Lolicon equal child pornography?

[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..._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..._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 . 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

" 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 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; 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
[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

GET OUT BART IM PISS

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