Shotacon Twins Jailed “Manga Victimises Children”


Two twins who downloaded a variety of shotacon materials have been jailed for possessing “virtual child pornography,” with the judge condemning them for “victimising” imaginary children.

The men, both 20 and residents of the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, were reported to police by a sister-in-law after she came accross “distressing” images on their computer.

Police searches soon found a substantial collection of shotacon material on their computers, saying 90% were “cartoon drawings called Japanese Anime.”

The pair, one of whom is said to be an active homosexual, were subsequently charged with possession of child pornography, both for the minority of real images and their manga collection, which under Canadian law is considered “virtual child pornography.”

The state prosecutor insists that victimising fictional children is a very serious offence:

“Every one of these images involves the victimization of children. The victimization wouldn’t happen in the first place if there weren’t people there to look at this material.”

The judge was equally scathing, saying the drawings “victimize” children:

“This is a crime that victimizes young people around the world. It creates a market which then re-victimizes the most vulnerable in society.

The images can only be regarded as disgusting and perverse.”

The judge handed down a three month prison sentence for each of the twins, ordering they be registered as sex offenders, provide DNA samples and refrain from contact with children, presumably including imaginary ones as well. A sex offenders’ treatment programme will attempt to cure them of their deviant lusts.

In a final twist to the case, the court accepted arguments that the pair, having been branded pederasts for the rest of their lives, would likely be in danger if housed amongst the general prison population. As a result they get to serve their sentence only on weekends, and in protective custody.

Although drawn imagery depicting underage sexual activity is constitutionally protected free speech in the USA, and has been upheld as such despite a variety of efforts to ban it, Canada possesses no such checks to the power of legislators, and consequently draconian laws against “virtual child pornography” are freely enforced.


    Post Comment »
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    14:22 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    manga doesn't victimize children, pedophiles do.
    It's like saying "But, the knife made me stab him!"
    It just doesn't work like that.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:19 12/08/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    i agree and another thing most of the ppl telling the police are ppl in there family wtf cant they just bring it up with them and talk about it instead of go to the fucking police

    Avatar of Chris
    Comment by Chris
    14:22 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Why is it that every article that has shotacon or shota's in it seems like an excuse to post a Jun pic?


    Comment by Anonymous
    14:47 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    they are banned because they actually have rl-shotacon images, if they didnt have rl-shotacon images, they can get off the charge quite easily

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:00 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    shotacon is gay

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:56 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    time for an "Injection"


    Comment by Anonymous
    14:47 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wizard's First Rule.

    "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:34 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Not surprising considering Canada has a history in cracking down on drawn salacious illustrations of minors. Then again the two were had actual 'CP' in their possession so they more than well deserved it. However, there have been past cases where individuals were jailed and/or fined for having only "imaginary children

    You would be extremely lucky to get away with importing manga, doujinshi or art books from Japan. If any contains any type of drawing appealing to prurient interests, Canadian Customs considers it obscene and its seized as contraband.

    Avatar of ImyKyo
    Comment by ImyKyo
    Comment by Anonymous
    15:13 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    state prosecutors are always asinine twits.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:13 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Next 10 year
    North Americs will lose all Freedom

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:37 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wow, they have the Internet up there in Canada?

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:28 22/01/2013 # ! Neutral (0)

    yush and polar bears and pinguins.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:47 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    And this is why you don't let anyone look at your computer, ever.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:24 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    people, lets not forget that "most" were manga, they apparently had "real" pictures of underage people, and that will get you jail time cuz they are actually "real" as it should be.

    .... Blame Canada!!!

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:18 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    If simple possession is a crime, then here's an idea:

    send loli/shotacon to the email address of all politicians and pro-censorship folks. Use multiple email addresses. Attach as attachments in some, and hotlink in others. You'll need to disguise the sender address, but I'm sure some of you know how (it's fairly easy).

    What will end up happening is that all politicians, etc. will have "virtual child pornography" in their email boxes. If they use any common email management program, like Outlook, the emails will often be downloaded automatically to their computers. And so, the virtual CP would be present in their email and on their PCs.

