The madness of imaginary crimes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
be reminded that there is a boundary between the reality outside
our heads and the fantasies within? Are we in danger of drifting into
a stupefied slumber where the figments of our dreams can claim the
rights that we have previously reserved for concrete entities?
The characters of fiction, written down as literature, drawn as manga
or anime, expressed in the multitude of means technology has granted
to us, lack independent agency. By hijacking our mind's ability to
empathise and reason about other minds they create the cognitive
illusion that they exist.
However we must remember that without sentience, without true moral
agency, these mental phantasms who's pseudo-existence is purely within
the mind of there hosts can make no ethical claims to the concrete world
outside. I can imagine the vilest crimes of crimes within my head
without harming a single creature of ethical consequence. I can
commit fictional atrocities who's magnitude and horror eclipse the
worst tyrant's genocide but still act and be in every way a moral,
ethical contributor to society.
This fact should be obvious to every sane adult, indeed learning to
distinguish between the imaginary and the real is one of the
prerequisites for being an adult. I should not need to devote three
paragraphs of text to hammering this point but unfortunately I feel I
must. People have been charged, prosecuted and punished for this
style of thought crime.
If such actions where mistakes of a more censorious past one could
look back with the knowledge of lessons learned. However not only are
real people being prosecuted for crimes against fake people in the
present laws are being passed to make it easier to prosecute this in
the future.
Starcade
which should not exist.
I actually have been reading editorials where there has been
significant speculation that sex with children (even incest with one's
own children) has been on the significant increase.
The fact is that there are people, by their sexual desires over
children (actualized in the likes of anime), who are very dangerous to
anyone around them.
And if you believe there isn't such a thing as thought crime in our
societies, then I can only hope that every thought you have finds
approval.
MIke
Kurt Frank
If your argument is what I think it is "Artwork is just images and/or
text and hence the act of producing and/or consuming it cannot be a
crime", naturally it's just fantasy.
After all, this:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/ewige.jpg
couldn't possibly lead to this:
http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/u/7/bergenbelsen3.jpg
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> If such actions where mistakes of a more censorious past one could
>> look back with the knowledge of lessons learned. However not only are
>> real people being prosecuted for crimes against fake people in the
>> present laws are being passed to make it easier to prosecute this in
>> the future.
>
>
> If your argument is what I think it is "Artwork is just images and/or
> text and hence the act of producing and/or consuming it cannot be a
> crime", naturally it's just fantasy.
>
>
> After all, this:
> http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/ewige.jpg
> couldn't possibly lead to this:
> http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/u/7/bergenbelsen3.jpg
Thats not quite my argument. My argument that crimes in stories
because they are not real crimes should not be illegal. Your
counterpoint departs from the realm of fictions and makes an point
about political speech, its a good point but its not an argument
against mine as it covers a diffrent type of speech.
Given that this discussion is happening in newsgroups that are devoted
to the discussion of arts and fictions I think it would be more
relivent to stick to that domain of discourse.
Skytech
reading thoughts to procecute crimes not committed.
Orwell wasn't wrong, he was late.
Gerardo Campos
wrote:
In Kaitou Saint Tail, Saint Tail steals stuff, but at the end of the
episode, it is discovered that the stuff was previously stolen and that
she is actually returning it to the rightful owners.
Do you think that, if Asuka Jr. had ever interviewed the legal owners, and
detected that all of them where Catholic whom recovered their stuff after
explaining the situation to the nun in training Seira, who is a close
friend of Meimi/Saint Tail, would be able to catch Saint Tail?
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Rick Pikul
> The problem simply is that you're dealing with thoughts and emotions
> which should not exist.
Mind telling me where the limitation is in:
Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.
> I actually have been reading editorials where there has been
> significant speculation that sex with children (even incest with one's
> own children) has been on the significant increase.
Tell me, have you read anything other than opinion pieces which say that?
> The fact is that there are people, by their sexual desires over
> children (actualized in the likes of anime), who are very dangerous to
> anyone around them.
Do you have any evidence that the consumption of media depicting criminal
acts increases the number of people who would commit such acts?
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
Inu-Yasha
to prohibit information, pictures, book, magazines, movies, and all the
other information that relates to an act or acts that are frowned up, or
are actually illegal, all the screaming and hollering, arm waving, and
law passing usually is related to sex, sec acts, depictions thereof and
etcetera, but we don't see the same for robbing, killing, chopping off
of limbs (peoples), vampire type acts, genocidal acts (murder, I know),
and all the real or unreal things depicted in movies, books, TV,
etcetera. It seems like sex holds a special place in the hearts of
those who want to control others. Just a long rambling thought.
Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^
Please note that because I say things above, does not mean I advocate
any of them.
Rick Pikul
> Rick Pikul wrote:
>> Do you have any evidence that the consumption of media depicting criminal
>> acts increases the number of people who would commit such acts?
>>
> This certainly brings up an interesting point. Why is it when attempts
> to prohibit information, pictures, book, magazines, movies, and all the
> other information that relates to an act or acts that are frowned up, or
> are actually illegal, all the screaming and hollering, arm waving, and
> law passing usually is related to sex, sec acts, depictions thereof and
> etcetera, but we don't see the same for robbing, killing, chopping off
> of limbs (peoples), vampire type acts, genocidal acts (murder, I know),
> and all the real or unreal things depicted in movies, books, TV,
> etcetera. It seems like sex holds a special place in the hearts of
> those who want to control others. Just a long rambling thought.
Actually, you do see quite a bit of the same hue and cry about violence.
Although it does tend to focus more on children being exposed to it.
GreenReaper
> which should not exist.
"Should not"? Sounds like an opinion to me. What about those who think
the average person "should not" have a gun, or "should not" be able to
marry if they are gay, or "should not" vote if they are a woman/black/
Communist?
The standard way of dealing with differing opinions in the civilized
world is through debate (reasoned or otherwise), not legislating
against and locking up those who express their interests and beliefs
through artistic or literary means.
Worse, such laws are seldom based in fact. In the most recent case of
excessive lawmaking, the government admitted they had no scientific
backing to link fantasy and reality, but nevertheless pushed their own
opinion:
"We are unaware of any specific research into whether there is a link
between accessing these fantasy images of child sexual abuse and the
commission of offences against children, but it is felt by police and
children's welfare organisations that the possession and circulation
of these images serves to legitimize and reinforce highly
inappropriate views about children." (
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/non-photographic-depictions.htm
)
This law came about because they thought someone was bad, but couldn't
find any reason to prosecute them:
"... we are aware of a case where the police were unable to prosecute
because the suspect was only found in possession of drawings and
cartoons: no illegal photographs or pseudo-photographs were
discovered. As it is currently legal to possess this material, the
police must return it to the person in possession of it regardless of
what it portrays. So it was not possible for the police either to
prosecute this person under current law or to seize and forfeit the
images."
Obscenity laws aside, going out of your way to enter clearly-labelled
adult sections of a comic book store - or, say, logging onto a website
named something like Anthro Affinity and enabling artwork of all
ratings - and saying "hah! I found something I consider offensive" is
unreasonable. If you don't want to see it, don't go looking for it.
--
Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry
Skytech
> Article 19.
>
> * Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
> right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
> seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
> regardless of frontiers.
>
Interesting coincidence to see this after watching a piece on tv
concerning
such rights and corporations. It seems corporations have a legal
right, at
least in the US, to restrict what a person working for them can think,
say
and do on and off the job with threats of job loss. Not a good
prospect with
today's economy. If you think I'm kidding or imagining I'm sure there
are not
a few out there who work for a corporation and had to attend an HR
political
correctness seminar.
Your choice: Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
or a job.
I'm amazed politicians and 'social activists' haven't shut down all
things
sexual (and any other disapproved activity) by getting their company
executive
friends to step down harder on their "small people".
Giovanni Wassen
> Interesting coincidence to see this after watching a piece on tv
> concerning
> such rights and corporations. It seems corporations have a legal
> right, at
> least in the US, to restrict what a person working for them can think,
> say
> and do on and off the job with threats of job loss.
A couple of days ago a journalist here in the Netherlands was fired because
he twittered something which they decided was interfering with his
'neutral' position as a journalist.
--
Gio
Michael Urban
Starcade <darkst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I actually have been reading editorials where there has been
>significant speculation that sex with children (even incest with one's
>own children) has been on the significant increase.
"Significant speculation" is an oxymoron.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
One that isn't supported by the statistics.
Doug Jacobs
> The problem simply is that you're dealing with thoughts and emotions
> which should not exist.
And of course you're just the one to decide what people SHOULD or SHOULD
NOT be thinking/feeling?
> I actually have been reading editorials where there has been
> significant speculation that sex with children (even incest with one's
> own children) has been on the significant increase.
There's also a lot of speculation that the world was created in 7 days by
a magic plate of spaghetti. That doesn't make it so.
> The fact is that there are people, by their sexual desires over
> children (actualized in the likes of anime), who are very dangerous to
> anyone around them.
Yes, but they'd be just as dangerous WITH or WITHOUT the anime. Exposure
to a certain type of media doesn't "make you" do something. If someone
claims that, they were already had that condition in the first place.
Yet despite this, people (like you) keep claiming that somehow we all have
psychopathic mentatilties in us, just waiting to burst out when we're
exposed to the proper "trigger".
> And if you believe there isn't such a thing as thought crime in our
> societies, then I can only hope that every thought you have finds
> approval.
Thought crime is not having an ocassional distasteful thought.
It's being prosecuted in a real court as if you actually comitted the action
you thought about.
Ever wish someone dead? Now you're a murderer. That sort of thing.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.