› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 36 Total Comments Show All

• 

  likeitis at 01:05 PM JST - 18th February

  I take back my 80%

  Thank you meanmutha. Nothing personal, just keeping it real.

• 

  franz75 at 01:12 PM JST - 18th February

  It wasn't Pedo Bear approved material. They had to be caught...

• 

  Yelnats at 02:16 PM JST - 18th February

  I thought this article was going to be about 7 arrested for looking at little girls in JUMP Magazine on the train.

• 

  williamsmith at 05:51 PM JST - 18th February

  Internet makes it difficult to control such things. The most effective law, recently, has been that countries prosecute sex-crimes committed abroad by their own citizens. Germans now have child-sex in Thailand and get arrested and prosecuted back in Germany.

• 

  BBLeo at 06:27 PM JST - 18th February

  Why should we work hard? Just get your own PC and load it with filth to make happy the world and money will be dropping into your bank. Police done a very good job to crack down these 'scumbags' the problem now is; 'which way will judge think when he sentence them? The blind said; 'We will wait and see.'

• 

  Faderkinta at 07:54 AM JST - 19th February

  Surely, that dubious honor is reserved for forced child prostitution? Or perhaps underground slavery in general?

  I say stated that it was the lowest form of capitalizm because rarely do children have control of there life. Adults are responsible to for them, were forced child prostitution is equal to child porn to me. Even if they were not physically forced by weapons or threats. ( I do not agree that a bunch of 14 year old girls who took pictures of themselves without clothing and send it to guys they like in there school should fall under child prositution or kiddie porn laws.) These are kids being taken advantage by people with more experience, exspecially with our views of sex, for capital gain.

• 

  Wintermute at 10:50 AM JST - 19th February

  It does not say anyone committed any offenses against children. Possessing and viewing child porn is not an offense against children. What you say might be more understandable if we were talking about making child porn, of which they are not accused.

  First, this is wrong. Anyone who purchases or views this material is directly contributing to the abuse of that child. This from Andrew Vachss, a guy who has been on the front lines of protecting children from these predators:

  The term "pornography" may give rise to discussions about what constitutes art. It may invoke issues of free speech or censorship. But no matter how you feel about pornography in general, child pornography does not belong in that debate. No child is capable, emotionally or legally, of consenting to being photographed for sexual purposes. Thus, every image of a sexually displayed child—be it a photograph, a tape or a DVD—records both the rape of the child and an act against humanity....That is why we must begin to treat so-called "simple possession" of child pornography as the heinous crime it is. Every purchase of child pornography encourages further growth of this evil business

  And it is an evil business, to consider it anything but is dangerously naive.

• 

  scudracer at 12:56 PM JST - 19th February

  They should be locked up for life!!

• 

  likeitis at 03:51 PM JST - 19th February

  Wintermute: Every purchase of child pornography encourages further growth of this evil business

  He left out the word "view" that time. I think he overlooked it because its a serious stretch anyway.

  Anyone who purchases or views this material is directly contributing to the abuse of that child.

  I wonder if you have ever heard of the word "indirectly"? I suggest learning it and using it so that you can make better sense.

  If the creator of the porn does not profit, your statement simply does not work. There is no indication that any creator of the porn benefited monetarily from the site in the article. Therefore, there was no contribution to child abuse in that sense.

  The only sense left is satisfaction in knowing others are viewing those pictures, and making more for the purpose of more such satisfaction. And if you are going with that, I will say that you got FAR bigger things to fret about. No one is going to get that satisfaction until they have already started taking pictures. I hardly think this little satisfaction is going to drive anyone to do much beyond what they already are doing anyway. Other things are driving them more, surely, and most are not going to quit just because no else is watching.

  Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that attacking child porn more than it already is will eliminate or seriously reduce child sexual abuse. I think that is completely wrong headed.

• 

  kavikahi at 05:57 PM JST - 19th February

  Great to get that member data and the k-porn off the net.

• 

  seggahme at 07:33 PM JST - 19th February

  Since Morimoto started his website in September 2007, its membership to more than 6,000 and his company has raked in an estimated 200 million yen

  200 millions - is this income per year?

• 

  Wintermute at 08:35 PM JST - 19th February

  He left out the word "view" that time. I think he overlooked it because its a serious stretch anyway.

  I wonder if you have ever the word "implied"? I suggest learning it and using it so that you can make better sense.

  I wonder if you have ever heard of the word "indirectly"? I suggest learning it and using it so that you can make better sense.

  By that rational it work be perfectly okay for a person to watch another be killed or molested and not take responsibility for your 'indirect' inaction? By watching child abuse (and it is abuse) you are a participant in the degradation of that individual - moreso children because they cannot consent to the act.

  If the creator of the porn does not profit, your statement simply does not work. There is no indication that any creator of the porn benefited monetarily from the site in the article. Therefore, there was no contribution to child abuse in that sense.

  The guy operates a company, said company employs 6 people, he made 200 million yen from the sale of child pornography - did you forget to read this?

  The only sense left is satisfaction in knowing others are viewing those pictures, and making more for the purpose of more such satisfaction. And if you are going with that, I will say that you got FAR bigger things to fret about. No one is going to get that satisfaction until they have already started taking pictures. I hardly think this little satisfaction is going to drive anyone to do much beyond what they already are doing anyway. Other things are driving them more, surely, and most are not going to quit just because no else is watching.

  I'm sorry, what are you going on about?

  Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that attacking child porn more than it already is will eliminate or seriously reduce child sexual abuse. I think that is completely wrong headed.

  So it's better to ignore it and hope it just goes away? You have to continuously tackle child abuse as a criminal matter and strengthen the laws and sentences to bring it on par with murder. Where murder is the destruction of the physical body, child abuse is at it's roots is the mental and emotional destruction of a human being. To argue to the contrary has no moral currency.

• 

  likeitis at 11:26 PM JST - 19th February

  Wintermute, your last post was so irrational and misguided I am not even going to bother with addressing it.

• 

  Wintermute at 03:05 PM JST - 20th February

  That better, keep your responses at that length and you'll stop sounding like a fool.

• 

  johnnyboy73 at 02:51 PM JST - 23rd February

  That whole staff should be given the death penalty for participating in such filth. It's really extra hideous to know that women were involved as well.

Register or Login to leave a comment