    A further option is to print out and mail the virtual CP with a bunk return address; or maybe use a different politician's address. Something like that. You could even include fake cover letters, like "As per your request, see the enclosed images. Have fun!" Something like that.

    Then call the cops and report them.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:29 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I feel ashamed to be Canadian T__________________T.

    Avatar of Aero
    Comment by Aero
    15:52 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The U.K. and so many other countries are no better. Be proud that you actually have some freedoms at least, unlike some other extremist nations outhere.

    Avatar of Aero
    Comment by Aero
    15:50 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "...cartoon drawings called Japanese Anime."
    Ah correction. That's, I believe, what we call MANGA. Animu is ANIMATED drawings.

    Also, I may not now the full circumstances, but some actual "real" shota material was found right? The way you're wording it sounds like they were incarcerated just for simple possession of images of shota hentai.

    ...By the way, is there even anime centered around the shota hentai fetish?

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:33 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Maybe they had Boku no Pico related material on their HD?

    Ishoku Dougen of Saigado was involved in the character design with that series. Would mean fairly nice artwork.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:06 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    A serial rapist and a serial rapist who happens to be a pedophile in my eyes are the same (The pedophile is less of a threat, since his target is easier). They're both RAPISTS and killers.

    That said though, a pedophile isn't a serial rapist until he/she actually commits the crime. A pedophile is just a person who happens to be sexually attracted to kids. Are they irrational amoral monsters? Probably not. Their sexual preference is just that. A preference. No more. No less. It doesn't detract from them as a human being. Compare it to homosexuality if you will. A homosexual isn't any stupider amoral or senseless than your ordinary heterosexual.

    That said preemptively accusing people of being potential offenders based on what they choose to fap to or do in their recreational time is retarded. Branding people as pedophiles because they are 'POTENTIALLY' a threat to kids is retarded. I mean, are they so inhuman that they don't even have the right to hide their sexual orientation? If they don't have the intent to hurt anyone, then I don't see the problem. It might just be a phase. Who knows. All I know is that this pedophillia thing is overblown.

    Avatar of matrixdude
    Comment by matrixdude
    11:28 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yet another reason Canada has issues.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:32 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's Canada. We aren't allowed to say anything unless our nanny state says it's ok.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:31 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Free rights my ass canada. We should be able to fap to anything we want, so screw them for trying to stop us.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:07 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'm Canadian and I support this. Seriously. Stop trying to justify your paedophilia.

    Avatar of the7k
    Comment by the7k
    13:57 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    So.., does Canada also prosecute and punish those who slaughter virtual people in - gee, I dunno - HUNDREDS of video games?

    If masturbating to drawn pictures of little boys makes them sex offenders, then I guess I should be held in prison for several consecutive life sentences based on all the shit I did in any one game alone.

    The real pictures? Sure, they should be punished for that. I don't argue with that judgment. However, to say fictional characters need to be given the same rights and protections as real people? That's just fucking ridiculous and down-right moronic.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:26 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    yeah!! ignore the real crimes of our society! sex offenders should be freed! people who're fond of reading doujin and other materials should be put to jail and convicted of crimes against humanity!

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:23 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yes, let's protect two-dimensional young boys and girls. Let's ignore the actual human-trafficking of women and children. In fact, screw real children. 2D 'people' should have more rights than real humans.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:46 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You're Canadian and you're a follower with no free will or thought. Seriously.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:58 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    That's right! We need our government to put a stop to people who are displaying dangerous or antisocial tendencies as soon as they're brought to light. Today these people are looking at naked cartoons, tomorrow they're out raping children. The same thing goes for violent video games - they're just murder simulators that train kids to kill. Violent and sexual movies and books are the same way - they just desensitize society to criminality and bad behavior. Also, there have to be restrictions on people promoting hateful or extreme political views as well. Such people only stir up hatred and cause violence. Don't give me any nonsense about 'freedom of expression' to justify any of this. Freedom of expression my ass.

