View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Tuor_of_Gondolin
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 3524
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:02 pm
|
|
|
Lines on paper are real people, yo!
|
Back to top |
|
|
chronos02
Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 268
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:22 pm
|
|
|
If I am to understand what is said in the article, someone who was previously convited for possessing art depicting fictional characters that were "minors" in lewd activities, has now been sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment for searching some new images of fictional characters that again can be considered as "minors" conducting lewd acts.
LOL
This isn't justice, it's the firggin inquisition of the 21st century.
And gods, there are still laws with terms as stupid as "average person" and "reasonable person"? That's too vague, who determines what an "average person" is like? It's like talking about "normal", nothing is "normal", ffs.
Oh, and then we get murderers sentenced to 5 years and going out after 1 because of "good behavior", or polititans that stole millions and never return them, to only get sentenced for a few years, but not going to jail in the end because "reasons".
|
Back to top |
|
|
micah007
Joined: 25 Jan 2017
Posts: 205
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:28 pm
|
|
|
Child Pornography?
Sickening. Hope he gets mental help.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sir Daniel Fortesque
Joined: 04 Jul 2013
Posts: 236
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:32 pm
|
|
|
Imagine having such a cognitive dissonance that you defend child pornography... No, drawings aren't real but who in their right mind searches for even fictional stories about little children in sexual situations and thinks there's nothing wrong with it?
Lock creeps like that up.
|
Back to top |
|
|
harminia
Joined: 24 Aug 2015
Posts: 2003
Location: australia
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:34 pm
|
|
|
Quote: | Elmer Emmanuel Eychaner III |
surely he wasn't born with that name
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lactobacillus yogurti
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 845
Location: Latin America
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:44 pm
|
|
|
May he rot in jail.
|
Back to top |
|
|
rinmackie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 1040
Location: in a van! down by the river!
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:45 pm
|
|
|
So, did his first conviction involve actual children or was it drawn images?
|
Back to top |
|
|
kotomikun
Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 1205
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:47 pm
|
|
|
Oh boy, here we go again.
Obscenity laws are seriously wacky. If you're trying to decide whether to send someone to prison based on whether a piece of media has artistic merit, you've already tumbled way down a slippery slope; something went wrong at the very beginning of whatever led to this situation. It really seems like these cases are driven more by the fusion-dance of our societal sex-phobia and obsession with protecting children, and not really by a reasoned plan to, er, protect children, even though that's ostensibly the purpose.
Since we're already on a slippery slope, though--moving from prosecution for (digital) possession to prosecution for a Google search--we might as well take it further. Criminalize BDSM, for sometimes involving rape fantasies. Criminalize sex toys for being involved in BDSM. Criminalize watching anything involving any of those things. I mean, I think Goblin Slayer is a load of misogynistic schlock, but I don't think anyone should be punished for watching it. For some reason, in certain categories, we've decided to ignore the general rule that you should only take people to court for either actually doing a bad thing to another person, or making unambiguous plans to do so. Anything beyond that is thoughtcrime, and there are numerous good and (normally) obvious reasons why we shouldn't go there. Trials punish the wrong person often enough without going into the hypothetical realm.
I don't approve of people making that sort of content. But jailing people just for looking at it isn't the answer. A better understanding of the psychology behind it would help, but because it's treated like evil-inducing Kyptonite for the human lizard-brain, it's a bit difficult for us to learn anything about it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hellsoldier
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Porto,Portugal,Europe,Earth,Sol
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:48 pm
|
|
|
Part 1 - Illustrated Child Pornography, no matter what you may think of it, is not made by harming children.
Part 2 - So the court decided to forbid even the visualization of porn involving consenting adults?
Part 3 - Possession of Real Child Pornography is really, really bad. But I do have to ask: Since he simply possessed it, rather than making it, is 10 years a penalty worth giving, rather than therapy? I don't care about the blowback or people feeling triggered by my question, I have to ask.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yttrbio
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 3652
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:52 pm
|
|
|
Sir Daniel Fortesque wrote: | Imagine having such a cognitive dissonance that you defend child pornography... No, drawings aren't real but who in their right mind searches for even fictional stories about little children in sexual situations and thinks there's nothing wrong with it?
Lock creeps like that up. |
I suppose some people find little cognitive dissonance in the idea that it isn't just to bring the power of the state to imprison people who are 'not in their right mind,' are 'creeps,' or engage in behavior that has 'something wrong with it,' absent a finding that they've actually harmed someone.
I don't see anything in the article about this guy's original conviction, so maybe that part did involve harming kids, and you can draw a line from that to the restrictions he faced after release. But that doesn't seem to be what bothers you. You think it's outrageous for someone to raise an eyebrow at someone being locked away for being found to be a "bad person."
|
Back to top |
|
|
CorneredAngel
Joined: 17 Jun 2002
Posts: 854
Location: New York, NY
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:55 pm
|
|
|
rinmackie wrote: | So, did his first conviction involve actual children or was it drawn images? |
I believe the original conviction did involve images of actual children.
"in December 2007, Eychaner pled guilty to Possession of Material Containing Child Pornography. In March 2008, he was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and a term of lifetime supervision. See Judgment, United States v. Eychaner, No. 2:07cr183 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2008), ECF No. 30."
I don't have access to the files right now, but will double-check tomorrow.
|
Back to top |
|
|
R315r4z0r
Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 717
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:56 pm
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me how a drawing can be a "minor?"
|
Back to top |
|
|
gloverrandal
Joined: 20 May 2014
Posts: 406
Location: Oita
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:03 pm
|
|
|
Sir Daniel Fortesque wrote: | Imagine having such a cognitive dissonance that you defend child pornography... No, drawings aren't real but who in their right mind searches for even fictional stories about little children in sexual situations and thinks there's nothing wrong with it?
Lock creeps like that up. |
A blanket statement like this would essentially result in any mangaka who's drawn an underage character naked would be arrested, including legends such as Osamu Tezuka and Akira Toriyama. It also means any fanartists who have drawn erotic art of a good number of popular anime properties would also be arrested. My artist friend is a very big Kingdom Hearts fan, and she would be arrested based on this criteria given characters like Sora and Riku are under the age of 18.
I am very glad the law does not agree with statements like this.
|
Back to top |
|
|
#891509
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:06 pm
|
|
|
Quote: | However, the court did dismiss a fourth count against Eychaner. Under this count, Eychaner would have received an additional term of imprisonment for his conviction on any "felony offense involving a minor" because he was already required to register as a sex offender. The prosecutors argued this wording can refer to both actual and non-actual minors, but the court ruled that the "involving a minor" element was not met as no actual minors were involved. |
Smart judge. Not so smart prosecutor.
|
Back to top |
|
|
CorneredAngel
Joined: 17 Jun 2002
Posts: 854
Location: New York, NY
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:08 pm
|
|
|
R315r4z0r wrote: | Can someone explain to me how a drawing can be a "minor?" |
Under current U.S. law, it's not that the drawing is "a minor" that makes it illegal. What's illegal is an "an image depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene."
Yes, there are some nuances (does the drawing have artistic merit, that kind of thing, but that's for the jury or the judge to decide).
|
Back to top |
|
|
|