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:
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:
| 
Mayoiga A Chaotic Mess
Undead Darling: “Necrophilia Never Looked So Appealing”
Energetic Anna Mochizuki Figure
Top 20 Anime That Boast The Best Battles
NieR: Automata Brings New Futa (?) To The Fray
Koutetsujou no Kabaneri Dead Sexy
Etrian Odyssey V Fences Furiously
Mushroom Lollipop CM Tastefully Phallic
Seitokai Yakuindomo OAD “The Perversion Continues!”
Puzzle & Dragons X OP – “For Kids!?”
Cheerful Yukari Yukata Figure
IdolMaster Nets Korean Live Action TV Drama
Top 20 Anime Deserving of a Second Season
Valkyrie Anatomia: The Origin Announced – But…
Strangers Fisting For Candy: “A Pretty Sweet Deal!”
Netoge no Yome Grinds Hard
King Of Fighters XIV Trailer Boasts Breasts & Brawn
Yuzuruha Figure Sexy & Sophisticated
IdolMaster: Platinum Stars Trailer Happier Than Ever
Top 10 Most Anticipated Anime of Spring 2016
Marie Rose Cosplay by Mike Undeniably Sexy
Tasha Tracer Cosplay Truly Tantalizing
Witch Craft Works Cosplay by Kagune Intensely Seductive
Kaine Cosplay by Yuricha Flawless
Kasumigaoka Utaha Cosplay Pretty Pure
Goddess of 2ch “Another Bathing Beauty!”
Tantalizing Hestia Cosplay Busts Out
Kashiwazaki Sena Cosplay Pure & Innocent
Minami Kotori Casino Girl Cosplay Takes No Chances
Shimakaze Cosplay by Ema Sakura
And here I thought pornography requires the depiction of sexual acts.
Nope. In laymen's terms Swedish law states that it's a subjective matter. Much like how it was in Christopher Handley's situation a while back in Iowa, very similar treatment.
That would be a pretty fucking stupid definition. Many porno mags don't feature any sexual act in their images. Just nekkid people lounging about on cars and shit.
nope, that's the only definition that makes sense and draws the line perfectly.
no explicit sexual acts? then, it's NOT pornography.
"nekkid people lounging about on cars" is just that, nekkid people.
or, are you gonna tell me that a mere nudists beach constitutes "pornography" now?
If you took pictures of it and passed it about or sold it, yep.
Nope by the law, at least in the USA, nudest beaches and pics there of are not and cannot be considered porn. You can look it up if you would like I'm too lazy to do so for you.
Depends on the country. And this guy must have known the laws. I don't feel bad for him. Sure it sucks to have freedom of speech taken away, but it also sucks that I have to go 65 mph on the goddamn freeway. But would I throw a bitch fit if I get pulled over even though I speed? No, because I know the law.
But no actual children were harmed. It's like giving someone a speeding ticket because they were doing 80 mph in Need For Speed.
The question is whether or not he knew it was against the law to have these materials or not.
It doesn't matter whether you're aware or not. Intent only matters in certain crimes. This isn't one of them.
When it comes to things this subjective, the position is likely to change. The line may not have been drawn before his case. He probably had no idea.
He did knew that the material could come in question and even be concidered CP. But then again, ha got lot's of pictures such as these and did not intend to share it with anyone. Just this time, his former girlfriend and his childs mom used the pictures to get him away from their child. It wasn't a matter of awareness or not, it was a matter of child custody, a war between a childish mom and a geeky father.
Last time I checked Sweden was not a state in USA. I know this might be hard for some Americans to understand but US law is not international.
There are other countries out there, like Sweden, that have their own laws, and thus also their own legal definition of pornography.
Yeaaaahhh no one said otherwise so, have fun preaching to no one.
If you're going to say loli art is child pornography, might as well say everything renaissance is child pornography. Fucking hypocrites.
I agree. They should stick with one decision. I would personally consider art in the renaissance depicting nude children, pornography. At least with me you'd get a straight answer of what I would think is and isn't pornography. Basically giving a free pass at pushing those boundaries.
I am dead set against child pornography. It is just plain disgusting, wrong and there is no gray ground. It is what it is.
HOWEVER, nudity is NOT pornography. It simply is not. There is nothing wrong with a nude body no matter the age. It is how it is presented that constitutes if it is or not pornographic.
Some individuals, like yourself it seems, think that any type of nudity should be considered pornographic and that is simply wrong.
If it were so half the world would go to jail and be considered in possession of child porn. There are a great many cultures where kids might roam the house naked or the parents will take pictures of their kids when they are born. Latino cultures generally do this for example. It is normal in their culture.
