Lolicon equal child pornography?

[Dark Dragon]

I recently came across an article on ANN about an Iowa man who is being charge for 20 years in prison. His crimes? possession of obscene material that mainly consist of lolicon and yaoi manga that he ordered from Japan.

Here (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/editorial/2008-12-11/christopher-handley/carl-horn) is there link to the article

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed before since the search function didn't really yield much result so i apologize if this is a repeated topic.

There is also the issue of Seven Seas Entertainment dropping the American release of Kodomo no Jikan after reviewing some of the later volumes.

I personally never understood the mentality behind the lolicon culture and usually try avoid the subject. The fact that Christopher Handley is facing almost the same sentence he would have got if he possessed real child pornography though, deeply disturb me.

If Christopher Handley loses this case, it would set precedence for many more like it to come and that could spell trouble. I'm all for protecting the children but should the government really have the right to arrest people who are not really harming anyone?

So what do you guys think? Can naked drawing really be constitute as child pornography or is this just another moment that points toward this country extreme Puritan origin.

edit: I do realize that the article contain obvious bias but i was simply using it as a news source rather than to change any opinion

here are some others that i have found: 1 (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2008-10-09/cbldf-to-serve-as-special-consultant-in-protect-act-manga-case), 2 (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/24/neil-gaiman-on-the-obscenity-of-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/)

[Animeniax]

I didn't read the entire editorial, but to me, child porn is child porn, regardless of the medium it is presented in and what country it originates from. I didn't appreciate the writer's slippery slope arguments that lead from this guy getting prosecuted to all of us having our comics seized and searched. And calling it "manga" like that gives it some artistic exclusion to good taste is ridiculous. "Manga" is just Japanese for "comic book", and they don't allow child porn in comic books either. And defending this on 1st Amendment grounds is silly too. There are exclusions to the 1st Amendment. Depictions of child porn would be one of them.

I don't agree with the 20 year sentence or treating it the same as child porn, but I guess the authorities aren't messing around when it comes to this.

How about some more background on the defendant? Does he have a record? Is he on a sex offender list? What got the prosecutor's attention to this individual?

[Kraco]

I thought this debate was over in the USA already. I remember there was much noise and commotion generated a year ago or so, but if I understood correctly, drawn material was excluded from the tightened laws.

This sort of censorship is always dangerous. There are no victims at all, unlike with real child pornography, so it's not even protecting anybody. The old saying says that if you offer the devil a finger he will claim the whole hand. That's what would happen here, and before long series like Shakugan no Shana would be banned as well.

[Munsu]

I could care less about pornography, any kind, in drawn pictures. The law makes too big of a deal with obscenity. Just as I could care less of violence in the media, I could care less about people wanting to read some hentai with lolis. Why should anyone care or be bothered by it? It's not like he's parading around the park wanking his dick at 12 year olds.

[Animeniax]

Well there's two sides to that argument. Some think that interest in comic kiddie porn will lead to real-life kiddie porn and endanger children with dick wanking at the park. Others say that comic porn is an outlet for weirdos so there's less likelihood they'll engage in real criminal behavior.

I think asking a bunch of anime/manga fans in their teens and early 20s won't yield the most objective or knowledgeable of discussions on the matter.

[Munsu]

Well there's two sides to that argument. Some think that interest in comic kiddie porn will lead to real-life kiddie porn and endanger children with dick wanking at the park. Others say that comic porn is an outlet for weirdos so there's less likelihood they'll engage in real criminal behavior.

I think asking a bunch of anime/manga fans in their teens and early 20s won't yield the most objective or knowledgeable of discussions on the matter.
A bit of an exaggeration, but that's almost like punishing a drug user as a murderer because of some belief that drug use will lead to murder (which in various different ways it is true because of circumstances). People should be punished for what they do, not for what they may do in some hypothetical situation just because a group of people have a theory about human behavior.

If anything, there should be more focus in education and on parenting than wether or not some random guy like to read comic books that contain some lolis.

I love my violent movies, games, comics... you don't see me going around killing people.

[Kraco]

I love my violent movies, games, comics... you don't see me going around killing people.

Oh, yes I do. Every time a new season of 24 begins.

[Munsu]

Oh, yes I do. Every time a new season of 24 begins.
Jack Bauer has given me immunity.

Anyways, all these groups that keeps pushing to censor the media and all crap like that can go suck my dick.

[Animeniax]

A bit of an exaggeration, but that's almost like punishing a drug user as a murderer because of some belief that drug use will lead to murder (which in various different ways it is true because of circumstances). People should be punished for what they do, not for what they may do in some hypothetical situation just because a group of people have a theory about human behavior.

If anything, there should be more focus in education and on parenting than wether or not some random guy like to read comic books that contain some lolis.

