, to be sure. But I also find a lot of popular culture to be so. The "Saw" movies come to mind.
I'm not wanting to weigh in on whether I accept this explanation it doesn't matter. The accusation of child pornography has most likely destroyed all involved as well as their business. Which is why the inclusion of non-photographic images is problematic for me. I doubt a true pedophile would have only anime. (I could be wrong)
Everyone's got a couple pennies in their pocket, this was my 2 cents worth....

 

[zappaDPJ]

How could you assign a definitive age to a cartoon character?

The answer to that is you don't need to. The people whose job it is to assess and legally categorise such images are not looking for pictures of people that may or may not be under age. They are looking for pictures that are obviously children, real or in this case cartoon apparently.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

The answer to that is you don't need to. The people whose job it is to assess and legally categorise such images are not looking for pictures of people that may or may not be under age. They are looking for pictures that are obviously children, real or in this case cartoon apparently.

Again I ask, how old is Smurfette? And what is that in human years?

 

[zappaDPJ]

Again I ask, how old is Smurfette? And what is that in human years?

I wasn't aware that you'd already posed the question but since you have I'd ask in return how is that relevant? The images under discussion in this thread have been categorised as the most offensive pornographic images depicting children available. For all we know those children may have been less than a year old.

 

[Jazzbo]

I wasn't aware that you'd already posed the question but since you have I'd ask in return how is that relevant?

I totally agree, making light of pedophilia is really not called for.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

I wasn't aware that you'd already posed the question but since you have I'd ask in return how is that relevant? The images under discussion in this thread have been categorised as the most offensive pornographic images depicting children available. For all we know those children may have been less than a year old.

According to the law it could be depicting cartoon children. So again, how does one determine whether a cartoon is a child? As an example I post Smurfette. Is she a child? Is she an adult? Would it be illegal in Scotland to draw her having sex with someone?

 

[fixer]

Again I ask, how old is Smurfette? And what is that in human years?

Smurfette isnt a smurf she was made out of clay, she is days old

where as all the other smurfs are 100 years (minus baby smurf) and grandpa smuff is over 500 years old

 

[zappaDPJ]

So again, how does one determine whether a cartoon is a child?

In the same way that you would determine if a picture of a real child is a child. If there was any doubt it would be challenged in court.

I think I get what you are trying to put forward but the same argument could be used in regard to photographic images of real children.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

In the same way that you would determine if a picture of a real child is a child. If there was any doubt it would be challenged in court.

I think I get what you are trying to put forward but the same argument could be used in regard to photographic images of real children.

A real person has a birth certificate proving their age.

 

[we_are_borg]

A real person has a birth certificate proving their age.

And they know every child in every picture ever taken in child porn.

 

[zappaDPJ]

A real person has a birth certificate proving their age.

True enough but I doubt there's ever been a single instance of pornography legal or otherwise that comes supplied with a birth certificate.

I fear this discussion is heading towards the twilight zone. The bottom line is Hannisdal and his business partner, Ian Kidd were found guilty of collecting child pornography.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

I fear this discussion is heading towards the twilight zone. The bottom line is Hannisdal and his business partner, Ian Kidd were found guilty of collecting child pornography.

True enough but also must point out that due to a dilution of the law we will likely never know whether "child pornography" means actual photos/videos (and hence actual victims) or cartoon images (which I personally still find weird and disturbing do not believe are nearly as bad as real life children.) Had they made a separate law with equal penalties then at least we would know if someone was guilty of which (or both,) It seems by simply extending the definition of "child pornography" they have created a loophole of sorts where convicted people can claim "it was only hentai" and the public really doesn't know if it's true.

 

[WoodiE55]

The material in question that was found on my computer was "hentai", Japanese cartoon drawings.

I don't deny that either, that part in particular is what constituted "extreme pornography".

So the images wasn't "actual" under age girls, but just drawings of under age girls having sex, some of which was having sex with animals.

Okay got it.

 

[Kaelon]

True enough but also must point out that due to a dilution of the law we will likely never know whether "child pornography" means actual photos/videos (and hence actual victims) or cartoon images (which I personally still find weird and disturbing do not believe are nearly as bad as real life children.)

I think pointing out the "dilution of the law" is a grotesque splitting of hairs meant to excuse one community's definition of pedophilia. I agree with zappaDPJ that efforts to minimize or excuse Hannisdal or Ian Kidd from the crimes of which they have been committed has entered a twilight zone. To me, it's utterly offensive because whether it's real or imagined kids, the concept is so inhuman to tolerate any depiction demonstrating that underaged children incapable of giving sexual consent are somehow involved in sex or bestiality. When you start to entertain imagined acts of dehumanization, you've exited the civilized world.

If we're being rhetorical, how is consuming fictitious depictions of underage children having sex any less offensive than having fictitious drawings of mass slaughter of people of color, women, Jews, or other minorities? Both sets of depictions celebrate exploitation against vulnerable populations, and I can entirely understand how laws would ban their possession.