Post by bubbazanetti on Aug 28, 2016 16:57:20 GMT -5
So I've noticed a little discussion here and there in the threads regarding hand drawn child porn and depictions in material like Chuck Harding's "Handjobs" and it made me wonder about the legality of this stuff. Are these depictions protected by the First Amdenment? A little backstory here so I can explain why I even bothered to make this thread. Yet another descent into Bubba Zanetti's retarded personal life.
So my father calls me today and tells me he was cleaning out his shed and found a box I had sent home years ago when I was on a deployment and he just tossed it in with the rest of his garbage in the shack and forgot about it. He tells me to come and get it or it's going out with the Monday morning trash. So I head over there and find my box in the corner of the shed and open up that load of glory. What a treasure trove of memories! Pictures, letters, souveiners, a carton of long dried out Drina ciggarettes and boxes of tea. At the bottom was a pile of comic books and below that, about five issues of the comic book, Hustler Humor. For those that don't know. this was a comic book published by Larry Flynt that comprised of the cartoons that appeared in the regular stroke book. Browsing through this, one comic caught my attention. It was called "Chester the Molester". Chester's adventures included things like jerking off behind some bushes while watching kids on a playground and trying to get kids to come into his white candy van. I tried to search my mind for a time in my life I actually thought this was funny. Now granted, these cartoons never actually showed old Chester molesting kids. They just gave the idea of his intentions very clearly. In retrospect, the only reason I ever even bought these comics is because I liked one of the artists, George Trosley. I used to read the comic book "CARtoons" and he was one of the lead artists. The actual artist for Chester was a guy named Dwaine Tinsley. Funny thing about this guy is in 1984, he was accused of molesting his 13 year old daughter. His conviction was overturned after about 2 years. His argument was there was bias against him due to being the author of Chester. My reverie was broke by my dad saying "Are you going to get your fuck books out of my shed or do you want to spend the night in here?"
So my question is this: Is there a legal place for shit like this? Does it help people with obsessions for little kids keep it in the realm of fantasy or does it intensify their obsession? I know there are some talented artists out there that can make a depiction very realistic. Even using computer generated graphics it might be hard to discerne artwork from a real picture. Does it make it any less wrong if there is no actual child being exploited?
So my father calls me today and tells me he was cleaning out his shed and found a box I had sent home years ago when I was on a deployment and he just tossed it in with the rest of his garbage in the shack and forgot about it. He tells me to come and get it or it's going out with the Monday morning trash. So I head over there and find my box in the corner of the shed and open up that load of glory. What a treasure trove of memories! Pictures, letters, souveiners, a carton of long dried out Drina ciggarettes and boxes of tea. At the bottom was a pile of comic books and below that, about five issues of the comic book, Hustler Humor. For those that don't know. this was a comic book published by Larry Flynt that comprised of the cartoons that appeared in the regular stroke book. Browsing through this, one comic caught my attention. It was called "Chester the Molester". Chester's adventures included things like jerking off behind some bushes while watching kids on a playground and trying to get kids to come into his white candy van. I tried to search my mind for a time in my life I actually thought this was funny. Now granted, these cartoons never actually showed old Chester molesting kids. They just gave the idea of his intentions very clearly. In retrospect, the only reason I ever even bought these comics is because I liked one of the artists, George Trosley. I used to read the comic book "CARtoons" and he was one of the lead artists. The actual artist for Chester was a guy named Dwaine Tinsley. Funny thing about this guy is in 1984, he was accused of molesting his 13 year old daughter. His conviction was overturned after about 2 years. His argument was there was bias against him due to being the author of Chester. My reverie was broke by my dad saying "Are you going to get your fuck books out of my shed or do you want to spend the night in here?"
So my question is this: Is there a legal place for shit like this? Does it help people with obsessions for little kids keep it in the realm of fantasy or does it intensify their obsession? I know there are some talented artists out there that can make a depiction very realistic. Even using computer generated graphics it might be hard to discerne artwork from a real picture. Does it make it any less wrong if there is no actual child being exploited?