I love my violent movies, games, comics... you don't see me going around killing people.
That's a bit of a stretch of a comparison. Think more along the lines of marijuana's perception as a gateway drug leading to harder drugs. Interest in animated kiddie porn can be seen to lead to interest in real kiddie porn.

And the concern is that people who like violent movies, games, and comics will become desensitized to the violence and make them more likely to do the wrong thing in a bad situation. They'll be more likely to look the other way when faced with matters like genocide.

[KrayZ33]

I wonder if Fate/Stay Night is loli-p0rn? (the game)
It says "all characters are over 18 years old" in the beginning but that is obviously not the true...

Oh man, I can imagine the conversations in jail...

"I'm a drug addict and killed 3 people, why are you here?" - "I *bought* a loli-porn-comic" - "YOU SICK BASTARD, they should kill you!"

[Munsu]

That's a bit of a stretch of a comparison. Think more along the lines of marijuana's perception as a gateway drug leading to harder drugs. Interest in animated kiddie porn can be seen to lead to interest in real kiddie porn.

And the concern is that people who like violent movies, games, and comics will become desensitized to the violence and make them more likely to do the wrong thing in a bad situation. They'll be more likely to look the other way when faced with matters like genocide.
In contrast, religion should lead people to appreciate life and do the right thing, right? Yet throughout history we've seen many many cases were religion has been one of the main catalysts of bad behavior.

I like this analogy better, loli hentai is to child pornography what cigarette-shaped gum is to cigarettes.

Some like their meat raw, would that be considered a gateway to cannibalism? Should we punish people that eat raw meat? I like walking in my house in the nude and swim in my private swimming pool nude, should that be considered a gateway to public nudism? Should I be punished for that? Those are the type of connections that is going on here, they're trying to punish people for hypothetical situations not because of actual acts.

[KrayZ33]

Some like their meat raw, would that be considered a gateway to cannibalism?

I don't think that eating meat raw has anything to do with cannibalism ^^


Those are the type of connections that is going on here, they're trying to punish people for hypothetical situations not because of actual acts.

well you should see this from another point of view:

there are games and animes and movies which are very brutal and thus not allowed for children to play or watch
that is because, even though everything is fictive, it can influence people..

So if the lawgiver says "It is not allowed to possess movies in which people are killed" why would Animes be allowed which show the same thing?

edit: typo

[darkshadow]

The supreme court in the US already ruled banning simulated child pornography unconstitutional.... I'm not even in the US and I know this.

And no the article is deceptful, he actually had a lot of REAL child porn aswell, 99.9% of his sentance is due to that. It would be like getting sentenced to life for genociding everyone in GTA4, hey it's simulated murder isn't it?
No, it falls under free speech and the drawings don't actually hurt anyone.

[Munsu]

I don't think that eating meat raw has anything to do with cannibalism ^^


I'm willing to bet that many of the people that have become cannibalist, have started by eating some raw meat.



well you should see this from another point of view:

there are games and animes and movies which are very brutal and thus not allowed for children to play or watch
that is because, even though everything is fictive, it can influence people..

So if law says "It is not allowed to possess movies in which people are killed" why would Animes be allowed who show the same thing?

Is anyone advocating that we spread kiddie hentai to children?



And no the article is deceptful, he actually had a lot of REAL child porn aswell

Is that true? I certainly haven't read anything of that sort myself, and I would doubt that people would be making such a big deal about this case if the dude actually had real porn.

[Animeniax]

Shrug, I'm just presenting all the arguments, not my own beliefs on the subject.

But your examples are fallacious. There is no proven corollary between eating raw meat leading to eating human meat, neither does being nude in private lead to public nudity. Whereas looking at drawn kiddie porn is still looking at kiddie porn, and has a direct relationship to real kiddie porn, plus the fact both are illegal, like KrayZ said.

It's all subjective anyway, like the definition of decency and pornography.


The supreme court in the US already ruled banning simulated child pornography unconstitutional.... I'm not even in the US and I know this.

And no the article is deceptful, he actually had a lot of REAL child porn aswell, 99.9% of his sentance is due to that. It would be like getting sentenced to life for genociding everyone in GTA4, hey it's simulated murder isn't it?
No, it falls under free speech and the drawings don't actually hurt anyone.Yes but Bush passed the Protect Act of 2008 that circumvents the Supreme Court ruling. The validity of the act is currently being challenged in the courts.

The article is about freedom of speech in comics and donating to the CBLDF, so they omit the facts about what else the guy was guilty of.

[darkshadow]

Yeah I read something like that on another forum yesterday, or perhaps that was a different case that was just highly similar, since I can't remember the names. Though the rest of my post still stands.

