This is “Child Pornography” in Sweden…

swedish-child-pornography-001

Sweden’s dubious status as an enlightened nation is being further cast into doubt by the publication of some of the images it has been attempting to lock people up for possessing.

The original case revolved around the child pornography conviction of a Swedish manga translator, based on 2D artwork found on his computer.

His punishment was later reduced on appeal and he escaped prison altogether, but the court still insisted the art constituted child pornography.

The court refuses to make public the actual images it regards as “child pornography” so it is impossible to know how they are applying the criteria, but 10 of the initial set the child pornography prosecution was based on (including the merely “suggestive” banana picture) were subsequently judged as non-pornographic and released to those scrutinising the case.

The images in question:

swedish-child-pornography-002
swedish-child-pornography-003
swedish-child-pornography-004
swedish-child-pornography-005
swedish-child-pornography-006
swedish-child-pornography-007
swedish-child-pornography-008
swedish-child-pornography-009
swedish-child-pornography-010

But for a partly successful appeal, possessing or viewing any of these could have resulted in a prison sentence.

However, so tasteful are these loli nudes that they are barely a step away from the sort of fine art any gallery be desperate to hang on its walls:

couture_thomas_-_little_bather


    Post Comment »
    399 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Avatar of Moeru
    Comment by Moeru
    11:19 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Speaking of Sweden, I read somewhere that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries when it comes naturism.

    So looking at 2D images of unknown age is illegal but having people of all ages gathering a nude beach is fine?

    Avatar of Achiuakuna
    Comment by Achiuakuna
    12:58 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+0.8)

    Liberals only legalize things they like. It's a myth that left-leaning countries are more free than right-leaning ones. They just dislike and ban different stuff.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:18 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    "They just dislike and ban different stuff." I think right-leaning and pretty much any form of government does that.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:29 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    which means that this Sweden's "leftism" is bullshit

    Avatar of LoliconSuspect
    Comment by LoliconSuspect
    16:36 26/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.4)

    Liberalism is about freedom. It's not some US "liberal" democrats left-wing shit.

    Avatar of Achiuakuna
    Comment by Achiuakuna
    00:16 27/03/2011 # ! Quality (+0.8)

    Yeah, because ideologies alone are just soooo amazing. Communism is supposed to make everyone happy and fascism is supposed to create a world with no hypocrisy or lies. Look at how those two turned out.

    Ideologies have no point if the government doesn't carry it out the way it's intended.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:18 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    I.E. Don't bash the ideology, just the people/government who claim to such a label and do the opposite. Conservatives would never allow 2DCP or nude beaches either anyway, nothing "conservative" about the two.

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:18 26/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.6)

    it is. We have a lot of retarded people in power over here and it keeps getting worse.

    A few years back there was an official group taking care of "anti-racism" questions that attacked an icecream company for having a liqorice icecream called "nogger black", since their original icecreams are called "nogger". Apparently "nogger black" was racism.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:01 28/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Nothing new. I can remember a few candy names here changes because of appearing racist.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:30 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    The "Nogger Black" thing got laughed at by most people here in Sweden. It also turned out that the group that started the "Nogger Black" thing, "Centrum mot Rasism" (centre against racism), had ulterior motives.

    They were supposed to do a ton of stuff, like write reports to the government, collect statistics, hold events, and in general do stuff that decreased racism, and in the return they had gotten millions of government funding for years.

    Unfortunately, they hadn't done any of the things they were supposed to do. It turned out the only thing they had done was to rent a really flashy and expensive office space for their HQ, pay high salaries to the handful of "workers" for years, and paid for these "workers" lunches and expensive conference trips.

    So, when someone on the outside started to take a closer look at what the government actually got for all those millions and tried to find something tangible that the group had actually done the group panicked. Like little schoolboys that forgot to do their homework, they got creative in and invented the whole Nogger Black thing, as their "the dog ate it" excuse.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:07 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Where did you hear that? We have some group of women which tries to get it allowed to bath without a bikini at public baths but they have failed miserably.

