I only just watched an in-depth video on Shad recently so I don't know much about this guy. Has he done anything illegal? I know he was (or is) drawing fucked up cartoon porn of real kids (which is messed up).
Has there been any indication this guy is a genuine pedophile? Or just a way to edgy for his own good artist?
You *really* should read the thread. The answer is kinda sorta. He definitely got in trouble in Switzerland for drawing unspecified illegal art (likely lolicon). The practical answer is he has been a sick fuck drawing loli of real people, and is a degenerate autist. The issues are what he does in general are in a legal grey area(at least in the US).
In Switzerland apparently he did something pretty bad as the law over there is as follows.
"Pornographic documents, sound or visual recordings, depictions or other items of a similar nature or pornographic performances" showing "non-genuine sexual acts with minors" are illegal according to art. 197 of the Swiss Criminal Code and liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
[83] Purely fictional virtual child pornography—in this case, drawings and paintings—remains legal by Swiss law.
[84]
The statue is as follows:
"
4. Pornography
1. Any person who offers, shows, passes on or makes accessible to a person under the age of 16 pornographic documents, sound or visual recordings, depictions or other items of a similar nature or pornographic performances, or broadcasts any of the same on radio or television shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
2. Any person who exhibits in public items or performances as described in paragraph 1 above or shows or otherwise offers the same unsolicited to others shall be liable to a fine. Any person who, in advance, draws the attention of visitors to private exhibitions or performances to their pornographic character does not commit an offence.
3 Any person who recruits or causes a minor to participate in a pornographic performance shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
4 Any person who produces, imports, stores, markets, advertises, exhibits, offers, shows, passes on or makes accessible to others, acquires, or procures or possesses via electronic media or otherwise items or performances as described in paragraph 1 above that contain sexual acts involving animals, acts of violence involving adults or non-genuine sexual acts with minors shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty. If the items or performances contain genuine sexual acts with minors, the penalty is a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or a monetary penalty.
5 Any person who consumes or who for his or her own consumption produces, imports, stores, acquires or procures or possesses via electronic media or otherwise items or performances as described in paragraph 1 above that contain sexual acts involving animals, acts of violence involving adults or non-genuine sexual acts with minors shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding one year or to a monetary penalty. If the items or performances contain genuine sexual acts with minors, the penalty is a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty.
6 In the case offences under paragraphs 4 and 5, the items shall be forfeited.
7 If the offender acts for financial gain, the custodial sentence must be combined with a monetary penalty.
8 Minors over the age of 16 are not liable to any penalty if by mutual consent they produce items or performances as described in paragraph 1 above that involve each other, or possess or consume such items or performances.
9 Items or recordings as described in paragraphs 1–5 above are not regarded as pornographic if they have a cultural or scientific value that justifies their protection by law.
238 Amended by Annex No 1 of the Federal Decree of 27 Sept. 2013 (Lanzarote Convention), in force since 1 July 2014 (AS 2014 1159; BBl 2012 7571)."
source:
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en#a197
The difficulty here in citing this is that the art 197 was amended in 2014. Since I don't know what was amended (it is in German, French, and Italian) and don't know when shad was in trouble, The law could be more strict than now.
The other wiki citation points to a 2018 case where a dipshit (not Shad) imported 66 lbs of hentai manga into Switzerland on his return from japan, and he had it confiscated because most of it was loli.
"Having purchased more work at Comiket than his suitcase could carry, he shipped 66 pounds of hentai, mostly lolicon according to his own Twitter account, back to Switzerland. When he got home, he found the package had been seized and he was wanted for questioning.
Initially it didn’t look good."
Fucking lol.
"Melonpan tweeted that the officer in charge of the case didn’t like hentai, specifically lolicon, and he doubted that he would get the work back. But in the end Melonpan was able to convince the customs that the material was entirely fictional, and since no crime had been committed his purchases were returned to him. One of the online news outlets that covered the story, remarked on how lucky Melonpan is to live in Switzerland, and how similar cases have worked out far worse in other parts of the world."
Source: http://cbldf.org/2018/08/66-pounds-of-hentai-confiscated-by-swiss-customs/
Basically this person got off scott free, even though he was essentially
smuggling the average weight of a 9 year old child worth of loli comics.
So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on whether he is by law a sex offender. There is no hard evidence beyond what he drew, and unless the government goes out of it's way to gather evidence, construct a case and prosecute him, it is more likely he will die of an overdose at this point.
*Disclaimer*
I am not a lawyer or any sort of health professional, I do not glow.
In further analysis: He doesn't raise the same kind of red flags that someone like Jonathan Ross, Nick Bate, or Richard Huckle would. Typically Pedophiles are very socially inept, stupid (regardless of IQ, remember Nick Bate was assessed in his evaluation to be
129!) and tend to either be very open or at least hint about their proclivities.
He is worth being wary of, if nothing else.
TLDR; He draws fucked up borderline illegal shit. He likes lolicon. He is an insufferably autistic edgelord in summary. Everything else in the thread is currently is focused on the train-wreck of his former relations, his apparent mental health issues and his suspected opioid addiction. I do not have a good enough read on him (I don't pay attention to shad) nor do I have any hard proof of actual pedo activity, but he sure likes to act like one.