[KrayZ33]

I'm willing to bet that many of the people that have become cannibalist, have started by eating some raw meat.

cannibalism means that I eat my own kind, what has that to do with eating flesh from animals, which nearly everyone does




Is anyone advocating that we spread kiddie hentai to children?

no, and I don't do it either...

I wanted to make clear that Animes are handled the same as real Movies...

and if the movie is not allowed to be in possession of someone, why would the anime or mange, which shows the same thing (most likely in an even more extreme way), be allowed?

and that is why in most countries, it is not allowed to have such comics. (or at least it's hardly discussed)...for example in Germany it's not clear yet, it's not allowed to spread Lolicon-material (don't know how to call it). However, if you only possess it for yourself it's not (yet) forbidden as long as it is really fictive and not realistic.

The problem is that such cases don't show up very often... and it's pretty "new" for everyone, too. They really have to clear everything up and tell the people what is allowed and what not, at the moment I would call it a "grey zone"

[darkshadow]

What are you saying, I'm not really following, cause FYI anime and whatever do have ratings in place.

[Dark Dragon]

I think asking a bunch of anime/manga fans in their teens and early 20s won't yield the most objective or knowledgeable of discussions on the matter.

That wasn't my intent when i started this thread, i just wanted to see the various opinion on an anime fan forum and maybe get a decent discussion going.


I wanted to make clear that Animes are handled the same as real Movies...

and if the movie is not allowed to be in possession of someone, why would the anime or mange, which shows the same thing (most likely in an even more extreme way), be allowed?

and that is why in most countries, it is not allowed to have such comics. (or at least it's hardly discussed)...

Except that there is a very distinct difference between a real movie and an anime/comic one.

No one is harmed when a loli manga or anime is made but real child pornography usually require said child.

Laws are created in order to serve a purpose and when you overly extend or broaden the definition of said laws, the original intent tend to get lost.


And no the article is deceptful, he actually had a lot of REAL child porn aswell, 99.9% of his sentance is due to that

Can you perhaps link some sort of article that state this information?

If that is the case then I'm not exactly sure why someone like Neil Gaiman would go out of his way to help this dude.

[Munsu]

cannibalism means that I eat my own kind, what has that to do with eating flesh from animals, which nearly everyone does
It was a random example of how these guys make connections based on some theories and hypothetical situations, because I'm willing to bet that cannibalists out there like to eat meat raw so there's probably a connection there between raw meat and the cannibalists. But just because cannibals might like their meat raw it doesn't mean that raw meat eating people will become cannibals.

Of course I'm making shit up, but in the case were it was true, would you consider punishing people for eating raw meat as correct just because there's a chance someone might like it and evolve (assuming that's the correct order of things)?





no, and I don't do it either...

I wanted to make clear that Animes are handled the same as real Movies...

and if the movie is not allowed to be in possession of someone, why would the anime or mange, which shows the same thing (most likely in an even more extreme way), be allowed?

And that's the problem right there that animes are handled the same way as real movies. They're not the same thing, plus child porn is not fictitious... the kids actually perform the act, there's harm. It's not the same, it shouldn't be treated the same.

There are two sets of argument the way I see it, one would be if these fictitious images should be illegal, and secondly the severity of the punishment. Twenty years for graphic drawn pictures (about the same with real kiddie porn) hardly seems fair or correct.

All these media problems are the result of people looking for explanations as a way to rationalize bad behavior because I'm willing to bet that the kid being bullied in school and the abusive father had more to do with his actions rather him listening to Judas Priest or because of playing GTA.

[KrayZ33]

What are you saying, I'm not really following, cause FYI anime and whatever do have ratings in place.

I shouldn't have brought that example up.

It was just to make clear that movies, animes and games are considered "dangerous" (couldn't find another word for this) even though they are not real and fictive.


and my point is:

If the lawgiver says (he doesn't but just let us assume so) that *MOVIES* in which people are killed are forbidden,then why should the anime be allowed to show it?

and since the lawgiver says(!) that *MOVIES* in which child pornography is showed are forbidden, why would the anime version be allowed to do so?


the only argument I could find here is, that in child porn, kids are (in fact) abused etc. and even if they say "I want you to do it" they are still too young to know what's good for them.
and in anime nobody is hurt.

but I don't know, doesn't it feel wrong?


edit: ->
And that's the problem right there that animes are handled the same way as real movies. They're not the same thing, plus child porn is not fictitious... the kids actually perform the act, there's harm. It's not the same, it shouldn't be treated the same.

