man with cartoon porn is a sex offender

[SharpMolarBear]

here

"cartoon" seems something of a misnomer, given that the images were "so realistic they were considered by a jury to be indistinguishable from photographs".

Interestingly, I read a report of one study recently that had found that the overwhelming majority of men convicted "just" of owning child pornography images had in fact abused one or more children, just hadn't been caught. But I can't remember the reference.

Really?
I wondered what would be made of this. My instinctive reaction is good, but obvioulsy the usual argument that real children were involved in the making of the images doesn't apply. However, it obviously is all interlinked and related and I'm somewhere along the line this helped perpetuate some abuse.
However, who was the victim here - from a purely legal pov I'd love to know?

Good. A person who is sexually attracted to children should be classed as a potential sex offender and kept track of, and prevented from contact with children.

It is very well documented that these things progress in many cases, pictures, then more pictures, then worse pictures, then, in many cases, actual physical contact with a child or children.

OK, there are many who 'only' ever look at pictures, but tbh, I'd rather err on the side of caution in these cases. I don't think it is acceptable to wait until someone who has demonstrated a sexual interest in children has actually abused a child before flagging them up as a danger and preventing them from hurting more children. Far better to take such preventative action as is possible and hopefully prevent that first child from being hurt.

Well, possibly the pictures were made from real photos, if they were very realistic - a picture of a photo, iyswim.

But anyway, the same people who make pictures, make photos and videos and some provide children. It's one more branch of their vile business. So who is the victim? All the children caught up in the whole thing. I don't think you can separate it. Well, I can't anyway, maybe other people see it differently.

I completely agree but would be surprised if it can be that woolly in law - or can it? i'm probably wrong

I don't know. I find the law is an ass in these matters.

I'm uneasy about this myself. I'd want to know (but am obviously not going to look online for the comic strip as I don't want my door kicked in and DS taken away, thanks) what the intention of the comic strip might have been. IE is it purely 'erotic'-intentioned material, or is/was it satire along the lines of Brass Eye? OFten reporting of 'porn' or 'video nasty' cases is wildly sensationalised (Snuff Movies Found At Car Boot Sale was always a bootleg copy of Cannibal Holocaust (the 70s equivalent of Hostel) or similar...)

And HecAte, I think that's a bit of a big leap from people who 'make pictures' - any pictures - involving no real human beings, to people who abduct and harm children.

I disagree with you, I think that certain behaviours are often progressive. Is that the right word? A person who looks at mild pictures finds eventually that mild pictures no longer 'satisfy' and moves on to more extreme pictures etc etc. It happens, I know that it does. Like I said in my other post, not in every case, but it happens. they seek out more and more material.

And people who provide this 'service', well, many of them provide a range of 'services'.

And I'm leaving this now - not flouncing off the topic cos we see things differently It's just that this is a painful topic.

blimey

I think that's a strange precedent

there are lots of Harry Potter / Lazy Town slash fan pics out there - which are basically peadophillic - where do you draw the line?

My first ever glimpse of porn was a cartoon. Found it in a bush.

full frontal nudity, genitalia or penetration, probably. These were drawings of children being sexually abused, not 'cartoons'.

Harry potter is paedophilia? eh? Why?

Must leave topic. Why oh why am I not just pissing off?

Sorry everyone, especially hecate. Didn't mean to start a pitchforks thread.
However, it's worth mentioning that he hasn't gone to jail, but has been put on the sex offenders register. If he hadn't, presumably there would be nothing to stop him working with children or vulnerable people. I don't mind saying that would make me very uneasy.

Oh gosh, please don't apologise! Certainly not to me! I don't have the pitchforks out and I don't think SGB has one aimed at me either , we just view it differently. I respect her right to tell me she disagrees with me, and I expect she would tell you the same!

I wasn't saying I was leaving the thread because I got disagreed with and then I was wondering why I was coming back to a thread when the subject matter upsets me! I just meant the topic of sex offenders upsets me, not that being disagreed with upsets me!

I'm big enough and ugly enough to take debate on the chins! I am quite happy for people to tell me they disagree with my pov and exactly why! Everyone's entitled to their opinion, not just mine .

Do you think SGB thought I was being funny with her too?

I would be surprised if sgb thought you were being funny with her hecate.

HecAte: Absolutely no need to apologise. My point was that we don't know quite what the accused in the case was looking at and that the person who makes shocking pictures (ie draws or computer-generates them) for the purpose of satire or shocking art is not necessarily a sex offender.

oh good. I seem to be offending people left right and centre at the moment.

What I mean is I didn't think an OP of PERVERT Should Be Locked Up For The Sake Of Our Children particularly appropriate in this case, but OTOH I can't get too upset about what has happened to him

Portanddemon, were you thinking of this study?

Out of 155 prisoners sentenced for the possession, distribution or receipt of child-abuse images, only 40 were known to have committed any hands-on sexual offences previously. The remaining men claimed never to have committed any such offences: their activities, they said, had been restricted to the viewing of images.

But after participating in an 18-month intensive therapeutic programme, 131 out of the 155 men admitted to hands-on sexual abuse.