"YouTube gamer nerd, 35, imported Japanese child porn and filmed himself having sex with a doll while children watched online"

An Adelaide YouTube gamer imported animated Japanese child porn and filmed himself having sex with a doll while children watched online, a court heard.

Shane Andrew Lunnay, 35, pleaded guilty in the District Court on Tuesday to multiple counts of possessing and controlling child abuse material and importing prohibited goods.

The court heard he was in possession of photographs and videos including some showing children under the age of 14, The Advertiser reported.

Judge Geraldine Davison said Lunnay’s obsession with the animated material, called hentai, may have formed a ‘foundation’ for his use of child abuse material.

‘Is this another example, perhaps, that one shouldn’t consider that anime, or hentai material, is harmless, victimless,’ she said.

https://archive.vn/Z2l46 (Daily Mail)

1 Like

I hope they don’t use that as an argument to attack fictional pornography

Well, the fact he had child pornography aside and did that on a webcam in front of children, I have a feeling that they will…

Certainly. This guy is just a black sheep in the middle of a giant niche. But people like simple answers and some will use this news as an absolute truth and ignore that there are tens of thousands of other people who like fictional pornography and who have never touched a child or CP.

1 Like

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, South Australia is where Connie Bonaros and Sterling Griff and the whole centrist/labor coalition has been going crazy against this stuff. Connie specifically has been trying to ban loli imports for awhile, shes actively doing it right now.

1 Like

What on earth. What series of circumstances led to something like that…

1 Like

I have absolutely no idea…

1 Like

I don’t think we know all the truth about this situation.

“The court heard he was in possession of photographs and videos including some showing children under the age of 14”

So did they saw and verified it, or just heard, and if that is the case, from whom? Considering most people lack the understanding of what lolicon is, could it be possible that there was a communication error, and someone was simply referring to drawings of child-like characters as for example: “images of children having sex”? Most people hearing something like that would think about photos and videos of real kids.

In a different article:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/breaking-news/shane-andrew-lunnay-who-streamed-himself-having-sex-with-a-childlike-sex-doll-jailed-for-importing-child-exploitation-material/news-story/77b2497ad47f68c7bf1ce342525c4ea6

"Judge Davison said Lunnay was also found with a number of images of real children and real child abuse material.

Just like I said, the question is whenever she saw it herself or just heard about it and interpreted the words in this way.

“Among the material seized was 650 hentai publications suspected of containing child abuse material, a computer tower and mobile phone.”

Unless he hid actual photos inside of hentai comic books, it seems that people talking about this situation assumed a hentai publication content is a child abuse material. But how that can be when no child was abused in the production of the material? That is not a particularly good description and can be understood in the wrong way, which seems to be the case in those articles.

"The hentai publications depicted adults and or children under the age of 18 years in sexual poses and in sexual activity, including drawings of children aged between three and 12.

There were also drawings of adults and children under 12 engaging in acts of bestiality."

How do you know the age of the fictional non-existing character? Did they check the canon year of birth? I doubt they went through such effort, and simply assumed the ages by their own opinion based on appearance. But the problem is that they even began assuming it in the first place. Why would that matter? What does matter is whenever the real child was involved and harmed, or not. The only reason why you would need to evaluate the age of the fictional character is when you would want to punish someone for committing a crime against morality. And because they use terms like “depicted children” instead of “depicted child looking characters”, people, especially older ones like the judge, might have an impression, that the situation is about real children.

“In May and June of 2019, the Australian Border Force detected several consignments addressed to Lunnay that contained child abuse material and “objectionable material”.”

Why I have the suspicion, that he ordered manga, but they called it child abuse material because people finding out the order interpreted the drawings as such? I don’t think any reasonable person would order actual CSEM in a package with their real home address. Yet again, they refer to drawings as child abuse material, and most people hearing it, would think about photos and videos.

“Lunnay later told police the material was “just drawings”, and he had been selling the anime to rid himself of his addiction.”

I’m not sure whenever he was lying, hoping they will not find real CSEM, which would be unreasonable considering he was aware that they’ve seen everything he had, or if he was telling the truth, and all he really had was just drawings.

“You also admitted conduct that involved having sex with a child-like doll and streaming this to people online,” the judge said.

“Those people included children."

“You did this for the shock value and to see people’s reactions to your conduct.”

Judge Davison said Lunnay had not been charged over the act and was not sentenced for it, but it confirmed his sexual interest in children."

So this person was a youtuber, and he performed an erotic act on a platform with children. Was it pornhub? Doesn’t fit the description. Most likely, it was youtube, with a smaller chance of it being twitch. If he were to record himself, naked, with his genitalia visible. His account would be instantly terminated, his reputation in shambles, and his youtube career, would be lost.

Is there a possibility that he simply took an anime figurine, that looked young in the judge’s opinion, and was pretending to “fuck it” for shits and giggles? That would explain the reasoning of the judge, that he “did this for the shock value and to see people’s reactions”. Yes, that is the core purpose of indecent jokes.

I don’t see a grown man purposefully having sex with a sex doll on a live stream on a platform that allowed children on it. If it was a site for adults, sure. Unless he was suicidal, which I doubt was the case, I don’t see any motive he could have for such a decision. And considering that there is already some manipulation with the terminology involved, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case in here as well.