    Sweden - The country where women covering their whole body in a burqa or a niqāb is a sign of integration and integrity and where showing of certain harmless body parts is seens as tasteless, xenophobic and harmful.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:11 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Anon, your facts are wrong.

    Burqa or a niqāb are illegal to wear in public. We justified this morally with "You should not be allowed to hide your face".

    Because of the amount of people being impossible to identify. The police had some disturbing cases of stealing from med disguised as women too. They had to go.

    Avatar of Matetrix
    Comment by Matetrix
    06:41 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    If you are talking about Sweden you got your facts wrong. I haven't seen a burqa in town myself but a few niqabs and they are perfectly fine to wear according to the law.
    Niqab meaning a full body covering except for the eyes so identifying them are impossible.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:22 30/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    As a Swede who is "too" used to nude humans, most if not almost all of those images seriously piss me off in this context because there is nothing sexual about them, the chests look the fucking same as on boys and nobody has any issues with that. Some of the images are questionable, but that because of pose and such, and not because of nudity - for instance the first image. Actually, that one is the only one of these images I have any objections to.
    Would I want that image to be illegal? Fuck no. I would however look rather funny at someone who owns it though, and be less keen at letting any kids spend unsupervised time with that person, but that is about it.

    I am pretty sick and tired of this increasing sexualization of children that has been sweeping the world the past decade or so. Yes, prepubertal children are capable of having sexual emotions or feelings, that does not mean there is any reason to sexualize children - especially since they are ridiculously sexually immature and are not even a quarter as sexual as teenagers or adults.
    (By "children" in this post, I am mainly referring to prepubescent kids but even up to 14-17, as puberty starts early for some, late for some, so just because they have hit the age of consent does not necessarily mean they finished their puberty even though it is legal to have consensual sex with them.)

    Comment by GodMan
    11:00 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    You know I had to write an essay for college to argue about something, so I wrote about restricting freedom and included lolis in it too, professor supports me
    I feel sorry for that translator though T-T

    Avatar of Kyle8910
    Comment by Kyle8910
    20:54 26/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.6)

    I too wrote a paper about child pornography, but I knew they would have no idea what Loli was. I know many of you will not read this, but here are a few parts of it. Warning - Wall of text!

    Child Pornography Legality
    In the United States today, there are laws that have children as young as 10 being arrested and charged with sex crimes for things as simple as touching each other inappropriately. Teenagers are arrested and charged for sexual offenses for sending nude photos of themselves to each other. Thousands of people are labeled as Sex Offenders who would never rape anyone or molest a child. How can America allow such broad, sweeping legislation to make criminals out of so many? Examining the history of child pornography laws and policing dilemmas with them, reveals that they are ineffective because they lose sight of what needs protecting.

    The history of child pornography laws since 1977 has been influenced by unproven or strait-out false claims. The belief in a massive child pornography business began in the United States, England, and Scandinavia in the late 1970s (Rossen & Schuijer, 1992). The Netherlands in 1984 openly sold child pornography in porn shops. News reports about child abuse were considered small incidents and exceedingly rare. The Vrij Nederland newspaper often held undisguised classified ads for child pornography. In July 1984, this all changed. The police raided many porn shops and confiscated “eight cubic meters of child pornography.” It was also reported that 50% of their business came from child pornography sales. Both of these figures were found to be inaccurate. An organization called Defense for Children International (DCI) recognized by the United Nations continued to spread information about this theme. They claimed an annual profit of five billion dollars from child pornography business. They sometimes stated that it was 10 billion. A study done in 1986 by the United States Senate Commission on child pornography and pedophilia found that, “The most generous estimates of the value of foreign child pornography entering the United States — according to known seizure figures — would probably not exceed $5 million” (Rossen & Schuijer, 1992, para. 7).