that's exactly what I mean

but as I said.. it still feels wrong somehow.. it feels different from playing games. I can't explain it myself and that's probably the reason why the whole situation is "blurry" ... and in my opinion you can't deny the ethical values, you can't deny them in computer games either. It's just a matter of how you see "fictive child pornography" and "fictive murder". I think most people look down one fictive child pornography a lot more than fictive murder, because it's not (yet... or probably never will except in Japan) socially "accepted". That doesn't mean "fictive murder" (at least in games and comics) is fully accepted yet, but you will surely agree with me that there is a great difference (which leads me back to the point that this whole story is "new" for the lawgiver, judge and court.


btw if it's true what darkshadow said (that there is also *real* child pornography) then we can't be sure whether he's actually charged for the loli-stuff too. Maybe it was only mentioned by the police which searched through his computer folders, that he also possess fictive material.. or that he also ordered such material from Japan and the press is making more out of it than they actually said

[Munsu]

To each his own with their ethical ideas and morals. To me the bottom line is harm against others, and that's when someone should get punished not because of different views of morality and ethics.

If we're going to start arresting people just because our moral views and values differ, then we're fucked. So, I could really care less if you, or I, or Johnny over there think kiddie cartoons are disgusting or feel wrong, if the guy is not harming anyone.

[KrayZ33]

well, maybe they think that buying fictive child phornography would support real child phornography in an indirect way.



If we're going to start arresting people just because our moral views and values differ, then we're fucked.

that's actually what happens all the time, this is why laws are different in every country
laws are made of moral views and values

IF fictive child pornography is forbidden by law in the USA, then he has to suffer the consequences... if it's not or not clear yet, then that's something else (at least in my opinion)... but I didn't follow "lolicon" discussion in matters of law.. because as I said, it's a really rare case so far... and you don't hear it often that someone will (probably.... nothing is done yet) be arrested because he ordered Lolicon stuff.

IF i'm informed correctly, nobody was arrested so far solely because he looked at lolicon material... in all cases normal child pornography was also found.

[Munsu]

well, maybe they think that buying fictive child phornography would support real child phornography in an indirect way.



that's actually what happens all the time, this is why laws are different in every country
laws are made of moral views and values

IF fictive child pornography is forbidden by law in the USA, then he has to suffer the consequences... if it's not or not clear yet, then that's something else (at least in my opinion)... but I didn't follow "lolicon" discussion in matters of law.. because as I said, it's a really rare case so far... and you don't hear it often that someone will (probably.... nothing is done yet) be arrested because he ordered Lolicon stuff.

IF i'm informed correctly, nobody was arrested so far solely because he looked at lolicon material... in all cases normal child pornography was also found.
I don't follow that type of discussion either.

And support it how? Financially? With demonstrations in support of child porn? I really could care less what people thoughts on the matter are as long as it remains private and to themselves. Drawing a bit of a tangent, you don't arrest a racists because they're racist. You punish them when they promote hate speech and things like that. So my fellow neighbor over there can be all the racist he wants to be in the comfort of his own home.

The law system is not perfect and there are plenty of unjust laws out there. For example, does this really make sense to anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genarlow_Wilson


I think I've expressed enough in this subject, I'll move on for the time being.

[darkshadow]

"You ask, What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art.

Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost."

I think that's pretty much how the supreme court thought about the matter, and I agree.

[XanBcoo]

If we're going to start arresting people just because our moral views and values differ, then we're fucked.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html


Well there's two sides to that argument. Some think that interest in comic kiddie porn will lead to real-life kiddie porn and endanger children with dick wanking at the park. Others say that comic porn is an outlet for weirdos so there's less likelihood they'll engage in real criminal behavior.
I watched a Louie Theroux documentary a while back, in which he visited a brothel. They had one girl who appeared to be about 15 years old. They agreed that the guys who went for her were the pedophiles, and it was better to indulge their fetishes safely rather than having them on the streets. Granted, that opinion comes from a group that obviously has very liberal views on sexuality, but there is some merit to the argument.

I don't think you can say in confidence one way or the other how comic child-porn will affect behaviors, and I do agree with Munsu that it's silly to punish people simply for what they might do.

[Kraco]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html

That's just child protection. It's not hard to imagine how a person with such a name would be treated out there. Why, any official would probably think he's making a lousy joke when his name is asked. This has little to do with forcing your ethics and morals on others.

However, if some pair named a tree growing in their yard Adolf Hitler, I doubt it would interest anybody, as it makes little difference to a tree what it's called.

[XanBcoo]

That's just child protection. It's not hard to imagine how a person with such a name would be treated out there. Why, any official would probably think he's making a lousy joke when his name is asked. This has little to do with forcing your ethics and morals on others.
I guess Barrack Hussein Obama's parents should have realized their naming him would someday impede his chances of becoming president of the U.S.A? He should have been taken away at birth, knowing those big meanies on Fox would make such an issue out of it.

