Creative Commons license icon

Furry 'Fritter' charged with possession of child pornography

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Occasional furry artist Fritter, also known in the fandom as FrittMonster, FireLover343, and Anium, has been arrested in Ottawa, Canada, on a charge of possessing child pornography.

Known in real-life as Adam Boyko, 19-year-old Fritter was arrested on Wednesday, March 30, by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip-off. Police seized a laptop they allege contains images and videos of child pornography.

Originally from Cranford, New Jersey, Fritter was in Ottawa on a temporary visa to study Information Technology at Carleton University.

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

At least Toronto Sun didn't go "He's a furry! OHLOL!"

I'm interested in the nature of the pornography, photo or drawing. I'm not joking, someone in my country was arrested because he had cartoon child porn in possession.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (7 votes)

Regardless of the form, it's still child pornography.

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

No, a drawing of something out of your head shouldn't be considered child pornography, nor should a story be considered such. Otherwise Romeo and Juliet could be considered child porn given laws in some places. I am one of the most uptight people you'll meet on the subject but I know the difference between reality and fantasy. A drawing is not exploiting a child (unless it was drawn from life, a child was harmed during it then). If I draw a picture of someone shooting another person, is that the same as making a snuff film? No.

Your rating: None Average: 1.6 (8 votes)

Regardless of what you may believe, laws are tools for law enforcement. They're there to assist in getting ill people out of the general population.

People who distribute child porn, photograph or drawn, should be taken out of society.

Some innocent people will get caught, like the comic book guy who collected all sorts of Japanese manga, these can only be prevented by the DA not prosecuting.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

You need to take a couple of classes in psychology, sociology, and law, and get back to me when you're done. Although that is in Canada so the legal system there is different. Your rationalization for such laws being in place is absolutely ridiculous. Laws are not a psychological screening tool, nor are they meant to be one. Maybe in Canada but not in the United States.

Drawings should not be considered child pornography. The problem isn't with what is in your head, it is acting on it. You're saying thought police should be a part of society, and that to me is morally reprehensible. You want to prosecute people for what they THINK, not what they DO.

I'm a parent and I still find your way of thinking over the top. Really, my snuff example suits you. Following your "logic", then someone who draws something illegal or writes about something illegal, should be arrested. Violence, robbery, embezzlement, to you there is no difference between fantasy and reality.

Now THAT is a psychological problem, because someone who has trouble distinguishing that usually cannot function in normal society.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=109133

"There is a disturbing correlation between pornography and child molestation as indicated by recent research."

Get back to me when you learn about how the internet caused crime to evolve in to a place which makes child porn rings more difficult to detect.

While people who are caught generally do not re-offend by means of child pornography, there is no proof one way or another to tell whether or not they proceed to act physically.

Your rating: None

I am going to disagree, child molestation has been around for a LONG time, just ask Pochahontas. The difference is that back then, it was legal because we hadn't established many laws here in this country yet.

The Internet has not made it harder to detect rings, in fact I would think it'd make it a lot easier. Since you can act as a pedo an infiltrate an organization a lot easier on the anonymous Internet then searching out a local group. A pedo probably knows how to detect who a cop is in their local community, but a good actor on the Internet can slip in and be a welcome part of the community.

Heck, why do you think they're busting them 30 at a time these days as opposed to one at a time only when responding to a witness's complaint about their behavior IRL? The Internet gives people like that a false sense of security.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (6 votes)

There is far more to security and the internet which you aren't aware. An individual can infect machines and use those machines to perform malicious deed, one can even link machine to machine in order to further mask oneself.

This is why tracking people on the internet can be difficult.

You mention Pochahontas and old law, I don't believe the first priority was, "We need laws protecting our children before we find shelter and food."

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Right, but all security, no matter how secure it makes one field will eventually get bested, espcically if the security is for something that people are going to disagree with more then not.

And even if the Pedo group is physically secure, it is highly susceptible to social engineering. I will go no further on to why that is as information into holes could provide information that could be used by these groups to secure themselves further. I'll just say they are not as secure as they believe.

Who is to say the cops aren't saying "The internet is a safe haven for them" in hopes to make them use it more and oust themselves?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Just shut up. You make my IQ drop with every reply.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

This is not a topic that citing research is too helpful for. Either you end up cherry-picking research to make a consistent point, or end up with research suggesting the level of effects all over the place, e.g. I've seen papers suggesting the rate of physical sexual abuse in those that are convicted of possessing child porn being anywhere from 1% to 80%. Furthermore a lot of the studies have severe potential issues due to sample bias, such as many of them only surveying convicted child molesters (imagine what a study on normal porn would look like if only convicted rapist were interviewed) to more subtle issues such as only interviewing those caught with child porn depicting real children. There is very little research on those that didn't do something causing them to get caught, or say using fictional pornography in countries where that is not illegal, as it is so hard to find or expect such people to come forward for such a survey. I think I remember at least one study discussing this issue, that if there is a division between legal and illegal pornography, e.g. due to being drawn vs photographed, once someone is already involved in the more serious crime of molesting they are more likely to ignore that distinction creating a bias in survey of those caught with the illegal kind.