Please take this into consideration next time you are looking at a classic painting or go to an European beach.
I also have a great dislike for loli hentai, however as I understand the law is meant to protect the abuse of children not of paper. Seeing judges taking a high moral ground just because they dislike the drawings doesn't seem right to me, even if I find that type of art disgusting. At the most just confiscate it to destroy. :/
u MAD dude? @_@
wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text
HOWEVER, nudity is NOT pornography. wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,
wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,
wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,
wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text European beach.
wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text,wall of text. :/
sorry but thats all i could read my dear anon
personally, any 2D material, is not child pornography in my book, since you get turned on by it BECAUSE it's 2D. atleast for us lolicons.
perhaps pedos like loli material too, but lolicons doesn't necessarily have ANY secual interest in real kids. thats just plain prejudice, and stupid.
sadly, thats what my country is like... T_T
I imagine it depends on whether the intent is to sexually titillate or not. I'll bet the population of people whacking off to renaissance paintings is near nil. If the same were true of these loli pics, there probably wouldn't be a problem.
If you were born in the renaissance, maybe renaissance art is what you WOULD jerk off to.
just sayin'
It's also why loli pics will be just fine in 400 years as people then will have moved on to jerking off to VR holodecks
Some things in the Renaissance ARE child pornography. What is it with people thinking that just because something is ancient it wasn't intended to be pornographic? I can name plenty of works that were intended to appeal to people's sexual sides. Sure they are scene as art NOW, but that doesn't erase the original intentions. Do some research and shut up.
wow, wouldn't figure renaissance painters did pin up posters, what with painting materials being so expensive and the Inquisition would arrive at your door anytime. wouldn't figure that
It's true. Many galleries were there to basically act as porn for men under the guise of "fine art viewing."
And even before more or less public galleries, rich men payed good for such paintings that we don't usually show in our modern galleries since they are considered explicit even with todays standards.
They were custom orders delivered right to the customer, sometimes for private use only.
I agree, to quote the movie "Chinatown"
" Mr. Gittes, Old whores, buildings and politicians gain respectability if they last long enough". Seems so.
I'd love to research that aspect too but I unfortunately don't have access to my own copy of "The Femnazi Radleftist Man-hating Dyke Revisionist Encylcopedia of World History Philosophy & Art" as you apparently do.
Just another case of politicians letting personal feelings get in the way of common sense. Of course they've been doing this for several thousand years so its not like I expect any less, but cases like this highlights just how ridiculous it can get.
U wanna get raped sis?
reap me instaed please.
WOW... glad I don't live in Sweeden
Thank goodness that I am still learning in my Fine Arts course. Maybe I will learn the reason why Sweden allows loli renaissance paintings yet it bans child porn/lolicon.
my art teacher said... Don't even try to paint or draw a naked kid cherub, or cupid... you'd get in to trouble... bunch of F'n hippocrites
there's no F'n Sex going on in those images!!!
while not cp
some of those pics are made for incredibly deprived people
You don't have any renaissance paintings hanging on your wall or as wallpapper do you?
Why someone would like to have a graphic depiction of a clearly UNDER AGED GIRL in his/her pc? sexualy explicit pictures of UNDER AGER GIRLS!
Why it's not child pr0n? If these where photos of actual existing kids, it would be called that, it´s not art, that's not the reason this kind of pictures are concieved for, it's for sexual pleasure in most cases.
I truly believe that people who likes this kind of pictures have something wrong in their minds.
Well first off, the human body is gorgeous and amazing, in every instance, in some way shape or form. Even the morbidly obese have a crude fascination about them as to how the hell a body we inhabit can expand to such a state and still support us.
It's hypocritical to say that a little baby is beautiful, and then be unable to look at a young girl or boy and not recognize the beauty and amazing nature of how the body exists in a state of constant change. The problem is, if I said that second half, nobody would even think twice about considering me a pervert rather than someone who recognizes just what the human body is. Why suddenly is it no longer beautiful and okay to recognize it when it was when they were infants? Are infants beautiful and then children suddenly ugly? See the hypocricy yet? If not, you're a fool.
One other thing is many Renaissance paintings are beyond amazing in terms of skill and artistic ability for anyone who's had the pleasure of looking at them directly. No digital image of them can or ever will embody the depth these paintings really have. Be it a war scene, a nude, or a fantastical depiction of a greek myth. In all cases, I want to see how the artist conceives of it and performs the motions to represent it. That is why it's amazing. Because to PAINT a depiction of a little girl that honestly gives off the feeling of being a little girl is a remarkable achievement. Same for if you paint an adult, or an animal. It's to prove you have the ability, and to capture the beauty in a moment, not the perversion.
