I meant law shouldn’t reflect a particular morality.

We all do.

“Who protects the children?”

The law, law enforcement, and most people if given the opportunity.

“Which illustrates one of the fundamental, unintentional, flaws in the U.S. constitution. The right for any U.S. citizen to lobby their representatives. That’s why the legislative process is so moribund, with professional lobbyists bunging up the system with their payouts and junkets.”

There’s lots of flaws in the system… like people going to jail for drawerings.

“Where can you justify having the graphic sexualised images of children (whether photographed or drawn)as art?”

There is no justification for the creation of child pornography. Drawings are not child pornography.

“Morally? What justification is there for that?”

We don’t all have the same morals, so morals shouldn’t reflect a particular morality. Otherwise we’d all be subject to religious nuts… who have their own lobby, by the way.

“About as much justification as SAW VII, violence has become so banalised that something like that is no longer shocking.”

So it should be as legal as Saw? sounds like you’re contradicting your own argument. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it or look at it or read it. Fictional realizations of events are in no way similar to reality. I can watch torture porn films all day long, but I can only stand a few minutes of Discovery Health with its real blood and agony. This is why fictional child porn doesn’t equal real child porn or even the indication that the person will jump from fictional to real because there’s a line regardless of the fact that the line for you and others is much higher up than the line for someone like Handley.

“How long after the acceptance of drawn sexualised images of children will we being saying “Meh”.”

That’s a curious hypothetical question…but it shouldn’t factor into a judicial ruling or influence a jury. He wasn’t on trial for “guess how long until this guy molests some kids.” Also, I don’t “accept” it, but I can also understand that just because I don’t accept it shouldn’t mean it’s illegal.

“I never agreed with anything of the sort.”

yes you did. You looked at the images and there aren’t any children present. There weren’t any locked in his apartment or on his computer. This means none are in need of protecting.

“I do not know if the artists are turned on by what they draw and they are using these drawings as a catharsis, or they are laying down their fantasies to be acted on at a later date, or documenting what they have already done. Who knows? Do you? For sure?”

No, and I don’t care. That’s what cops are for. Catch the guy with real child porn or hurting an actual child, then he has broken the law and should go to jail. Handley didn’t, but clearly you want to jail people for what’s in their heads, what they might do, and what they may have done even though there is no evidence. Scare tactics don’t work on me. We’re all capable of perpetrating or being the victim of crime at any moment, and no amount of legislation or law enforcement will ever bring that chance down to 0.0%. All I care about are facts and fairness….neither of which were of any import in the Handley case, apparently.

“I always have my doubts about people who hide behind screennames”

Anonymity is both a blessing and a curse. I’m not participating in a flame war. I’m making a case for an already unjustly-jailed man and the off-base laws which forced him to go there. You’re closer to a flame-war than I am with your argument being based largely on “I don’t like it, and I don’t like people who like it…so let’s get ‘em!” With a potential jury of people like you, I can see why he plead guilty. I’d still argue this point under my real name, but why should I? So judgemental people like yourself can hold it over my head no matter what else I say? No thanks. Maybe you should have considered anonymity before admitting to looking at pictures which could put you in jail. I spend time and effort on what I post (sometimes), and that’s in no way similar to a flame war. I probably spend too much time and effort on trying to convince people that their stubborn opinions are in error. If cable news is good for anything it’s showing that this doesn’t happen. Maybe you should worry about what is said instead of the name attached to it, but then it would be too difficult to ignore contrary opinions and you might accidentally learn you’re wrong or at fault about something.

I know that nothing I say can help this guy, but it’s a conversation that I think should take place. I wish more people were outraged about this and would take a stand… under their own names or fake ones. The law is wrong because it has things in it which are too undefined “computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means”. “other means” is left open probably to cover ways they haven’t thought up yet, but it also leaves it open to being made by hand. I sort of understand this… at this point, most people would be bothered by what could be the Avatar of child porn with computer generated imagery looking all too real. However, a “computer-generated image” still doesn’t make it child pornography because there is no child present and it’s just a legislation of a person’s mind and the desire for the people who don’t think that way to not have to deal with it and that’s not fair. I think “computer-generated” and “other means” should be removed to allow for any image that doesn’t actually involve a child to be free from prosecution. That doesn’t mean I want them to exist. It just means I’m smart enough to know the difference between real and fictional, and fiction isn’t against the law. That’s the line I’ve drawn and I believe it’s a reasonable rational line that still “protects the poor defenseless children” and allows for free thought and free will.

