*Warning: Disturbing/NSFW* Conflicted, upsetting. Maybe it's someone else, but I don't think so.

Discussion in 'Forum Software' started by punchbowl, Dec 11, 2018.

  1. wakey

    wakey Aspirant

    14
    3
    +8
    You have mentioned this point a few times but it's not relevant. The police don’t go after downloaders of non-illegal content because the crime they are committing is copyright infringement which is a civil offence not a criminal one. It carries no jail time, just a monetary fine for damage that largely isn't enough to justify the time and expense of taking it to court. This case will have been a criminal case as the offence is a crime and it carries jail time. That makes it something that will be pursed becuase the goal isn’t to gain money.

    Also many people who download also distribute without being fully aware. P2P file sharing services like Torrents rely on the users downloading content to also upload that same content

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the content copyright holders were the ones who tipped the police off. They track people illegally downloading which is why you might get a warning from your ISP as they pass that info on and the ISP's are required to contact you and warn you. As a civil case isn’t really viable if you know the downloaders are in a country where that content is illegal it’s a good way of getting ride of pirates
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2018
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  2. Morgin

    Morgin Aspirant

    17
    3
    +3
    The whole “my lawyer said not to explain that it was just cartoons because it doesn’t matter and also it’s a gateway to real crime and I’m now woke to that” is a pretty weak explanation. Any lawyer with any basic experience in criminal law will understand the importance of presenting the distinction between the severity of images especially in the context of sentencing. It’s disheartening this thread has devolved into an argument over the nuances in some obscure law. Look at the big picture - this guy is claiming the supposed pertinent factor in why so many of you are not as upset about this (cartoons, not real) wasn’t even brought up in court due to some belief it wouldn’t matter. AND THAT HE WAS OK WITH THAT. Come on now.
     
  3. we_are_borg

    we_are_borg Administrator

    5,282
    1,417
    +2,087
    Again for the law in the UK there is no distinction between cartoon and real photo's this has been said a few time now.
     
  4. voodoochill

    voodoochill Aspirant

    25
    8
    +16
    And yet the prosecutors referred to "pictures of extreme pornography"
     
  5. BirdOPrey5

    BirdOPrey5 #Awesome

    4,192
    912
    +1,721
    .... And we all know prosecutors are well known for being fair and balanced?

    If he is misrepresenting the facts of the case he may well be in violation of his probation. Anyone who believes he is lying should be trying to get a copy of his post here to the prosecutor.
     
  6. MMA-San

    MMA-San Aspirant

    19
    6
    +12
    That was due to the beastiality they found.
     
  7. zappaDPJ

    zappaDPJ Administrator

    6,773
    1,342
    +5,252
    There's still a lot of misinterpretation, conjecture and cherry picking going on in this thread when the facts which have not been disputed by Hannisdal speak for themselves.

    The court reporter states Hannisdal pleaded guilty to having illegal pictures of children ranging from category A (the most serious) to category C. These comprised of 170 still pictures, 50 moving and 163 images depicting depicting sexual activity involving people and animals.

    In sentencing the Judge placed Hannisdal on the Sex Offenders' Register for three years and he may not have unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16. This and the other restrictions stated elsewhere in this thread form part of a Community Pay Back Order with supervision for three years as a direct alternative to custody.

    In my view and in law it's irrelevant whether the images were 'Hentai' or not. I'd argue any adult who wishes to view still and moving images of children being violated by sadism or animals (category A) presents a potential danger to society and children in particular. In addition Hannisdal has been economical with the details of his sentence in this thread which makes me question his sincerity.
     
  8. we_are_borg

    we_are_borg Administrator

    5,282
    1,417
    +2,087
    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.
     
  9. Featherwing

    Featherwing Neophyte

    6
    8
    +6
    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.
     
  10. voodoochill

    voodoochill Aspirant

    25
    8
    +16
    Or just something for the pedophile to protect himself, it does practically zero to protect the children or the animals
     
  11. we_are_borg

    we_are_borg Administrator

    5,282
    1,417
    +2,087
    You cant start cleaning up while water is still turned on.
     
  12. Ummagumma

    Ummagumma Adherent

    474
    197
    +248
    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. :D
     
  13. MMA-San

    MMA-San Aspirant

    19
    6
    +12
    Huh?
     
    • Also Wondering! Also Wondering! x 1
    • List
  14. Paul M

    Paul M Limeade Addict

    3,848
    1,627
    +2,189
    Someone was high in that post, not sure it was the QC though. :)
     
  15. rastaX

    rastaX Aspirant

    16
    8
    +5
    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....
     
  16. zappaDPJ

    zappaDPJ Administrator

    6,773
    1,342
    +5,252
    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.
     
  17. BirdOPrey5

    BirdOPrey5 #Awesome

    4,192
    912
    +1,721
    Again I ask, how old is Smurfette? And what is that in human years?

    [​IMG]
     
  18. zappaDPJ

    zappaDPJ Administrator

    6,773
    1,342
    +5,252
    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.
     
  19. voodoochill

    voodoochill Aspirant

    25
    8
    +16
    I totally agree, making light of pedophilia is really not called for.
     
  20. BirdOPrey5

    BirdOPrey5 #Awesome

    4,192
    912
    +1,721
    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?
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.