I don't know. I brought it up because it seems to reinforce the idea that some pretty unreasonable decisions can be made with the intent of "child protection." Both my link and the story in the OP are bad examples though, because Adolph Hitler's parents were also suspected of child abuse/neglect (though really, it just seems like justification at this point), and Christopher Handley was found in possession of real child porn, so their crimes are actually beyond what is being presented.

However, I still see it as the same leap of logic. Punishment for what might occur. It's the same as banning violent video games, as Munsu said.

[Dark Dragon]

Christopher Handley was found in possession of real child porn, so their crimes are actually beyond what is being presented.

I would really like a link to the article where it said that he was in possession real child porn or are you just basing it off the comment that darkshadow made?

I have reread all 3 of the article that i linked and have seen no mention of this anywhere. I find that it's pretty ridiculous that this many people would be willing to defend him if the sentence was mainly because he had real child porn.

[Animeniax]

I guess Barrack Hussein Obama's parents should have realized their naming him would someday impede his chances of becoming president of the U.S.A? He should have been taken away at birth, knowing those big meanies on Fox would make such an issue out of it.
Silly argument, since Barack was born ~46 years ago, well before Saddam or Osama were in the news. We've had a long time to analyze Hitler's impact on history. Besides which, the parents are neo-Nazis, so they purposefully named their kid something symbolic.


I would really like a link to the article where it said that he was in possession real child porn or are you just basing it off the comment that darkshadow made?

I have reread all 3 of the article that i linked and have seen no mention of this anywhere. I find that it's pretty ridiculous that this many people would be willing to defend him if the sentence was mainly because he had real child porn.
The articles linked are puff pieces for the CBLDF, so they may not have all the facts of the case, or choose not to present them all. Of course, if they did know the facts and decided to ignore the legitimate charges and defend the guy based solely on their support of the manga, if and when the facts come to light, it will hurt their cause more than help. So maybe there was no real kiddie porn?

[XanBcoo]

I would really like a link to the article where it said that he was in possession real child porn or are you just basing it off the comment that darkshadow made?
I apologize. I assumed darkshadow had read something I hadn't (and wasn't just making shit up) but didn't bother to back it up myself :o. If it's the case that Hadley didn't have actual child porn, it just strengthens the argument against punishing people for what they might do.

Sorry for the oversight.

Off Topic/Side argument:

Silly argument, since Barack was born ~46 years ago, well before Saddam or Osama were in the news. We've had a long time to analyze Hitler's impact on history. Besides which, the parents are neo-Nazis, so they purposefully named their kid something symbolic.
Time period has nothing to do with it. I was being sarcastic earlier, but as you know, Obama's middle name was used against him in his campaign. The effects of which were minimal. Regardless of intention on behalf of the parents, naming your children is never a crime. Most civilized people will realize that it's not this kid's fault that he has the retarded name he does. Depending on how he grows up, he'll either embrace it because of his parents, learn to deal with it, or change his name completely. I don't see where the abuse comes in.

[Kraco]

Most civilized people will realize that it's not this kid's fault that he has the retarded name he does. Depending on how he grows up, he'll either embrace it because of his parents, learn to deal with it, or change his name completely. I don't see where the abuse comes in.

Unfortunately this world is not made mostly out of civilized people. So, nobody can count on such idealistic dreams. Having such a name would be a burden for the kid especially if he wanted to have nothing to do with neo-nazism. It would limit his choices by default, and that's not anything positive in this supposedly free world. Though I reckon you could argue we are taught to believe in democracy here, and that's limiting choices as well.

[Hayami]

The articles linked are puff pieces for the CBLDF, so they may not have all the facts of the case, or choose not to present them all. Of course, if they did know the facts and decided to ignore the legitimate charges and defend the guy based solely on their support of the manga, if and when the facts come to light, it will hurt their cause more than help. So maybe there was no real kiddie porn?

1:07cr030 USA v. Christopher S. Handley (http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5?OpenDocument)
" CONCLUSION
(...)
There is no dispute the images in this case do not involve real
children (...) "

I'm aware that the last post in this thread is 3 months old, but I think it was important to clarify this matter.

[Buffalobiian]

I'm aware that the last post in this thread is 3 months old, but I think it was important to clarify this matter.

Naturally. I see you signed up just to post about this matter. Welcome.

