Man to be jailed for writing child porn stories

A man got the minimum sentence of 14 days in jail Thursday for possessing child pornography — stories about sex involving teen girls and incest he wrote himself and never tried to publish or share.

Judge Hugh Fraser called the facts in the case of Michael Jay Thomas “rather unique” because it dealt only with written material.

Thomas, 43, pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography. The 10 stories found on a computer hard drive are now sealed.

“We don’t have real, live victims in this particular case,” defence lawyer Catherine Huot said in sentencing submissions.

The law defines child pornography as material whose “dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity” with someone under 18.

Under the law, an accused could try to argue artistic merit as a defence.

The Crown had sought three to four months in jail.

Thomas was charged after police were contacted in December 2008 by employees of Future Shop — where he worked — regarding written material found on a demo computer.

His resume was in the same folder.

Thomas admitted that he’d written some of the stories and also edited material he found on the Internet.

Fraser concluded the collection was small, involved teens and Thomas poses little risk to kids.

He went to the Royal Ottawa Hospital for help on his own. A psychiatrist did phallometric testing and found him to be a low risk to reoffend. He was even lower risk where “live children” are concerned.

Thomas had no criminal record and has already suffered, Fraser said.

He’s lost his job; his wife of 16 years “wants nothing to do with him”; and his religious community, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are aware of what he’s done.

Thomas has to submit a DNA sample to the national registry and will be a registered sex offender for a decade.

During a two-year probation order, he has to take any treatment suggested by a psychiatrist, stay off the Internet and away from girls under 18 without supervision.

LOL CANADA


So, anyone want to attempt to justify this?

Some people get off on weird stuff. I guess its for the best

Blank

Diaz wrote:It is for the best...he "also edited material he found on the Internet." That gives a good indication that he was part of something much bigger, and like images even if you cartoonise them they are still damaging and still representative of a child's right to protection and freedoms being breached. I'd hate to be a victim of paedophilia and stumble across that, these guys writing and perhaps acting out virtual fantasies of sexually abusing girls and young women. Even the teenage bit bothers me, there has been a local case of a guy drugging and raping two girls under the age of 14. That they were near the age of consent doesn't change a thing. This makes me wonder about the whole genre of baby sitter or school girl porn, even though the people appearing in are supposed to be over 18 and all of that it creeps me out that there is a market for that as it's definitely getting a bit borderline and you wonder what market they are intending to appeal to. It seems to crop up more and more often that these much older guys target younger girls on the internet.

I see your point... but I personally like the school uniform buzz... not because of any desire to fuck a kid... but honestly? It reminds me of the feelings and anxieties I had as a teenager fooling around with my school-girl girlfriends.

I still wonder at the arbitrary nature of age restrictions... of course they are necessary... but what makes a sixteen y/o okay to root, and a 15 year old not?

Frankly, I have never met a 16 y/o that I would talk to long enough to have sex with... unless you count JC.

That gives a good indication that he was part of something much bigger, and like images even if you cartoonise them they are still damaging and still representative of a child's right to protection and freedoms being breached

So if I make a voodoo doll of my sister and then stab it am I liabel for assault, considering this doll represents her freedoms and right to protection being breached?

I'd hate to be a victim of paedophilia and stumble across that, these guys writing and perhaps acting out virtual fantasies of sexually abusing girls and young women. Even the teenage bit bothers me, there has been a local case of a guy drugging and raping two girls under the age of 14. That they were near the age of consent doesn't change a thing.

So by an extension of that logic the creators of American beauty, who portrayed a 16 year old girl seducing a middle aged man, should by imprisoned for child pornography? Even everybody who went to watch it? I could go on and on with examples....

superarmy wrote:That gives a good indication that he was part of something much bigger, and like images even if you cartoonise them they are still damaging and still representative of a child's right to protection and freedoms being breached

So if I make a voodoo doll of my sister and then stab it am I liabel for assault, considering this doll represents her freedoms and right to protection being breached?

I'd hate to be a victim of paedophilia and stumble across that, these guys writing and perhaps acting out virtual fantasies of sexually abusing girls and young women. Even the teenage bit bothers me, there has been a local case of a guy drugging and raping two girls under the age of 14. That they were near the age of consent doesn't change a thing.

So by an extension of that logic the creators of American beauty, who portrayed a 16 year old girl seducing a middle aged man, should by imprisoned for child pornography? Even everybody who went to watch it? I could go on and on with examples....

unfortunate example. American Beauty has nothing to do with child porn, do you know the meaning of the word 'pornography'?

unfortunate example. American Beauty has nothing to do with child porn, do you know the meaning of the word 'pornography'?

Well according to this law
for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity” with someone under 18.

Does this not occur in this movie?

Blank

Strawman argument. Did you miss this bit "also edited material he found on the Internet."? Certainly indicates he was actively seeking out this material and was possibly quite involved in participating in the transfer of child pornography material.

May I cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

In written form, this was merely expressing a story, it was no explicit child pornography. Lets look at wikipedia definition of Child Pornography.

Child pornography refers to images or films depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a visual record of child sexual abuse.