    Freedom of expression has limits. You don't have the freedom to turn yourself into a psychopath or to incite others to become such. For the good of public morals, society has an interest in censoring what sorts of things are allowed to be seen and said. Not all ideas are OK to express or to even think - and it's up to government to determine which side of acceptability a given idea falls under. If your views or interests lay outside of what the government has deemed as acceptable, then what you need isn't more 'freedom of expression.' Rather, what you need is time in a mental hospital or a prison until you get your mind right and can conform to what society expects of you. Civilized human beings don't need the 'freedom' to deviate from good morals and public order in either thought or deed - only sociopaths want that.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:43 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    This is either the dumbest or the most gloriously sarcastic thing I've ever read.

    The best part is I honestly can't tell which.

    Either way, thank you so much.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:43 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Excuse me, but the word freedom itself implies ZERO LIMITS.

    Besides, did you honestly think that violent games and such are actually effective in "training" kids to kill or commit crimes? You think killing is something anyone can do? Bullshit. Just so you know, one reason why nobody wants to fight a war now, is 'cos half the world's army is impotent. No matter how well equipped, at least half of them would be puking by their 3rd kill.

    Your point on antisocial... Well, who cares if someone doesn't want to be part of the normal society? It doesn't harm others.

    If games are murder simulators, what about movies? Novels? All the various genres? Gore? Nudity? War? Crime? Sex? Aren't these all "stimulating" people to strip others, fuck them, rip out their guts, and stuff them with a grenade before selling them as an art piece?

    Somehow, I get the feeling that, you're just another feminist pig from Equality Now aren't you?

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:01 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Ignorance is high in this one.

    I surely hope you support the extermination of violence in fiction too. Or are you that blind to your own hypocrisy? Better start crusading against GTA, Manhunt, Saw, Antichrist and all other media filled with gory goodness!

    So what's your justification to banning it? There is a reason why media is only banned if it causes harm. If you can't prove it or you're going to just throw a strawman arguement, then shut up and stop the witch hunting to make yourself feel superior. You'd feel right at home in the middle ages wouldn't you?

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:35 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "So what's your justification to banning it? There is a reason why media is only banned if it causes harm."

    Accepting this premise is what allows the pro-censorship crowd to get off the ground in the first place. Some ideas *are* dangerous in principle and, if followed though on, will lead people to do dangerous things. Using the 'causes harm' argument, you could then say that any expression of such ideas should be banned. It's not hard to conjure up scenarios in which nearly any idea can be construed to be harmful in some way or another if acted on. Thus, once you've accepted this premise, nearly any idea is open to banishment. Real freedom of expression turns this notion of 'harmful ideas' on its head and says "Yes, ideas can inspire people to do dangerous things - and this is precisely why ideas must be protected."

    If you believe in freedom of expression then you won't accept a correlation between the expression of a given idea with harmful activity as sufficient for banning expression of the idea. Instead, you'll say that the responsibility for the harm lies with the person who committed the act, and not with the idea or its expression. This is because the *person* is responsible for their behavior - and not the idea. It is the *person* who must accept the responsibility and the punishment for what they have done. Ideas themselves can never be blamed for what people choose to do.

    There are some, however, who would choose to blame ideas for people's choices rather than hold people responsible for their own behavior. These people want to destroy and restrict ideas in the name of 'protecting' society. As has already been stated, ideas aren't responsible for committing crimes. An idea can't rape, murder, or steal - only a person can do this. In trying to attack ideas, the would-be censors forget this fact. In so doing, the efforts of the censors fail to combat the actual wrong doing that can only be committed by actual people, and instead simply try to make enemies out of words or even our minds. This doesn't make us more safe, it simply makes us less free.

    This is why freedom of expression needs to be protected - even (and especially) when the ideas being expressed seem dangerous - because attacking the expression of ideas cannot make us safer, it can only diminish our freedom.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:49 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "There is a reason why media is only banned if it causes harm."

    You have surrendered the argument to the pro-censorship crowd right there. Media NEVER causes harm, people do. Media doesn't commit crimes or acts of violence, people do. Media isn't responsible for people's behavior, people themselves are.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:14 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    There's a big difference between "media causes harm" and "production of media causes harm". For instance, lots of harm is done during a war, but watching war footage doesn't do any harm. What I'm saying is that the pro-censorship people want to tell you that the media *itself* is damaging for people to see and that's why it should be banned. Once you accept the false premise that simply *viewing* media can be harmful, then you've already ceded the argument to them. That's my point.