This is rather funny. Around page 5~6, it states that

-----------------------------------
"Defendant is not charged in counts one through four with mere private possession of
obscene materials. Defendant is charged in count one with receipt of obscene materials that were
transported in interstate commerce and in counts two through four with possession of obscene
materials that had been transported in interstate commerce.2 While mere possession of obscene
materials within the privacy of an individual’s own home is a right protected by the Fourth
Amendment, the zone of privacy recognized in Stanley is not unlimited.
We are not disposed to extend the precise, carefully limited holding of
Stanley to permit importation of admittedly obscene materials simply because
it is imported for private use only. To allow such a claim would be not
unlike compelling the Government to permit importation of prohibited or
controlled drugs for private consumption as long as such drugs are not for
public distribution or sale. We have already indicated that the protected right
to possess obscene material in the privacy of one’s home does not give rise to
a correlative right to have someone sell or give it to others. Nor is there any
correlative right to transport obscene material in interstate commerce."
-------------------------------------------



Basically, one has the limited right of possessing obscene material for private use, but that right does not extend to accessing this material via interstate commerce.

That's just plain weird, not to mention boring if you had to draw/make your own porn.

[shinta|hikari]

That's law for you.

[UChessmaster]

That's just plain weird, not to mention boring if you had to draw/make your own porn.

Don`t forget stupid, it`s also stupid. I can`t beleive people think we should send people in jail over what they MAY do, we may as well all go to jail.

[Yukimura]

It helps to read the entire thing...at least if you want to actually understand what's happening.

This isn't about sending someone to jail over what they may or may not do to children that may or may not exist so much as it's about sending them to jail for importing obscene materials across state lines.

Obscenity of any kind outside of the privacy of the home is considered fair game for legislation by the courts and it is illegal in most if not all states. If you read the previously posted court decision the statutes the defendant is being accused under refer specifically to obscenity. Read (18 U.S.C. § 1466A (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc18.wais&start=2499997&SIZE=7075&TYPE=TEXT) for the full law. Sections (a)(1) and (b)(1) explicitly outlaw "production, distribution, receipt, or possession with intent to distribute," of material which depicts (or appears to depict) a minor AND is obscene. The judge actually struck down as unconstitutional sections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) because they lacked an obscenity requirement and only required the material "lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;"(which happens to be 1/3rd of the standard obscenity requirement (see: Miller Test) but whatever.

If you read the whole decision what the judge basically says that "a jury has to decide if the material in question is obscene, the Court can not presume the jury's findings and dismiss the charges". If the manga is deemed obscene by a jury of 12 people from Iowa then that guy broke the law, if it's not deemed obscene then he didn't. The place the 'child' aspect comes in is in the sentencing. If he's convicted under 1466A the punishment is up to 10 years in prison and/or a fine, with the caveat that if he's been previously convicted of a sexually themed crime it becomes an automatic minimum 10 years in prison and up to 10 more AND a fine. In contrast, if he were to be tried and convicted under 1466 (the regular obscenity prohibition) the punishment would be up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine.

Constitutionally, obscenity is not a protected right so the states and federal government can make laws restricting it provided they stay in the bounds of their authority (the Fed can only legislate interstate trafficking of obscene materials for example).

[Hayami]

You've summed this case up nicely, Yukimura (nice nick, title & ava btw. ^^ )

The only remaining question is: Why has something that "taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" no merit to be protected by the Constitution.

If many people enjoy it and there's no evidence that it increases the overall risk of violation of other people's rights (or rather evidence seems to suggest the opposite (http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/12/16/japan-lags-in-loli-ban-unicef-lies-exposed/); warning: the site contains not work-safe content), why should it be a free game for ban-happy lawmakers?

Besides, why should it matter in which state the person lives if he/she imports "obscene" books only to view him/herself?
Why are some random 12 persons from your state to decide what is likely to deprave your morals (or what has sufficient artistic/scientific value to allow you to endanger your morals) ?
Why does it make a book so much more dangerous if it was imported or even merely transportated across state borders, especially in the age of Internet?

The whole concept reeks of Middle Ages' dogmatism and hopefully will be revised soon.


P.S.
Thanks for welcoming me, Buffalobiian ^_-

[Buffalobiian]

Ah, good old Sankakucomplex.

About that: Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction (http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/12/11/australia-bans-2d-loli-%E2%80%93-simpsons-parody-porn-conviction/)
[quote=This would appear to leave very little ambiguity as to the legality of loli in Australia; in the eyes of this judge, there is near to no difference between imaginary children and real ones.[/quote]

I have not done any of said illegal acts of course.

[XanBcoo]

About that: Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction (http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/12/11/australia-bans-2d-loli-%E2%80%93-simpsons-parody-porn-conviction/)
GET OUT BART IM PISS

Edit: Buff, don't google that unless you want to get convicted.

[Yukimura]

Besides, why should it matter in which state the person lives if he/she imports "obscene" books only to view him/herself?

An Excerpt from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which describes the powers of Congress.

The Congress shall have Power To....regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;...