Also, how exactly would that confirm his sexual interest in children? Everywhere they refer to drawings as child exploitation material, say that drawings depict children, instead of child-like characters, and then suddenly they call doll “child-like”? If in every instance they go step up in their descriptions of what they see, so I think I can safely assume the doll was nowhere close to looking like a child. And didn’t “possession of child exploitation material” enough of a proof of having “sexual interest in children” in most cases? And all of that really assuming he had sex with a sex doll on a stream. It looks more like they were looking for a reason to make him look like a pedophile, instead of trying to learn about his real motivations.

In the dailymail article:
"Prosecutor Pantelia Marinakis told the court Lunnay had confessed to a psychologist he had no interest in child exploitation material. "

So he apparently said, he had no interest in CEM, which in this case, I think he actually said, not to have an interest in materials with real children involved.

“Judge Geraldine Davison said Lunnay’s obsession with the animated material, called hentai, may have formed a ‘foundation’ for his use of child abuse material”

“‘Is this another example, perhaps, that one shouldn’t consider that anime, or hentai material, is harmless, victimless,’ she said.”

Interesting unconfirmed hypothesis by the judge, who is the same age and in the same area as two politicians that during the same period of time, actively pursued effort in order to ban anime and manga. Seems pretty convenient, how perfect her words were fitting their narration. And she did know about other examples, so it’s not like she figured out this conclusion on the spot. It was her already existing belief, a bias, she applied in this case.

Maybe it’s a coincidence, maybe they cooperated, or maybe the judge knew about what “Connie Bonaros and Sterling Griff and the whole centrist/labor coalition” as Era_Blaze put it, were doing, and wanted to use the opportunity to support their effort by making such narration.

And the reason why I have the suspicion, that she purposefully did some manipulation, has to do with the fact, that she is a Judge, and she should have an understanding of what cherrypicking fallacy is, to be effective at her job.

For every example of a criminal enjoying something, you can find millions of fans proving otherwise.

This person got only a single year in prison. A single year. For allegedly possessing and importing CSEM. In Australia. The country with an extremely strict approach to this topic. It seems to me that the reason why he pled guilty was that he had no money to pursue further legal action, and knew he will be punished one way or another, so when the judge gave him only a single year, he took the opportunity.

In my opinion, the story went like this:

  • A young guy, introverted, with a passion for anime and manga, ordered some lolicon hentai and maybe erotic figurines from Japan.
  • ABF fount it out, and executed a warrant at his home address, thinking he is a pedophile.
  • His belongings were seized, someone looks through it, and told the Judge, that he had images depicting children below the age of 18 and 12.
  • The judge knew that the case is about a person who has an interest in animated erotica, but she also concluded, due to a small bias, that what she heard was referring to photos and videos of real children.
  • Because lolicon is prohibited in Australia, he had no chance not to be left without a penalty, so the defence focused on making a case, that he is addicted to “illegal fantasy world”, this is why they said that he seek treatment and that he was talking to a psychologist.
  • The judge was hearing in the news about Stirling efforts to ban anime and manga, to protect the children, so she concluded, that the case she is handling, is an example of what she heard about. She didn’t necessarily wanted consciously to support the effort of Stirling, she could simply interpret the situation based on her knowledge that was limited to what Stirling was saying in media. This is why she said “another example”. She already knew something about the topic before the case.
  • But she still concluded, that what he did, wasn’t really horrible and that he doesn’t deserve to spend his entire life in jail. She gave him 1 year to “teach him a lesson”, convinced by the defence, that he will improve his life afterwards.

Whenever I’m correct or not, will be unknown. But one thing is sure. The terminology used shows there is some manipulation of the narration of this entire situation, and if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s a story that is coming from South Australia, during a year, where Australia got extremely fixated over banning anime and manga, I wouldn’t be suspicious.

And it’s not like this story began this Australian vendetta against anime and manga, since this story happened long after Stirling first came to complain about No Games No Life.

In general, I would be careful while reading articles of stories as such online. The manipulation of words could very much be done simply for the emotional appeal, to bring peoples attention. It’s more sensational to say “admitted to being guilty of possessing child abuse materials” than to say “admitter to being guilty of possessing animations of fictional characters that resemble children”.

2 Likes

Reading these stories is very tiring. I had thought the exact same thing that you’re posting, only you put it in a much more conclusive format which I’m very appreciative of.

The legal system in Australia is very twisted. I highly doubt he possessed real CSAM, but the very idea that anime could “exploit children” is beyond ridiculous.
The prospect of legal moralism needs to be absolutely and positively abolished.

If he had no real CP/CSAM, then he did nothing wrong. We’re witnessing a human rights violation, akin to a lynching. It’s just so exhausting. I don’t want to be angry anymore. I weep for people like this.

6 Likes

A certain philosopher who tried to get Wikipedia shutdown over hosting lolicon a decade ago would say there is no such thing as a consenting child, even within your own imagination. This is clearly absurd, but Australia has another philosopher who cosplays as a criminologist. You know the one.

I would personally jump off a bridge and just finish it tbh.

It might be worth humanizing people who do look at cp, which is not really something I condone doing, but it isn’t as if they have devil horns like Australia tries to depict them. Even the U.K. isn’t as bad. And fuck these people sentencing someone over a fucking drawing.