Bringing XXX cartoon images into Canada-Bad idea! -

[LiveFromNS]

This was in my local paper today:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1315314-man-from-south-carolina-jailed-over-illicit-cartoons

tl,dr:

Laptop contained underage cartoons having sex, busted sentenced to 90 days in jail.

Judge too tough? Should have gave him the chair instead?

Its interesting tho considering they were cartoons!

 

[Watcher]

Isn't it the same in the US? Where you can get busted for having pedophilic drawings? I remember hearing it's illegal to draw explicit pedophilia or animate it in 3D.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Why did they search his hard drive to begin with?

 

[Strelok]

Why did they search his hard drive to begin with?

Customs have the right to inspect pretty much anything crossing the border. As well they should.

Edit: To elaborate I know someone who works border inspects on Canda to US Inbound to the US, and it's not even the obvious things that you would expect being smuggled in is the problem. For instance there are certain types of firewood you cant bring because they have invasive species of insects that like to burrow in them. Crop destroying pests as well like to burrow in certain foods that people don't think are a big deal to bring with them. Meat can be contaminated with diseases that are harmless to humans, but can royally fuck over other livestock not native to the area they are from.

Then there's the obvious stuff like everyone and their mother trying to bring cheap tax cigs over the border in bulk.

 

[Watcher]

Why did they search his hard drive to begin with?

I can actually answer this.

If you're suspected of doing something illegal your belongings get set aside and you get searched. The feds can demand you let them access your computer/phone to see if you've done anything nefarious on it. Or are keeping illegal material on it. And if you refuse they can classify it as suspicious material and you're pretty much never getting it back.

I remember reading on a convention website advising people to not keep pornography on their phone when they cross the border because the feds can search it and can find out all your fetishes.

 

[Marvin]

Isn't it the same in the US? Where you can get busted for having pedophilic drawings? I remember hearing it's illegal to draw explicit pedophilia or animate it in 3D.

It's kind of a grey area. It's legal for big sites, like 4chan. But if you're some random neckbeard and the the cops want to fuck with you, they can pretty easily get a conviction.

IANAL, but I'm of the opinion that the standards for obscenity, as they apply to lolicon in cases like these, are overbroad and all it would take is a strong push by groups like the ACLU or the CBLDF to get a ruling protecting them. But I really doubt this is a huge issue to most people, and it's very unlikely there's the necessary political will in place to do anything.

(Well, not cases like this, necessary, because Canada and the border and things like that.)

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Isn't it the same in the US? Where you can get busted for having pedophilic drawings? I remember hearing it's illegal to draw explicit pedophilia or animate it in 3D.

Pretty sure that's the case, seeing as child porn is still child porn, animated or real.

 

[AnOminous]

Pretty sure that's the case, seeing as child porn is still child porn, animated or real.

No. Only actual child porn is illegal. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). It has to involve actual minors for it to be illegal under a pure child pornography theory. That doesn't mean it's automatically legal, though. If it crosses the boundaries of obscenity, it is unprotected under the First Amendment and at least one cartoonist has been convicted on an obscenity theory. For instance, see the Mike Diana case, although it should be emphasized Diana was not a pornographer as such and his case was rife with procedural and due process issues.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

No. Only actual child porn is illegal. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). It has to involve actual minors for it to be illegal under a pure child pornography theory. That doesn't mean it's automatically legal, though. If it crosses the boundaries of obscenity, it is unprotected under the First Amendment and at least one cartoonist has been convicted on an obscenity theory. For instance, see the Mike Diana case, although it should be emphasized Diana was not a pornographer as such and his case was rife with procedural and due process issues.

Really, well that's odd. I honestly thought that animated/drawn child porn was illegal. Surprised it isn't (and yet somehow, I'm also not surprised it isn't, for some reason).

 

[Len Kagamoney]

Really, well that's odd. I honestly thought that animated/drawn child porn was illegal. Surprised it isn't (and yet somehow, I'm also not surprised it isn't, for some reason).

I think it varies from state to state, it also depends on how its used. If it is used to solicit minors and try to normalize sex with them, then that is what makes it illegal in some states (like Mississippi for example)
However, in other states just possession of it are illegal (this is what got MadThad)

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

I think it varies from state to state, it also depends on how its used. If it is used to solicit minors and try to normalize sex with them, then that is what makes it illegal in some states (like Mississippi for example)
However, in other states just possession of it are illegal (this is what got MadThad)

Ah right, forgot that MadThad existed at one point.

 

[AnOminous]

However, in other states just possession of it are illegal (this is what got MadThad)

MadThad's charges were federal and he is in federal prison. I believe he had actual plain old CP in addition to the lolicon shit.

 

[Oglooger]

They're just drawings, jeez. as long they don't look like the real thing (realistic drawings, CGI) then really I don't see the problem.
Now watch as I get labeled a pedophile or defender of degeneracy.

 

[Conrix]

They're just drawings, jeez. as long they don't look like the real thing (realistic drawings, CGI) then really I don't see the problem.
Now watch as I get labeled a pedophile or defender of degeneracy.

You don't have to worry so much about that - we banned Waifu a while back.

But I will politely say that the thing that people are talking about with the drawn child porn is that they can be used by a predator to groom children and normalize sex to them. I have heard of one such thing happening at least a few years ago but I don't see it often (maybe because I don't read too many news sites and I don't actively seek out news stories about pedoforks using Pokemon porn with underage characters or whatever to coax children into sex anyway).

Anyway, while I'm not actively labelling you as anything, I would take into account that despite drawn and real CP being quite different, both legally and in production method, drawn CP can still be used destructively.

 

[AnOminous]

You don't have to worry so much about that - we banned Waifu a while back.

But I will politely say that the thing that people are talking about with the drawn child porn is that they can be used by a predator to groom children and normalize sex to them. I have heard of one such thing happening at least a few years ago but I don't see it often (maybe because I don't read too many news sites and I don't actively seek out news stories about pedoforks using Pokemon porn with underage characters or whatever to coax children into sex anyway).

That is, of course, illegal behavior with or without the porn, but actually using that in combination with what was already illegal also probably takes it out of legally protected expression. I might get into that on the Preggo Apple Bloom thread where there's a discussion of that already, but the very very short of it is that even though cartoon porn with underage character may be, itself, constitutionally protected, it is still possible that actually selling or distributing it can be, depending on how it is done, illegal under laws prohibiting solicitation of such.

In short, though, it's sometimes not the material itself that is illegal but the conduct surrounding it.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Isn't it the same in the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States

TL;DR: It can be, but not always.

 

[Trombonista]

On the one hand, loli/shota isn't quite as bad as real CP.

On the other hand, who goes to Canada to look at lolicon/shotacon?

 

[ToroidalBoat]

On the other hand, who goes to Canada to look at lolicon/shotacon?

From what I read, he didn't go there to look at it, he had it on his system when he crossed over into Canada. The authorities searched his system and we know what happened next.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

I work in IT security and rule #1 to anybody travelling is to make sure your laptop, tablet or phone has been scrubbed of anything that might be considered offensive when you travel particularly porn. This includes emails and texts that you might have sent somebody. Never store your username or password for sites you visit often. And of course never give them a reason to suspect you.

If you need that kind of stuff when you travel, and I'm not going to judge if you do, then use Dropbox or some other type of cloud storage so it's not on your laptop. Or stick it on a memory card which you keep separate from everything else maybe even in your carryon luggage or in a camera case. Failing that try encrypting it and saying that it's sensitive business related stuff requiring a key that you only know the half of. Or use TrueCrypt and hide an entire drive.

There are ways for you to do this and most customs officers will only give a cursory glance at your phone or laptop to check e-mails or text messages. Rarely will they dig into everything if you don't give them a reason to do so.

 

[TowinKarz]

In short, though, it's sometimes not the material itself that is illegal but the conduct surrounding it.

That's kinda where I'm sitting right now. On the one hand, free speech/expression is a sacrosanct right, on the other hand, I have to really question the reasons why someone would produce or collect certain kinds of "art" to the exclusion and excess of others, at that point it seems less like a exercising a right and more about coming up with an excuse.

I mean, there's nothing illegal about writing a book wherein someone gets murdered, nor should there be. But, if you write nothing but stories about people getting murdered, and go into overly grisly and graphic detail about how they were brutally murdered well beyond what's needed just to place it in the context of a story, well, I AM going to question how mentally sound you are, same if you do nothing but collect that kind of story... I imagine a lot of people would.