In the case we're discussing it doesn't matter what state he lives in, it matters that the material was purchased from another nation (it could have been another state as well) thus the transaction is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Congress can restrict or regulate interstate or international commerce in any way it sees fit provided it does not violate the constitution in doing so. Restrictions on obscenity are commonly upheld as a valid exception to the First Amendment with several Supreme Court cases backing up the practice. For this reason there is no judicial issue with passing laws which restrict obscenity other than that the law employs the judicially mandated Miller Test in classifying materials as obscene.


Why are some random 12 persons from your state to decide what is likely to deprave your morals (or what has sufficient artistic/scientific value to allow you to endanger your morals) ?
Read up on the Miller vs California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California) Supreme Court decision. It is what established the 'Miller Test' and that is what requires that issues of whether something is obscene be put before a jury in the community in which the offense is being prosecuted. The alternative would be the Government having to decide on a universal standard of obscenity for everyone everywhere. The idea behind letting the jury decide is that 12 people in Iowa may have a different sense of obscenity than 12 people in Miami and this should be taken into account when judging what is obscene.


Why does it make a book so much more dangerous if it was imported or even merely transported across state borders, especially in the age of Internet?
It's not about being 'more dangerous' it's about law and jurisdiction. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over interstate and international commerce and there are Federal laws against trafficking obscene materials across state lines or into the US from abroad. For the purposes of this issue the Internet isn't treated differently than from a phone or mail service (See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996)).


The only remaining question is: Why has something that "taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" no merit to be protected by the Constitution.

The whole concept reeks of Middle Ages' dogmatism and hopefully will be revised soon.

This question essentially asks why obscenity is considered worthy of an exemption to the First Amendment (albeit poorly worded) which is a question still debated in legal circles today. Looking at the other commonly upheld exceptions: "Defamation, Causing panic, Fighting words, Incitement to crime, and Sedition" it would appear that the purpose of exemptions to free speech protection is to give Congress leeway to prevent speech that would or could very likely cause harm to individuals. Unfortunately what constitutes 'harm' is a pretty gray area but with legal matters the more often the same interpretation is reached the stronger that interpretation becomes entrenched as precedent. If the courts ever change gears and decide that there's no harm in not regulating obscenity (fat chance) or there's not enough harm in not regulating obscenity to warrant exempting if from the first amendment protection (maybe but again, not likely) then perhaps anti-obscenity laws will be struck down but fat chance of that happening while there are still monotheistic religions and parents in this country.

Personally I would agree that obscenity laws are outdated and in my opinion overly restrictive but I don't believe that the Founding Fathers put much thought into establishing looking at things other people might not want to see as a 'right' of citizens. I wouldn't look to the courts for much support on this issue beyond the Miller test which at least gives the final say on what is 'obscene', and thus exempt from the First Amendment, directly to the people rather than to the Government.

If people don't like these laws they can and should try to elect officials who will change or repeal them. It is not the role of the courts to legislate, only to keep the legislature from overstepping its Constitutional bounds. Though realistically the idea of Congress voluntarily over turning or relaxing any anti-obscenity legislation almost laughable. It would likely amount to political suicide for anyone who supported it. There is no tenable way to convince parents and social conservatives that 'obscene things' should require anything short of a Herculean effort to obtain even if they must be legal to possess under the constitution. I doubt that Congress will ever be populated by enough individuals capable of ignoring the family values and social conservative voting blocks to ever relax any obscenity standards

[Hayami]

>.<

I've the feeling I'm in the wrong film or something >.>

I didn't mean to ask how is it technically possible to prohibit import or interstate transportation of any item/matter into/inside US. The meaning of my question was: Does it make sense to create a crime of transportation of obscene books even though there's no sufficient evidence of any harm?

Further, I know that anything that's deemed "obscene" is seen by the courts as something that doesn't deserve to be protected. I just ask whether it's right, fair, and serves any good purpose at all to do so.

Obviously I know what's Miller Test. Obviously a direct regulation through the government would be even worse. Does it mean that a jury has the ethical right to judge someone based on Miller Test?

Law and jurisdiction usually make sense. OK, let's say, "often" make sense. Again, I'm not asking how is it technically possible to prohibit something or punish for something. I'm asking whether it makes sense from ethical point of view, all affected parties considered.

Regarding your "other exceptions": the most of them involve either targeting of a real person (Defamation, Fighting words) or tangible harm (Causing panic, Incitement to crime). Sedition seems to be a more tricky subject, but even in this case there's an intent to encourage obviously harmful acts. A book that's deemed "obscene" doesn't necessary encourage any acts. We all know that the vast majority of manga fans can separate fantasy from reality. So called "obscene" manga aren't "instruction books" but just a erotic variety of entertainment that features tabu topics. There's no victim here and no tangible harmful sequences (unless people are dragged into reading/looking against their will).