The research doesn't really seem helpful, and in the end it is just an ad infinitum debate of principles: Should people be punished without having harmed a victim or immediate intent to do so, if there is a chance a person like them might in the future? And what threshold of chance should be used? Even some have argued that grouping fictional child porn with real child porn dilutes efforts to deal with the ultimate problem of children being harmed. (And some argue that possession of fictional child porn is harmful to children, even if the possessor never sees or comes near a real child for the rest of their life, that such things are harmful by their very existence with no other impact or influence...) And that is not even getting into the nature of those that look at such porn, and issues like there being at least one category of people with interest in such porn that have near zero chance of molesting children because they identify with the children in such porn, much like people identifying with the victim in rape fantasies are not going to rape someone because of looking at rape porn.

But like most debates on the internet and elsewhere, especially with such much emotional attachmnts, people pretty much chose their side a long time ago and will see what they want in any given issue or datum and not change how they view things.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

It's not child pornography because there is no child involved. It's that simple. That's nice to have an abstract that says what you want but where's the actual paper? And what's the chances that that was looking at real child pornography (as in pornography that actual involves children). Does the same link exist for drawings? And how come this link exist for drawn child porn but not drawings of anything else?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

To Kangaroo--

Yes. And we should unquestioningly hand over the right to determine who is and is not sane to our police, prosecutors, and other officially-designated Authority Figures.

Your rating: None

Well, at least that's another one gone...

Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

Alleged. Not guilty. I've known a dozen or so cases of things just like this.. in this very fandom! no doubt, of people accusing others of child pornography.. It's the easiest way of destroying a users reputation without really having any proof.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Touché, touché. POSSIBLY another one gone. If not, well, he made some enemies for a reason I guess.

Your rating: None

There are more stories out there about this, and at least one said he was one of 30? It was a big operation, not just one person picked up.

This leads me to believe it is more than a cartoon, more than someone trying to ruin a name. I could be wrong. I hope to be wrong, but this looks bigger than that.

Run a search on his name and some other, more detailed stories will come up.

Your rating: None

Wikifur page has already been taken down.

Your rating: None

Not sure what you mean - it works for me, both logged in and from another browser. It was recently established, however.

Your rating: None

Just force-refresh, dude. It works.

Your rating: None

Odd, force refreshed, tried 3 browsers, rest of the internet is fine. I'll see it eventually, I suppose.

Your rating: None

You're not missing much, just two lines or so.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

The fact that he's 19 makes this case a little bizarre. Most guys prefer younger girls, no matter what age they are. How guilty he is depends upon whether these are pics of 10-year-olds, or 16-year-olds.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (5 votes)

Canada is retarded. The reason drawn child pornography is legal is the States is because the US Supreme Court ruled that if you can ban a simulated depiction of child sex, you could ban anything that even mentioned it (e.g. Freud's work would be illegal to possess). It makes sense if you think about it. Also, Insane Kangaroo's opinion is invalid. He values his own personal 2nd Amendment rights over the right (which is regarded as superior by the US court system) of a private establishment to regulate what goes on in its premises.

Your rating: None

Other then it did not happen on the private establishment's premises so that point is invalid.

There is a difference between an establishment banning smoking, and banning anyone who has smoked. The same difference between banning someone for carrying a fire arm AT a convention and banning anyone who was wrongfully detained for carrying a firearm in a city in which it is legal to do so.

Your rating: None

Okay, can we quit quibbling over the definition of child pornography for a minute and consider an important question for a second. Namely, who is this guy? He was arrested for the real thing (unless I missed something); in other words, furry has nothing to do with his arrest. As far as I know, this guy isn't a major player in the fandom (and the fact that I don't know much about him doesn't hurt my case here); we've got a ethical dilemma, here.

This guy hasn't thrust himself in the furry spotlight; he was as close to an anonymous everyman as you can be in the furry fandom, and therefore has a certain amount of right to privacy. He barely even has a WikiFur article, apparently. As his crime has no bearing on the furry fandom (unlike, for instance, the guy who wanted to shoot up a school for crimes against animals), and at this point he is "presumed innocent," it could be argued that this article unduly sullies his reputation.

In journalistic ethics, the guidelines for reporting on a person are that a. the person has put his or herself in position of public scrutiny (say as a politician or celebrity) in his or her community b. the person's actions are of importance to the community, and c. if the person gives his permission. I argue that a doesn't apply here (and c is unlikely), but, of course, b is the sticky one.

What I'm pointing out here is that both the reporter, Higgs Raccoon, and Flayrah's editor, Green Reaper, had to make an ethical decision on this one (which I assume they were aware of, if not exactly consciously). In fact, this one comes down real close to the line; I'm not entirely sure of this one. I will say that this editorial decision was probably necessary; if it had come out that an article was written on this guy and rejected by some of furry's noisier but less nuanced critics, Flayrah's reputation as a news source would have been damaged. And Higgs Raccoon hasn't exactly dug up facts that weren't already available publicly.

So, guys, you wanted "hard news" on that poll way back when; Flayrah has delivered.

Your rating: None

Can somebody send Insane Kangaroo a YouTube link to that spoof video by British comedian Chris Morris in which he plays a former paedophile turned gun-toting vigilante? It'd be right up his street.

"Paedophiles don't need punishment... They need GUNISHMENT!!!" :-D

Your rating: None

Here we are!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRZo8CHsgp8

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Higgs Raccoonread storiescontact (login required)

a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)