But then sometimes it's also poignant to capture the perversion aspect as well as an exploration of the human mind. The fact that you react to these pictures so negatively means that you are reacting to the artist's depiction of a little girl, and are having your own experience about it, feeling your sexual side reacting and feeling guilty about it. A subtle shift in the curves and you can change that painting of a little girl into a sensual pose if you wanted to. It is the oldest form of commentary one can make about life: to force people to literally see a new perspective and face who they really are, whether they want to or not.
The intent doesn't matter! It's got to have a real child for something to be called child porn.
Drawings are not children, do not have an age, and are not real unlike real child porn.
I truly believe that people who think like you have something stuck up their asses.
so.. you're a sick pedo
tell me.. if a guy likes yaoi, is he gay or not? DUH!
so if you like lolicon, are you a pedophile or not?
That's a bad comparison. Either way, Gogetters's point wasn't whether it's pedophilia or not, but if it's child pornography, which it is not, as he stated, because there is in fact no child present in any of those pictures at all. Much like the painting of a pipe that says 'this is not a pipe.'
Whether you cannot stand pedophilia in any way, shape, or form, enjoy it yourself, or are sympathetic to the situation, it doesn't matter. People must stop pretending that drawings are equal to reality.
I don't care if people stupidly think I'm a pedophile for saying that, as long as my freedom to think about whatever I want to think about isn't made into something criminal. As soon as someone is stupid enough to allow thought policing on one idea, even something they vehemently abhor, they invite it for everything else. That is the inevitability.
the different stupidity is stupid.
a guy who likes yaoi isnt necessarily gay... though i wont pretend to be a psychologist. and you shouldnt either
@ 13:35 26/03/2011 # !
.... Holy shit, did I not think of it that way. Bravo. (I'm not a lolicon btw)
If a guy likes yaoi, that doesn't mean he's gay. If a girl likes yaoi, does that mean she wishes she was a guy? What about all the lesbian porn I watch?
You're being ridiculous, Anon 13:35. Stop it.
They are not considered child porn (my guess):
- Not sexually explicit (nudity in itself does not equal 'explicitness'). Even a picture of a real undressed kid will not be considered pornographic as long as it is not explicit and/or erotic. Otherwise a lot of parent could be facing jail time (like a latino couple almost did some years ago in the States).
Some people would like to include drawings in the definition of child porn (and some countries do) however this is losing sight of why the laws were created in the first place. The law purpose is to protect children from abuse, real children, and to put an end to child pornography.
Using the law to put people in prison just because they have a shitty art taste is not right, no matter if they derive pleasure from it or not. Not pretty, but the law should be objective in its purpose.
Finding other people taste distasteful doesn't give us the right to judge.
Shove a bible up your ass you moralfag.
The point is they ARENT photos!! They're DRAWINGS!! CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is typically classified as photos of children in sexual situations, at least by SANE people. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is a PROBLEM because in order to get these photos, some poor child has to be ABUSED. In DRAWINGS, no child is touched or influenced in any way. That is the heart of the issue regarding child pornography, though that gets a little foggy these days because EVERYBODY IS FUCKING INSANE
Pic 10 blurs the distinction, though - looks traced from a photo to me. In the UK, a traced drawing counts as a photo, which has a much lower threshold of illegality than a drawing. Drawings of a child have to be obscene to be illegal, but photos only have to be "indecent".
The difference between art and porn is intent.
it is by my standards
(here comes the hurricane *sigh*)
I can see where you are coming from, but if you think about it, this is like killing freedom of speech. Something someone DREW can be used to prosecute, now that's kind of absurd.
I think it's more of a preference and I don't think anybody should be prosecuted for having such images.
thank you for not cursing me out
(here comes the hurricane *sigh*)
*sigh* If you're referring to the Real Lamberto, then grow up girl. Don't try to start a fight like some 7 year old kid. *sigh again*
Sweden sure is a country with an idiotic government.
While disturbing I can say that I agree that every person has the right to own property that does not cause an individual harm directly. This is clearly law that is taking the American approach to defining pornography. It looks like the precedent of Handley's case is starting to influence internationally.
I have to agree with you, I see where its coming from and I do agree..
just like how some places have even tried to claim its a form of "Child Abuse" when its something that was drawn
its still fueling peoples deranged attraction to children
??? I like lolicon because it's cute. It has nothing to do with real children. I dont like kids.
this may not be the case with everyone, but theres really no proof in your claim.
just like people that like yaoi have gay tendencies
its not questionable its a fact
it has everything to do with real children
you are practicing getting off to prepubescent bodies, it doesn't matter if its real or not its still fucked up
@Seira I think i will hop in your boat and brace for the hurricane also, but i do have to agree that in some of them were pushing it and could be considered child pornography. However it doesn't take away from the double standard which was mentioned about the "fine art" which is allowed.
good answer thank you
So, what does this mean?