Anyway, sadly I must agree with your pessimistic prediction. I just think that the very majority that tries to (forcefully) uphold public morals will pay for their injustice one way or another. For example, it's ironic that sexuality-related profanity becomes more and more common, even the upholders of morals resort to it.

[Yukimura]

If all you were asking was whether it made sense ethically then I'd have to say it depends on what perspective you look at it from like most ethical matters. If one believes in absolute liberty unless it directly affects another's liberty then it doesn't make sense to make it completely illegal to transport obscene materials across state lines. Requiring that precautions be taken to ensure no one who's not supposed to see the materials sees them should be sufficient to protect people from seeing things they don't want to. However laws are not required to make rational sense provided they don't cause too much public dissent or infringe on rights. Public fears, whether unfounded or not, represent a legitimate concern that the Government can address. Gambling and prostitution, for example, are two activities which don't seem to represent a direct danger to society, however public fear of what that they might lead to if legally allowed to occur is strong enough that they are generally illegal and there is relatively little support for changing that.

Back when these practices were first outlawed it was the church that represented the absolute moral authority and the church provided absolute meanings for terms like 'good' and 'bad' and once you know what is 'good and what is 'bad' it seems easy to justify restricting 'bad' things as a 'good' thing. We've since shaken off many of the irrational bases for definitions that religion often leans on but we're still stuck with many socially accepted and supported rules that require an unreasonable absolute morality in order to be considered reasonable by the metric of 'serving the community'.

[Kraco]

Gambling and prostitution, for example, are two activities which don't seem to represent a direct danger to society, however public fear of what that they might lead to if legally allowed to occur is strong enough that they are generally illegal and there is relatively little support for changing that.

I don't know about gambling, but prostitution has been allowed and unallowed in many places over the history, and generally speaking human trade and otherwise forcing women into the trade (pimping) by various means are problems of hard evidence. Still, I agree with you that denying the right to sell yourself or to buy services directly from the prostitute are going beyond the exact scope of that evidence, in my opinion.

The counter argument has generally been that outlawing prostitution will take the activity completely underground, making the position of the women far more dangerous and thus the social disturbance even worse.

However, I don't really see the mafia getting into lolicon doujin distribution...

[David75]

However, I don't really see the mafia getting into lolicon doujin distribution...

If there's a market, and the mafia spots it, you never know...

[Yukimura]

Sorry for the lack of clarity, I have only been talking about America (and to some extent Britain) when mentioning things like the past or society since we were discussing a legal case in America. As to prostitution we came to the same conclusion, that one person making a clear headed choice to sell access to their body to another person making the clear headed choice to purchase it does not seem to harm either party in any objective way. But I would have to disagree with you that the fact that prostitution can be exploiited in a harmful way is the fault of the practice and thus is an acceptable cause for outlawing the practice completely. I would readily admit that prostitution can indirectly harm an individual but I would assert that such harm can only come about if other (American) laws are broken in the process. As far as I know to force or coerce someone over 18 to do something against their will is illegal (in America), thus anyone forcing or coercing women to do something against their will would be guilty of a crime (in America) regardless of if they were being forced to be prostitutes, or participate in a 'human hunt', or even to play board games with little kids.

My overall point is that just because an activity might be involved in some way with activities which are deemed harmful and/or illegal is not be a reasonable excuse for outlawing that activity. As further evidence of this point I would draw attention to other examples of activities which are legal (in America) but can have harmful consequences on society if abused.

Drinking alcohol is perfectly legal in the United States if you are of age. However, driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is illegal and for good reason as there is plenty of evidence that this activity correlates to vehicular fatalities. Smoking is another activity which is permitted if one is of age however it is becoming more and more apparent that it can lead to cancer. When you look at the fact that smoking and drinking, which are strongly linked to causing/expediting death, are legal for anyone of a certain age (in America) but public displays or transactions involving obscenity or prostitution are both illegal in most areas (of America) one must wonder what underlying message the law is sending. One rather simplistic interpretation would be that (in America) the death of members of society is considered less harmful than the existence of people who have experianced or participated in some sort of sexual depravity. If this were true there would be no contradiction in the laws outlawing obscenity as well as activities which might further obscenity.

[Sapphire]

Tokyo bill on 'Virtual' Child Porn (http://kotaku.com/5489823/proposed-virtual-child-porn-law-trucking-along) Set for March Vote (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-03-09/tokyo-bill-on-virtual-child-porn-set-for-march-vote)

A lot of mangakas come out of the woodworks to protest this (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-03-15/creators-decry-tokyo-proposed-virtual-child-porn-ban)

[Buffalobiian]

Great. What, is Australia a trend-setter now? First it's rationed internet, now this?