Also, I don’t think “To Catch A Predator” is fair either. It sure is fun to watch, though.

What about a child pornography book, without images ?
You go to the jail too.

There is no textual child pornography. As the law reads:

Answer: As defined in 47 U.S.C. 2256:
“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Many courts apply the so-called Dost test to determine if a given image is considered to be “lascivious” under the statute. United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d sub nom., United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1987) set forth a six factor test:
(1) whether the genitals or pubic area are the focal point of the image;
(2) whether the setting of the image is sexually suggestive (i.e., a location generally associated with sexual activity);
(3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose or inappropriate attire considering her age;
(4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
(5) whether the image suggests sexual coyness or willingness to engage in sexual activity; and
(6) whether the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
See Dost, 636 F. Supp. at 832.

People can express practically any feelings they want to express, using text. That’s why pushing for “anything goes” regulation of images fails to convince people. Images elicit involuntary reactions; text has to be read and processed. The practical consequences of “anything goes” legislation would be allowing people to be publicly immoral.

SRS

“If they have money, they can be a lobby group all they want. I’d take their money. Unlike most politicians, I wouldn’t let that money make my decisions for me.”

Which illustrates one of the fundamental, unintentional, flaws in the U.S. constitution. The right for any U.S. citizen to lobby their representatives. That’s why the legislative process is so moribund, with professional lobbyists bunging up the system with their payouts and junkets.

Where can you justify having the graphic sexualised images of children (whether photographed or drawn)as art? Morally? What justification is there for that? About as much justification as SAW VII, violence has become so banalised that something like that is no longer shocking. I remember watching Wes Craven’s “Last House on the Left” many years ago and finding it so shocking that it disturbed me for a long time. I watched it again recently and thought,”Meh”.

How long after the acceptance of drawn sexualised images of children will we being saying “Meh”.

“WHAT children?! You agreed that there aren’t any in need of protection in relation to this case as there weren’t any involved, so maybe you’re the one that needs to wake up.” – I never agreed with anything of the sort. I do not know if the artists are turned on by what they draw and they are using these drawings as a catharsis, or they are laying down their fantasies to be acted on at a later date, or documenting what they have already done. Who knows? Do you? For sure?

I always have my doubts about people who hide behind screennames ( which seems to be a collective. So I hope you speak for everyone). Always makes me think that someone’s up to a flamewar ( which I’m not).

Congratulations! According to you, you’re just as guilty as Christopher Handley. You should turn yourself in along with your pedophile porn, you disgusting person “who only needs a little push to get…over the line into kiddie porn.”

“No, they’e not photos of real children”

That’s the point, and therefor not “child pornography.”

“There’s no hiding behind legalese on this one, it’s kiddie porn”

Who needs to hide? (other than you and Christopher Handley) It’s not “child pornography.”

“whoever gets behind Handley and his ilk and supports this stuff; probably thought that _Nambla_ was a legitimate lobby group as well. ”

If they have money, they can be a lobby group all they want. I’d take their money. Unlike most politicians, I wouldn’t let that money make my decisions for me.

I don’t support the stuff, but I do support Christopher Handley’s right to have it and do what he wants with it because it ISN’T CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

“it’s not censorship when you’re protecting the children. ”

WHAT children?! You agreed that there aren’t any in need of protection in relation to this case as there weren’t any involved, so maybe you’re the one that needs to wake up.

“I’m pretty liberal and not against pornography and censorship per-se, but this stuff just churns my guts.”

That’s understandable, but it doesn’t change the fact that a man is in prison for a crime he didn’t technically commit. It would be nice if the rest of humanity didn’t have to abide by your intestinal problems.

I hope you’ve got one of those programs that erases your digital footprints because you could be the next one to go to jail for simply having bad taste, and the “it was just research” defense probably won’t go over too well. But that’s okay, right? You “got what [you) deserved and got away lightly” so you should have no problem adapting to your new prison life for possession of child pornography.