I believe it speaks for itself.

Your voodoo argument falls down on the fact that you stabbing needles into a doll in a nonsensical, superstitious way won't affect anyone else. If you used an example of something that could actually pose a genuine risk to your sister you'd be nearer the mark.

Isn't making a doll equivalent to "cartoonizing" it, I fail to see a difference between creating images, both in 2D and 3D and violating its imaginary rights.

As pointed out there is a difference between sexual themes in movies, pornography and child pornography. In any case the film was about his infatuation, not hers and I don't know if you noticed the ending where he realises she's not what she made herself to appear and his feelings change to that of a more fatherly type. A movie or book can deal with those themes, pornography has adults who consent to it so it's different again. Neither of them cater to a market which involves the exploitation and breach of the rights of children. I simply don't see how child pornography is any way comparable to the above examples.

Hmm difference in opinion I guess. Lets go for something more clear cut, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, this sounds very similar to the works that have been reported about the case. I think this more clear cuts my point. I am in favour of freedom of artistic expression, nothing, in my eyes justifies the restriction of someones right to express themselves artistically(as long as it does not impose on the rights of another human being).

Blank

Yes you may, but just so long as you remember those rights stop at the time that they infringe other peoples rights. That's why we have laws that restrict libellous and slanderous speech, let alone child abuse. That's because those things do infringe the rights of a person not to have untruthful and damaging material written or spoken about them and because children have rights as well. Those rights to freedom of speech additionally do not give anyone protection from criticism either, nor does it enable anyone to say anything. It's limited like all other rights for a reason.

We are not talking about real peoples rights. Imaginary, fictional characters, since when do they have the same rights as you or I? Indeed if this man wrote about his exploits of raping a child we would not be having this discussion as it is indeed slanderous. But it's not. And I feel if one wants to write a solid story graphically depicting child abuse as a theme, they indeed should be allowed to.

You might look at the definition of the applicable law as to how the material is defined which defines "child pornography as material whose “dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity” with someone under 18.

Apologies if I didn't make myself clear, this entire topic is voicing my disapproval at a law that I view as far to vague, and I believe was abused in this case.

Or you could read the entry further and note "However, legal definitions of child pornography generally refer to a wider range of material, including any pornography involving a minor, or in some cases non-abusive acts involving participants over the age of consent, or fictional images, according to jurisdiction."

The strict definition can apply but the laws are set up in this way because otherwise they would be simple to circumvent just by colouring in an image, altering a video to become less realistic or writing down incidences of child abuse instead of putting it into images. That these may not in all cases be real acts or that they are in a different format doesn't mean that they are not representative of child pornography.

These are moronic idiots who fail to understand the word "pornography". I won't try and argue this point, but do you consider erotic fiction pornography? Hell, any sort of sexual subset of a book to be pornographic? One of my favourite books reading as a kid was The Sum of All Fears, in it about halfway through is a sex scene, it lasts barely a page from memory. It is explicit and detailed. But I wouldn't consider the passage pornographic. Alternatively one of my favourite films The Lives of Others, depicts 2 or 3 sexual scenes throughout, and thus I would consider these scenes as pornographic.

No, because it is way too easy for an real image to be coloured in and/or cartoonised or drawn or cartoon images to be sourced from real life material as stated above. Doesn't change a thing that it's a drawn image, nor does it change the reasons for the creation of such material and that's for paedophiles indulge their fantasies and commit their acts.


So the threat of something being created that offends someone should prevent this thing from being created? I, for one, have a fear of trypophobia, I find many images depicting organic small holes completely shattering to myself, enduces nausea, vomiting and emotional distress. Doesn't change the fact that I couldn't care if people want to see it, or get off on it. Just because it depicts situation I find horrible doesn't mean I have the right to restict others from viewing something.



No, it is not from my end. It's not any mention of sexual themes that counts here as I've said, it's how the material is expressed. I've already explained the movie, and now it's the book. Again, it's about the man's obsession but here she responds but the main theme of the book is not about that, but the dramatisation of the tragic consequences of that action. I've never seen it described as promoting paedophilia, instead it's about his remorse and guilt at his actions. Because it deals with the relationships between the characters and the consequences of breaching social rules this tempers the topic. There is even nothing wrong with discussing this issue here on the internet as we are now either, it's not that this topic can't be mentioned in any way or that it can't be used in fictional material in a context dependent way.

How do we not know that this mans material was based on this, and don't put words in my mouth saying I said it promotes paedophilia. It used it as a central idea or plot device to further the plot of the story. Why should we restrict the freedom's of other of people who are clearly born this way. Creating alternative outlets to this must be allowed.

WikiLaws have been enacted to criminalize "obscene images of children, no matter how they are made," for inciting abuse.[1] An argument is the claim that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection,[2] and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.[3] This is exemplified in a case involving a man, from Virginia who, while arrested after viewing lolicon at a public library, asserted that he had quit collecting real child pornography and switched to lolicon.[4]


It's definitely not the same thing as written or visual material depicting the grooming and rape of a child.
How about written and visual material depicting the murder of a human being? Or are these different things?