Man Gets 20 Years In Prison For Purchasing Manga

[Foggle]

I'm speechless.

Great article written by everyone's favorite manga editor.  I will promptly donate to the CBLDF as soon as I can obtain a bit of money.

[ElricJC]

Fucking hell, that's my state O.o;;

I forget sometimes how conservative people can be around here.  I need to find out where this trial is being held specifically.  I doubt I can do much more than donate to the fund, even if I am here, but good lord this is just pathetic.

[Poey]

Yeah, I heard about this... ridiculous it is.

[R Kenshin]

i saw this on animenewsnetwork. hopefully they give us an update on the situation soon. However, I know I didn't do anything about it so i cannot complain.

[Maverick375]

I didn't see it listed in the story. What Manga was it, and what did the frames contain? How did they know what was in it?

You see this kind of thing all the time over the Second Amendment, but i'm leaning towards something a bit less serious here (for everyone except the poor guy who it's happening to, that is).

If the manga contained images that would qualify as child pornography, either on the state or federal levels, the guy is toast. In fact, I'm leaning in that direction. Whether that image meets the definition properly, as opposed to say Ropponmatsu II (which could even be argued at times), is the defining issue. Even if he didn't know it was in the manga, he's still responsible for possessing it.

Lets be perfectly honest here. The facts aren't being reported in full. Until you know the full scope of the details, it's pointless to worry about infringement of rights.

And for any of you with any huffing about what the cops can and cannot nail you for... If you have any ROMS or CD images without the originals, unpaid-for MP3's, or VHS recorded NFL games, you're breaking the law, and can be nailed for it if the cops search your home for anything else. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

My guess is the guy was reading it in a place where someone got offended at the content, they called the cops, likely saying it's kiddie porn, and no judge will refuse a warrant for kiddie porn.
Again, the guy's defense depends on the definition of the content. This has nothing to do with "objectionable material" as it's normally dealt with in American released comics or manga.
You can't show breaking glass in a comic that is released in Canada, or so I'm told. If such a comic were imported via individual purchase, rather than distribution, the law has been broken, and you can be held legally responsible. It's just the way import laws work.

[Rika-chama]

Oh boy let's hope the fbi doesn't ever find my computer  :il_hahaha:

but seriously even if the guy does have some form of lolicon/shota last time I checked drawn images were okay.  I mean why wouldn't they be?  I wish they would actually report what the guy had instead of jumping around the subject like that.

[ElricJC]

Another article I read stated that he had a number of lolicon and graphic Yaoi manga.  I say so what, they're just drawings.

[AScannerDarkly]

lolicon incest guro vore in MY Iowa? It's more likely than you think.

[Foggle]

lolicon incest guro vore in MY Iowa? It's more likely than you think.

Why would that be outlawed?  Shit is so cash.

[AScannerDarkly]

I forget sometimes how conservative people can be around here. 

I don't doubt that democrats would ban anything depicting coitus with disemboweled infants either

[SWamP]

World is a weird place...

[E^D Crow]

The point is, it doesn't matter what the images are; they are works of art, and no actual person could have possibly been harmed in their creation.  Whether it was yaoi, or lolicon, or whatever, it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that there was no actual crime taking place by simply owning the art, and if the courts rule against him, there will be the creation of a new, unjust law.

If he was openly displaying it out in public, that would be a totally different story.  Simply owning artwork that someone else finds "questionable" or "obscene" is not a crime.  This is completely different from a pedophile with kiddie porn, where a living person was abused in the creation of the picture.  Owning such a thing is perpetuating abuse of children.  Owning a manga with some lolicon themes, even if it is explicit, causes harm to no one.

The whole thing is absurd.  I'll gladly donate to this cause.

E^d

[AScannerDarkly]

The whole thing is absurd.  I'll gladly donate to this cause.

You'll have a lot on your hands. Some lobby group (a democrat one, by the way) got the legal line drawn at anything depicting sex with a minor or minors in sexual situations. I believe some states have a "13 or older" rule for drawn material.

And no matter what, a jury is going to get angry seeing artwork depicting incest/guro/lolicon type stuff, the same way the second amendment goes out the window when someone shows up in KKK gear. That's just the way it is. I'm actually sure this is the very reason the CBLDF isn't telling us what exactly the guy had.

Am I the only one that thinks this guys plight is just a little bit funny? A guy cant settle for having to use the internet to see quadruple amputee newborns being raped, he has to import the actual manga itself and then gets v& for all of his trouble.

[Foggle]

Am I the only one that thinks this guys plight is just a little bit funny? A guy cant settle for having to use the internet to see quadruple amputee newborns being raped, he has to import the actual manga itself and then gets v& for all of his trouble.

Well, actually, it's hilarious.  But in case I ever want to buy a hard copy of the babyfuck manga, I'll be donating to the cause.

[Maverick375]

and if the courts rule against him, there will be the creation of a new, unjust law.

Welcome to the US legal system. If you're not a criminal now, we'll fix that.
  I don't think such a law is just, particularly in the case of art. Maybe the lawyers can dig up a few San Fran area rulings to help this out. The problem is that this isn't a constitutional matter, as it would be for some form of press or free speech. Art isn't covered, so it's state law issue. As we know, those can vary quite a bit and depend heavily on previous cases.
The argument for drawings being different than photos is good. Where is the defining line between art and porn? If a single page in question had been blown up to 18"x36" and hung on a wall, would the content even be in question?

We really do need more info in this to make a better analysis.