    The study of boy prostitution done by Robin Lloyd in 1976 influenced much of this action. In his book, For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America, Lloyd claimed that 300,000 boys were involved in child pornography (Lloyd, 1976; Ost, 2009, p.159). Lloyd offered no evidence for this figure and he later admitted, “It was a working hypothesis which he had suggested to a number of experts to test their reactions” (Rossen & Schuijer, 1992, The Origin of the Myths, para. 1).

    This study began Judianne Densen-Gerber’s campaign against child pornography. Judianne Densen-Gerber was the director of Odyssey House, a chain of residential treatment clinics for drug addicts. She used Lloyd’s figures to generate her own. She deduced that if 300,000 boys were involved in child pornography, then 600,000 children would be the total (Ost, 2009, p.159). 1977 saw a major increase of news reports about child pornography, thus it became a topic of national interest.

    A member of the House of Representatives named John Conyers Jr. aided Densen-Gerber’s claims in court when she stated that her 600,000 children claim is likely twice that because Robin Lloyd’s discoveries could not accurately count all involved. According to Rossen and Schuijer (1992), Conyers reasoned that “American had not only one million runaways but another one million school drop outs.” Thus, he multiplied the statistic again to represent two million children. The law that passed that day was 401 for, zero against (Rossen & Schuijer, 1992).

    In 1986 the Meese Commission, initiated by the Reagan administration, concluded that child prostitution "have become highly organized, multi-million dollar industries that operate on a nationwide scale" (Rossen & Schuijer, 1992, The Spread of Rumors, para. 1). This conclusion came from previous studies that were also proven untrue. Even though studies from 1980 refuted all the evidence that claims child pornography was a mass market, the same statistics were used in the United States Senate, the United States Supreme Court, a Commission of the American Justice Department, the United Nations, and the Council of Europe (Rossen & Schuijer, 1992).
    This trend of over exaggerating the problem continues today. John Walsh of ABC ‘s Nightline, better known for the television show America’s Most Wanted, stated that 100,000 level three sex offenders are missing in America (“Big Registry,” 2010). The show To Catch a Predator hosted by Chris Hansen on NBC claimed there were 50,000 Internet predators online at any given time. Both of these claims are based on nothing and guesswork.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:34 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    There is also an assumption that child pornography is even a problem in the first place. It is not, anymore than adult pornography is.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:13 28/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Depends. For drawings, it's mostly prejudice. Photography, though, is a problem. Not having maturity to take a life changing decision, exposure could later lead to acute embarrassment, trauma and, in extreme cases, suicide.

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:41 29/04/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Go to google image search, set safe search to OFF, type in FAMILY NUDIST or TEEN NUDIST or CHILD NUDIST or NUDIST PAGEANT VIDEOS.

    Viola - millions of under 18 naked people. Just like in David Hamilton, Jock Sturges & Sally Mann photo books & films. Just like the scores & scores of aged 16 & 17 year old models in 1950s thru 1970s USA Playboy & Penthouse. Traci Lords at age 15 & 16 in Hustler, OUI, Genesis, Club, Penthouse in the 1980s. The hundreds of 15, 16 & 17 year olds in UK Mayfair/Mens World, German & Italian Playboy, Spanish Penthouse in the 1980s thru 2000s. All purchased by tens of millions of normal red-blooded men. These models & actresses ain't traumatized or commiting suicide.

    They'd been screwing & sucking for "free" otherwise if they hadn't modeled.

    Tens of millions of under 18's & their parents go to nude beaches or are Naturists on the lawn in Europe & Russia. All displaing their bodies to countless pot-bellied balding middle-aged men.

    Porn is just photons which once existed striking silver halide crystals deposited on ground up trees. Nothing more.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:09 25/05/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Um, it totally is. If it's not animated, how do you suppose it's made? Through sexual abuse. You know? It totally is a huge fucking problem.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:31 28/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    TL;DC

    Avatar of Atzumo Kayami
    Comment by Atzumo Kayami
    08:26 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Holy wall of text batman!!