But don’t worry, my “ilk” and I will be telling other people like you that you didn’t deserve it and that justice was not served when that happens.

Handley got what he deserved and got away lightly, if you ask me. Seeing as nobody did, I’m going to carry on with my opinion anyway.

I’ve seen the images, you only have to turn off your filter on Google and type in “Lolicon” and there’s a barrage of sexualized young girls in graphic format. No, they’e not photos of real children, but whoever’s into this stuff is someone who only needs a little push to get them over the line into kiddie porn.

There’s no hiding behind legalese on this one, it’s kiddie porn. whoever gets behind Handley and his ilk and supports this stuff; probably thought that _Nambla_ was a legitimate lobby group as well.

Come on people, wake up and smell the roses, it’s not censorship when you’re protecting the children. I’m pretty liberal and not against pornography and censorship per-se, but this stuff just churns my guts.

Sorry Heidi for hijacking the comments on this one, but I needed to get that one off my chest and I knew the CJ wouldn’t allow me ( actually i think they have a permanent ban on my IP ).

No one arguing for the right of someone to own and read these comics is making a corollary argument that the comics are acceptably decent. The US Constitution is designed entirely to ensure that people are allowed to speak, worship, express, challenge, protest (etc.) without harming others and without fear of government retribution.

When the community does decide that YOUR comics are also against their community standards are you going to burn your collection?

And then they came for me . . .

Sounds like bullying not justice. The government could alleviate that supposed burden by dropping the charges if it was warranted like in this case. 3 years of jail could feel like a lifetime of hell.

My suspicions in this case point to the doe-eyed youthful manga girls who have always seemed to be underage to me, but aren’t. I don’t think an Iowa jury would support that, hence, the plea bargain.

How it’s treated and how it actually exists are two completely different things. Looking back on your comment, it is to be read only in the context of the entire paragraph and cannot exist alone or it means something completely different. Also, creating arbitrary “gaps” is dumb. I’d also argue that possessing child pornography shouldn’t be a crime in and of itself. It’s like arresting someone for murder for having a gun. Unfortunately, on some things “innocent until proven guilty” gets tossed out the window. All I can say is I care more about the “child” part of child pornography than the pornography part meaning that we all know what porn is for and what people do with their porn should be their business but certain things people do with children is a matter for law enforcement. Track the porn, monitor the people who have it for signs of intent, but incarcerate the actual criminals that are hurting people. I think the main reason possession is a crime is because law enforcement suck so bad at catching the ones actually making the stuff… similar to the drug problem. But I’m a pessimist, so I could be wrong. I am not wrong about this being a sad day for the legal system though.

“It’s not unreasonable to see a relationship between desiring to see graphic depictions of children having sex and wanting to have actual sex with children. ”

Then it’s not unreasonable to see a relationship between owning a gun and wanting to kill people either. Only difference is a gun is legal. Having a perceived relationship isn’t the same as having an actual relationship and all you’re doing is legislating crimes of the mind by prosecuting perceived relationships instead of actual crimes.

“People can’t read the consumer’s mind.”

Then why is a guy going to jail for 6 months for not actually committing the crime he’s going to jail for? He’s going to jail because everyone thinks he would or wants to commit that crime. That’s not even close to fair, and it’s presuming to read another person’s mind and persecute them for it.

” if that’s not sufficient to satisfy a person’s need for sexual stimulation, what will be?”

That’s not for a court or jury to decide! You can’t jail someone BEFORE they commit the crime!!

“Any illegal activity that isn’t overtly irrational involves calculated risk.”

IF you know it’s illegal. Why would somebody not actually in possession of child porn possibly be concerned that he would go to jail for possession of child porn?! It’s inconceivable.

” feels a need to fantasize about having sex with children, to the extent that he needs to see the sex, he’s a potential threat.”

just as a person who owns a gun is a potential threat as a murderer. As I’m frequently told by my girlfriend, men are visually stimulated and women are mentally stimulated. Reading is to women as seeing is to men. In that, textual sex acts should be treated the same as visual sex acts for their respective genders. Text child porn is no less offensive than drawn, photo, or filmed child porn… and only TWO of those examples actually involve children. Assuming these supposed “gaps” as you called them is an error on the part of the judicial/law system. A “snuff” film is illegal because a person is actually killed, but Hostel and Saw have free reign to make millions because there is no actual crime being committed. Why should (child) porn be treated differently? It’s unfair and nonsensical.

“The chance of success on the constitutional claim was slim, perhaps non-existent. ”

That may be obvious, but the sad part is that also slim or non-existent was the common sense claim… as in the claim that people even have any anymore. I’d expect more from a judge… should’ve been thrown out never to reach trial, but why should I expect people to start making sense this late in the game, right?

” No matter how many manga experts or First Amendment scholars you bring into court, your average midwestern juror is not going to declare “graphic bestiality, including sexual intercourse, between human beings and animals such as pigs, monkeys, and others” to be a reflection of community standards.”

So the common sense determination to me is to get rid of “community standards” as an excuse. If it’s just a violation of community standards, make the guy MOVE! We live in one country. There should be one standard. States shouldn’t be allowed to make marriage laws if they’re going to make it hetero-only. Child Pornography should have a universal definition and it doesn’t take much to define it because it’s in the name. Community standards would allow lynching in southern states long after the rest of the country found that to be abhorrent. Community standards is clearly a faulty basis for ANYTHING.

” it’s wiser for anyone who wants to own material that could potentially be considered obscene to consider the risks”

That’s an impossible requirement to accurately fulfill 100% of the time. Everything is potentially obscene, and obscenity itself is also another faulty basis for legislation. Maybe this guy thought that stuff was merely distasteful to most people or just disgustingly humorous. It doesn’t matter what he thinks. It should only matter what is legal. And factually, it’s not child pornography as there is no child present.

“accept the risks involved.”

what risk is there involved in not owning child pornography? He didn’t own any, yet he is in jail for possession of it. Sounds like a lot of faulty logic to me… and a lot of what happens in courts across this country is illogical which one would think should be the opposite.

This is exhausting, and it won’t change a thing. Thanks for the links to the other discussions. Sorry I wrote so much.

I don’t see how you could have any support for this statement, and if you don’t, it’s a bit irresponsible to say things like that.

Army, The Beat covered Handley’s trial thoroughly on May 21 and 22, 2009 here and here. There were 179 comments on the two entries, including legal analysis I excerpted on how courts have treated visual depictions of sex and textual depictions of sex differently.

It’s not unreasonable to see a relationship between desiring to see graphic depictions of children having sex and wanting to have actual sex with children. People have unfettered access to depictions of adults having sex; if that’s not sufficient to satisfy a person’s need for sexual stimulation, what will be? People can’t read the consumer’s mind.

Any illegal activity that isn’t overtly irrational involves calculated risk. If the reward from the activity is greater than the perceived risk, the lawbreaker does it unless or until he’s caught. The numerous examples of professionals who have consumed child pornography, surprising and shocking their associates when they’re caught — and in some cases, they’re turned in by their spouses — provide reasons to think that when someone feels a need to fantasize about having sex with children, to the extent that he needs to see the sex, he’s a potential threat. As Jeff Trexler commented:

The chance of success on the constitutional claim was slim, perhaps non-existent. Moreover, the manga images in question did not appear to be the sort of thing that an Iowa jury would find to have socially redeeming value. No matter how many manga experts or First Amendment scholars you bring into court, your average midwestern juror is not going to declare “graphic bestiality, including sexual intercourse, between human beings and animals such as pigs, monkeys, and others” to be a reflection of community standards.

Rather than take a absolutist stand on the First Amendment, with no chance of success, it’s wiser for anyone who wants to own material that could potentially be considered obscene to consider the risks, wonder if there isn’t a substitute for the material or a way of reducing the need, and, if he goes ahead and acquires the material, accept the risks involved.

SRS

But it isn’t. Not according to the rules set down by the Supremes. Just because the prosecutor stands up and says so, and the defendant whimpers in agreement, that doesn’t make it true.

“People have to be prepared to suffer the consequences if they’re caught.”

Caught doing what? Reading something that *other people* find “repulsive”? If that’s the standard, everyone who bought Bill O’Reilly’s “Culture Warrior” or who willingly watched any of the “Saw” films should be put on trial… and that would be wrong.