They want us to look at real lolis?
Ewwwwww....
so you admit it is an alternative to real kiddie porn? and that you get off on it?
I see where you are coming from. This guy is kinda pushing the line.
And crossing it. But this doesn't harm any actual children, so I still think it's ridiculous that the poor sod got prosecuted.
The problem with your line of reasoning is this: child pornography is wrong simply because it harms children. Sexual fantasies are never wrong because they cause no harm to anyone, they are simply fantasies.
When governments punish people due to their fantasies, which in this case are represented by artwork, they are taking the role of "thought police" and punishing people for something created by the mind, which has no consequences in the real world and doesn't harm anyone.
Of course, apologists will immediately argue that "looking at lolicon art turns people into child molesters" but that is a completely baseless claim. There is no proof that anyone has "turned into a child molester" due to looking at a drawing.
AMEN BROTHER AMEN!!
I agree. Saying that looking at loli will turn you into a pedophile is as ridiculous as saying that watching gay porn will turn straight people gay.
did you just call yourself a pedophile?
We're not saying that looking at loli will turn you into a pedophile. But some of these pics aren't loli, they are actually images depicting 3D children that pedophiles would fap to. So THIS guy is a pedophile. Not all people who look at loli.
To have fantasies with children, real children or fictional ones... doesn't sounds... let's say, healty, or moral, or right. It's not like you will suddenly transform yourself into pedobear but it says a lot about the kind of person you are or may likely be.
At some point it becomes a disgusting trait.
Wait, did you just bring up morals on Sancom? OK lets think this through, morals make no sense, why, because every single person on this planet thinks differently. Now about it being disgusting well lets throw out the old argument on this and say less then 100 years ago (yes less then the age of the USA) it was considered normal to marry girls when they had started their menstruation cycle. Admittedly that is most likely due to the shorter life expectancy, but still it makes no sense to make a law saying its wrong to see a girl who's say 16 and fully developed as attractive, some girls develop quicker then others. And another thing, just because you find underage girls attractive or not says nothing about who you are as a person nor does it say anything about your mental health. Why? Because it hasn't been long enough for evolution to remove that appeal from the human race as like I said it was only around 100 years ago that it stopped and evolution does not work that fast. And on the character of someone, most people who are found to like loli are ridiculed and cast out by society as it is now and are forced into becoming these shut-ins and what most society considers nuisances because of society's beliefs not because they like loli but because someone found out they like loli. I'll bet most people on here who do like loli you wouldn't be able to spot in a lineup even if it was half "normal" people in the lineup. OK I'm done ranting about retards and morals and how it doesn't work and/or make any sense. Oh and sorry if my rant doesn't seem to make much sense, I'm tired.
Any person or country can be as biased as they wish regarding the subject of drawn nudes of children (artistic or suggestive), or even real child nudes. Now, before we start a shitstorm, I'll give two prime examples:
- Doraemon. Every other episode you have a bathing scene with Shizuka, yet that's fine and dandy because there's a lot of countries (mine included) that had no problems showing these scenes on TV. And no one complains about it.
- The movie "Blue Lagoon" is a classic 80's movie, and as I recall, there's one or two scenes where you see the kids naked. This one should be even more serious, because it's not drawn... But people accept it. Why? It's not in bad taste.
Now, do I agree that someone can be arrested for looking at or owning drawn loli? Not really. It's just a drawing. No one was hurt, abused, or harassed during the production of said drawing, so why criminalize it? Laws against child pornography exist to protect children, but in this case, there's no one to be protected.
If people aren't comfortable looking at loli pics because they let their imagination run wild and imagine those as real children being forced into whatever situation they're seeing depicted, then that's their problem. Squeamish people stay away from horror movies for the same reason, and it's not like anyone actually got killed in those movies... It's your imagination that's ruining it for you.
Some of it dose look a little too realistic for my tastes - that stuff being the images art critics might consider 'fine' art. The manga stuff is completely harmless. Pray for Sweden? They're obviously a lost cause.
Obviously there isn't any artistic value, as currently in Sweden digital drawings by definition can't have artistic value.
Any drawing is "art" in my opinion. Then it just depends on whether it's "good" art or "bad" art.
Yes any drawing can be art. But we're talking about FINE art.
If you thought imaginary depictions with no sexual content were even remotely like actual child abuse, those would be some warped standards.