    Avatar of gau
    Comment by gau
    16:50 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    people always argue that there's a difference between porn and art form... there's an australian photographer encountered the same problem (forgot his name), even though the mother was present and had her consent during the photoshoot... i think the difference is at the audience not the artist itself

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:09 30/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    I have to agree.

    Avatar of TC-man
    Comment by TC-man
    10:48 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    So this is the new witch-hunt of the 21st century!? Drawing with "2D children" made by Japanese are pedo materials, but when they are made by Europeans are arts (e.g.last pic of a Couture Thomas' painting)? So ridiculous it's racist. Go after the real pedophiles who harm/hurt real children next time, okay!

    Comment by Dark Mage
    14:54 26/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.6)

    These people behind the witch hunts are not members of the 21st century they only just recently got into the 19th century.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:37 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    Hit the nail on the head, Negotiator. That is basically the truth, the people who are so against 2D 'child pornography' and even actual child pornography are still stuck in the 19th century for the most part.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:19 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    actually it wouldn't have been a problem in the 19th century as girls were married FAR earlier than today. Basically it was like the arab world today only in the 20th century child protection laws were put in place. Which BTW wasn't really only to protect the children but more on economic reasons for needing more higher educated workers because of higher requirements of machinery which made it neccessary to avoid early marriage and child labor.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:28 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Do people miss the part where it says that those pictures are actually decided non-pornographic by the court?

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:31 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Ah. Yes. Yes I did.

    Comment by Envoy Loves You
    16:09 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    That's what I said some time back.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:19 17/06/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    @TC-man

    "the real pedophiles". Yes, because "real" pedophiles are the ones who hurt children, right? Just like "real" men are the ones who beat women, right? And "real" gays are the ones who rape other men, amirite? Die in hell bigot.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:18 17/06/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    "the real pedophiles". Yes, because "real" pedophiles are the ones who hurt children, right? Just like "real" men are the ones who beat women, right? And "real" gays are the ones who rape other men, amirite?

    Comment by Anonymous

    they're both unsavory
    just the loli artists cant draw for dick

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:31 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    Bet you love to draw for dick.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:07 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    your fishing for pedophiles now? you are what you eat, therefore......

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:39 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    more like fishing for cat food

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:42 26/03/2011 # ! Drivel (-0.8)

    *reels in pedophile and throws him in the bucket*

    Comment by Anonymous
    22:22 29/04/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yeah it's like the "self-hating Jew" syndrome...
    whenever you point your finger at others you have 3 fingers pointing back at you.

    Avatar of Yoshii-kun
    Comment by Yoshii-kun
    10:45 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+0.9)

    Hide Yo Kids Lolis

    Avatar of Shizu's Waki Obsessor: MaidNiac
    Avatar of Megidola
    Comment by Megidola
    12:15 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    And Hide Yo Husbando Too

    Avatar of Shima-kun989
    Comment by Shima-kun989
    15:09 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Cuz They Be Banning Everything Up In This Country

    Comment by John Hayabusa
    12:18 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    Do Not Forget To Hide Your Imouto/Little Sister Too.

    12:19 26/03/2011 # ! Quality (+0.8)

    Just Hide Everyone Nobody Safe

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:30 26/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.8)

    and hide your external hd where you keep all your loli's

    Avatar of ayu
    Comment by ayu
    18:45 26/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.7)

    hide yo shi

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:04 27/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    this thread is so awesome.

    Avatar of Achiuakuna
    Comment by Achiuakuna
    00:12 27/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.4)

    You don't have to come and confess, they're lookin' for you, they gon' find you

    Avatar of Hayate
    Comment by Hayate
    14:45 26/03/2011 # ! Good (+0.4)

    meaning Hideyoshi too?

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:17 26/03/2011 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    Just Hide What u Need to Hide u dumbass

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:04 26/03/2011 # ! Drivel (-1.0)

    Hide your waifu?











    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments