MissDivaDoll wrote:

  

Here's my thing though. I certainly think watching videos of raping children is wrong, but from a legal standpoint, what did this guy do?

-None of the videos depicted real children. They are cartoon drawings/animations.
-This guy has no history of ever having inappropriately touched and/or raped a child.

If his collection actually had real children in them, I would agree with the jail time but it wasn't and as of right now, this guy has not done anything wrong legally. In certain peoples eyes sure because they think the stuff is gross, but that's not against the law.

It is and it isn't. I did some quick researching because, as everyone knows, certain criteria have had to have met in order for him to be tried and convicted. Quoted text is under the tag. 

In recent years, much attention has been given to the presence and availability of child pornography on the Internet. Laws such as the Child Online Protection Act (47 U. S. C. §231) and the Children's Internet Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 254) outlaw child pornography and cover new media such as websites and other online forms of child porn.

http://criminal-law.freea...hild-pornography-law.htm

------------------------------

Obviously back in 1986, the "Dost factors" could only relate to photographs, video and depictions of real children. Back in that day, the internet, these comic books and who knows what else, probably weren't even thought of a possibility. Now, with publishing, Photoshop and similar programs, digitally created minors (and other "characters," so to speak) are easily produced. As with most laws, the 1986 ruling and definitions have to be looked at and have to be applied to a constantly advancing world. Every day we are inundated with newer and brighter ideas, with a technology that advances faster than we can even demand it to. 

I think he was tried convicted justly. I would hope his lawyer put up a decent fight, but in this case, I think the prosecution was the underdog. As I said, the 1986 ruling has a strict definition, since it seems that it can only be applied to a real person, a minor. But, we don't live in a world like that anymore.  With the two acts that were mentioned in the quoted text, the government and others are seeing that more has to be done to protect the welfare of every child, especially in this digital age. Creating the two acts helps the legal system bridge that gap that was created in 1986. Does it mean they have to go after digitally created minors, yes. Are these characters in a comic book? Does it seem silly to go after a cartoon? Yes and yes. 

That last bit to the Dost case, "and whether the image is intended to elicit a sexual response in its consumer or viewer" is probably the most damning. Couple that with both acts' intention to "outlaw child pornography and cover new media such as websites and other online forms of child porn" and the prosecution had its case. And with this, just because the videos did not depict real children does not mean there isn't a problem. Let's face it, a sexual scene in a porn or porn-like movie is meant to illicit some type of response from the viewer. And using a child, real or digitally produced, to attain said response is unacceptable. 


Edited By: GrungeChild 02/14/2010 2:28 PM. Edited 3 times.