    As for what you said about "In the context of law 'cause harm' in regards to media includes during the production or making" the judge in this case takes a very broad view of what it means to cause harm in the production of media. From the article:

    "The images creates a market, whether anime or live images, and victimizes the people that are most vulnerable,” said Tax."

    According to the judge, simply creating such pictures "creates a market for them" and in so doing victimizes children. I have no idea how that's supposed to work unless you're going to assume that simply seeing the images turns people into child rapists. You basically have to assume that the media itself causes harm to be seen or viewed, which goes right back to my original point that media itself can never be damaging. The judge seems to be presuming that the media itself (not just its production) is damaging to those who see it and that this is why it should be banned. Once you accept the faulty premise that media is damaging, only then you can get nonsense like what the judge is saying.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:05 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Sorry but you misunderstand. In the context of law 'cause harm' in regards to media includes during the production or making i.e. actual rape, actual torture, murder or child molestation.

    Maybe I should have been more specific and mentioned '...only banned if there is harm involved during the production of said media'.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:34 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    One question. On average, how many times do you level up your stupidity a day?

    As many others have pointed out, does the word 'virtual' or 'imaginary' get into your head? Talking about rights of fictional characters is plain dumb.

    It would be as if I drew a picture of a cat or a dog, tore it up, or poked holes in it, and get jailed for animal abuse. WHAT THE FUCK?

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:53 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)


    >>The pair, one of whom is said to be an active homosexual, were subsequently charged with possession of child pornography, both for the minority of real images and their manga collection, which under Canadian law is considered “virtual child pornography.”

    They ALSO had REAL kiddy porn. And they were reported 'after their sister-in-law saw some “distressing” images of children “as young as two years of age”'.

    In other news today, some fucking retard let his nosy bitch of a sister-in-law poke around their computer full of kiddy porn..

    Avatar of Fonzer
    Comment by Fonzer
    11:57 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    i wonder if people really miss the real cp line in that article.It's clearly visible there

    Maybe they only wanna talk about 2d

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:54 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    They were jailed for 'real'pics of dubious quality and hentai. For all that matters that real cp could have been 16 year olds without full nudity.

    Avatar of minakichan
    Comment by minakichan
    10:52 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Before everyone gets their panties into a bunch, remember that the twins both had actual child porn, which is illegal and actually does victimize real children.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:56 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Who do I have to write to find out if this articles illustration is fappable or jailable?

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:00 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)


    Avatar of Reichi
    Comment by Reichi
    11:07 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Though I don't like loli/shota, this is pretty stupid. :/
    Why a sentence at all if they're only gonn'a have to serve weekends and for so little? Or register as sex offenders, since there's no molestation or anything?
    Silly Canadians.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:02 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    so, how many people have you victimization in your everyday game of COD4, Fallout, GTA.....

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:02 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Alan Moore's Lost Girls should also be banned too, right Canada?

    Seriously, the world went through this once when Lolita was first published.

    Fucking fascists book burners, the whole lot.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:48 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Just like if you see a cartoon that is violent, it will turn you into a slobbering, raping monster with tentacles and your soul be will sold to the demons. Seriously. Saw that cartoon once, so I know it MUST REALLY HAPPEN.

    At least it does in Canada.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:45 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    So...does that mean Canadians are more dumb enough to actually try and re-enact fiction than other countries?

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:33 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    WTF, That is BULLSHIT.

    My twin and I have lots of loli material.
    "Sexfriend" for example.

    And I believe is my right to have them.

    Whot he fuck came with the idea that manga vicitmises non-exisitng children?
    Do they even realsie how stupid that sounds?

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:27 23/10/2009 # ! Neutral (0)


    But they got vanned for possessing child porn so that's a given. I'd rage a bit more if it their computer contained 2D shota ONLY.

    Good for them, they're idiots.

    Post Comment »


Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments