Dr. Nicolas Dubin Caught by the FBI

Post Reply New Topic

No, hand-drawn and simulated depictions of child sexual abuse is illegal, unless it has some artistic, literary or scientific value, in the US (USC 1466A, see http://www.google.ie/#q=dwight+whorley for an example) and in the UK (where "pseudophotographs" were already illegal prior to internet-related legislation - see Chapter 2 of the Coroners Act 2009 for the most recent text and prior laws, http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... Id=3637639).

The acts refer to drawings, computer-generated images, photo-composites and adults presented as children.

On the scale of severity, child sexual abuse imagery is classed along with human-trafficking and is frequently included in the same legislation.

Actually this and various other extreme pornography is illegal in Germany and in the UK (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Part 5, Section 63 onwards http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/contents), and it does not matter whether the acts are real or simulated with actors. Some entirely consensual activities are prohibited as extreme pornography.

Rape scenes are frequently cut in full or in part from UK film releases, and many activities are always cut (see http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/bw_guidelines_2009.htm which also catalogues the cuts).

I'm glad the censors do their jobs.

Less obvious depictions of a harmful manner, that are not pornographic, will one day be classified just as harmful.

Shows on TV glamorising the carrying of handguns would be one example. (I can hear many gun loving folks choking on their beer after that!)

by "illegal" i assume you meant "legal" in that sentence. who exactly decides the "artistic, literary or scientific value" of hand-drawn and simulated depictions of children in sexual situations? i mean, if someone's a pedophile, maybe they view hand-drawn stuff to prevent themselves from thinking about real life children. maybe someone who was sexually abused as a child views hand-drawn stuff to help them address what happened to them and deal with it. maybe someone just likes viewing hand-drawn stuff and isn't actually a pedophile because they don't associate the hand-drawn children with actual children. who decides what's illegal. it seems very vague to me. does someone go to prison because they used it to deal with something in their past? somehow, it just seems to me that actual pedophiles with actual intent to molest and/or rape children aren't gonna be wasting their time with hand-drawn stuff and will go straight for the real kiddy-porn. i definitely don't condone child molesters or the viewing of kiddy porn, but i don't really think hand-drawings can really be classified as illegal. i mean, if no actual people get hurt, and no actual children are in any way involved, then isn't making it illegal censorship of art? saying "it's illegal to draw certain things or look at certain drawings"? isn't there an amendment that protects us from that sort of thing?

it doesn't really matter to me what the subject is, we could be talking about it being illegal to draw fat people for all i care. the point is, as an artist, i can't agree with any form of art, sexual or not, being made illegal, unless real live people or animals are in some way abused in the process.

just saying

No, I definitely meant "illegal" in that sentence and I provided the US Code reference to the most recent applicable law. A judge and jury decide whether there is artistic, literary or scientific exemption in any particular work. Art galleries fearing prosecution have removed works by Robert Mapplethorpe, Bill Henson, Nan Goldin, Richard Prince, Cindy Sherman, Ulla Karttunen and many others because they contained potentially sexual images of people under the age of majority. I am sure most families with a camera have photographs that are just as provocative.

This one is really quite funny:


Recent law is draconian, has very severe penalties and very few defences.

He is a doctor who has studied ASDs but it doesn't sound like he actually has one. I doubt this will support a correlation between this sort of behaviour and ASDs.

Dr. Dubin has been very open about having asperger's. I have several of his books. I had found them very helpful but now I'm so disgusted I don't know if I can go back to his books for help when all I'll be thinking about is what he's done.

People with Asperger's can be just as bad or good as anyone else.

More info and discussion

http://the-newrepublic.blogspot.com/201 ... s-too.html

I'm not disgusted about the Asperger's; I'm disgusted about the child abuse. I don't want to get my self-help information from someone who abuses children. A pedophile has a skewed view of the universe that I don't want to accidentally become infected by. A person with Asperger's has a skewed view of the universe that I find familiar and comforting.

I only mentioned Asperger's because ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo said he didn't have Asperger's and I was offering the information that yes, he does.

Only a pedophile will have child pornography on their computers. Only way a none pedo would is if some virus program got onto their computer and it automatically downloaded the images or if some sicko was using their computer and the computer owner didn't even know he was one and he downloaded those images on his computer and he never knew about it because he never looked into his documents. The pedo would have to be stupid to download child porn on someone's computer unless he was trying to set that person up or didn't care if the person gets the blame because he didn't want it on his computer and get caught that way.

And another way a none pedo would end up on a child porn site is if they were linked to it and they didn't know it was a child porn link. But a none pedo would flee the site ASAP after realizing what it is.

But the man admitted he has been downloading it.

i really do think you meant "legal" because you said "no... depictions... are illegal." it's a double negative, which would mean it was legal... since you obviously intended for it to mean it was illegal, then it would have to be "no... depictions... are legal." which would mean that it's illegal.



that just seems very objective and bias to me... i think more what i meant was "who has the right to define art?"



what about Sally Mann's photos of her children?

the way i see it, photographs, videos, photo manipulations, and artificial depictions of actual children nude or in sexual situations all involve and affect real life children, and should obviously be illegal. however, i don't think drawings of children that aren't based on real children should fall under that category. i mean, i doodle naked people all the time, because the form is easier to define and understand when nude, and some of those drawings happen to be of children. is that illegal? obviously, if i drew it, then i have possession of it. is there really some sort of law against drawing certain things? isn't a law like that going against the constitution?

i think the whole thing's getting a little out of hand... i mean, my boss has wallpaper in her bathroom with drawings of naked little boys (cherubs) on it... should she be worried about going to prison because of that?

But the man didn't have drawings of them. He had real images of them.

Drawings of naked children is not child pornography or else that little cupid baby guy be child porn since he is naked. Sculptures of naked children is not child porn either. The same goes for naked adults when it's drawings and paintings, not porn or else art museums wouldn't be allowing children when they have that stuff.

However taking photos of naked children and having them online is child porn. But yet taking photos of your own babies when they are naked wouldn't be child porn but I bet if you posted them online then it would be. But yet if you decide to show photos of your newborn child online and you mark out their private parts, not child porn unless you post it to a child porn site I bet. But yet I have heard about teens getting busted for texting naked photos of themselves to their friends because it was illegal pornography because they were under 18 but it was only them in the photos so I think that is pretty stupid. I bet I get in trouble with the law if I posted a naked baby photo of myself online and get busted for child porn for my own photo. Just imagine the headline "25 year old woman gets busted for child porn for posting a naked baby photo of herself online" .

Honestly I don't know what child porn looks like so I assume it's photos of them being naked and their private parts showing but I wouldn't even look it up to see or to see if it's grown ups having sex with them.

me too, I have a book of his which I enjoyed and now I feel sad and discusted and will be getting rid of it

I won't be reading any of his stuff. I never heard of him until one of my friends from here told me and I looked him up and then remembered there was a thread about it here so I found it and posted in it.

i know that. we just kinda got off topic debating the legality (or illegality) of hand-drawn images.

i don't really know who this guy is, but if he's a pedophile, then he needs to get help..

i hope they don't try to pin his disease on his AS, though... we have a bad enough rep as it is