I'm speechless. (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/editorial/2008-12-11/christopher-handley/carl-horn)
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.
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.
Yeah, I heard about this... ridiculous it is.
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.
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.
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.
Another article I read stated that he had a number of lolicon and graphic Yaoi manga. I say so what, they're just drawings.
lolicon incest guro vore in MY Iowa? It's more likely than you think.
Quote from: AScannerDarkly on December 18, 2008, 12:49:11 AM
lolicon incest guro vore in MY Iowa? It's more likely than you think.
Why would that be outlawed? Shit is so cash.
Quote from: ElricJC on December 14, 2008, 03:00:46 PM
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
World is a weird place...
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
Quote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
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.
Quote from: AScannerDarkly on December 20, 2008, 04:00:05 AM
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.
Quoteand 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.
Quote from: Maverick375 on December 21, 2008, 01:32:35 AM
Maybe the lawyers can dig up a few San Fran area rulings to help this out.
San Fran isn't the same place it was ten years ago. The welfare gobbling hordes of oakland/hayward have spilled out across the bay, and prop 8 showed us who's REALLY keeping the gay man down (here's a hint: it's not the white middle class).
Quote from: Foggle on December 20, 2008, 08:12:55 AM
Quote from: AScannerDarkly on December 20, 2008, 04:00:05 AM
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.
:il_hahaha: I have it downloaded on my computer.
Anyways I really don't see the problem with owning something drawn. No one was hurt in the making of it and all the guro/loli/shota people I know would NEVER do anything to real little kids. In case they haven't noticed anime kids look nothing like real kids. I just hope the fbi doesn't bust open my dorm door and find all my guro :h_embarassed:
This is seriously far out, i might have to support this case, it's just too much...
Quote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
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.
"new" as in 6 years ago?
US Supreme Court Protect Act of 2003:
Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
Quote from: AScannerDarkly on January 26, 2009, 04:02:10 AM
Quote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
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.
"new" as in 6 years ago?
US Supreme Court Protect Act of 2003:
Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
So the feds could bust in my door one day and arrest me for all the guro and other weird sh*t I have on my computer? That law is stupid. No one gets hurt when it is drawn and fictional. Books like Lolita are out there but the minute it gets turned into pictures people start freaking out.
Quote from: Rika-chama on January 26, 2009, 05:23:55 PM
Quote from: AScannerDarkly on January 26, 2009, 04:02:10 AM
Quote from: E^D Crow on December 19, 2008, 06:41:33 PM
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.
"new" as in 6 years ago?
US Supreme Court Protect Act of 2003:
Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that–
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
So the feds could bust in my door one day and arrest me for all the guro and other weird sh*t I have on my computer? That law is stupid. No one gets hurt when it is drawn and fictional. Books like Lolita are out there but the minute it gets turned into pictures people start freaking out.
Thank the feminists and their anti-porn crusade.
What, you thought conservatives were responsible? Think again.
Quote from: ElricJC on December 17, 2008, 03:42:12 PM
Another article I read stated that he had a number of lolicon and graphic Yaoi manga. I say so what, they're just drawings.
i agree with you, but the problem is, they say: "if you look at child porn drawings (lolicon) obviously your a child molestor"
heres a relevant topic
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/90239-Police-Say-Adults-Shouldnt-Own-Animal-Crossing
eh its the general gist of it all, its not the full story, which i cant seem to find.
but it still tells you all you need to know, its quite humorous really how people overreact about something so stupid
I just think the guy's misfortune is funny as hell
The accused recently pled guilty to his charges and is yet to be sentenced.
Probably not all his decision though - I smell an incompetent defence attorney unwilling to fight.
All this over drawings.. :lordilvryannoyed:
Update at Sankaku Complex. (http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/05/26/american-guilty-of-loli-manga-possession-faces-15-years/)
Quote from: AScannerDarkly on December 20, 2008, 04:00:05 AM
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.
Personally, I think that notion of a 13 or older rule for drawn material is pointless as all the author has to do is stick an "age 18" in the corner of the picture of the 8 year old they've drawn.
Quote from: Rika-chama on January 26, 2009, 05:23:55 PM
So the feds could bust in my door one day and arrest me for all the guro and other weird sh*t I have on my computer? That law is stupid. No one gets hurt when it is drawn and fictional. Books like Lolita are out there but the minute it gets turned into pictures people start freaking out.
Are you seriously comparing Lolita to child guro porn? I'm not an arts student or anything but i'd argue that the intended target audiences and the responses the creators are trying for are fairly dissimilar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Style_and_interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Style_and_interpretation) vs lets be honest about the majority of doujins, shameless wank material.
One of the main problems I have with the original ANN article is that the author seemed to be jumping to the defence simply because it was manga the guy was reading. I honestly don't get the people who like anime because it's anime regardless of whats going on in it. For example I'm a massive fan of Gantz, but couldn't really care less about say, digimon or one piece, largely because they're kids shows, but you get guys on message boards getting excited over anything because it came from japan. Personally, I see it more of a format than a genre (although obviously there are a lot of common anime tropes but I think that's more to do with differences in cultural attitude. This is a bit of a tangent so I'll stop that point and debate it another time). It does lead me to wonder if the author would have given a flying fuck about the case if it was, for example, Simpsons porn.
And whos to say drawings aren't harmful? I don't think you can just make absolute blanket statements like that. Certainly not directly to an individual child, but frankly I'm not comfortable with anything sexualising children like that. Turning (fictional) children into sex objects can and has lead people to an interest in actual child porn or god forbid finding actual children sexually attractive, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing.
As for the obvious debate of what constitutes art and what constitutes porn, as well as debate over whether cartoon child porn is ok, this thread I found whilst lurking seems to cover a lot pretty nicely http://www.cracked.com/forums/index.php?topic=41309.0 (http://www.cracked.com/forums/index.php?topic=41309.0)
well child porn is not ok and all.
but seriously how old were all of you before you got naked in front of the opposite sex for sexual purposes.
and how old when you lost your virginity (you dont have to tell me of course)
personally i was 16, the girl was my age.
i also had her nude pictures in my phone back then.
so even though i was underage i also was in possession of underage pictures.
i no longer have these pictures but still, i think the rule is a little out of hand. if i had those pictures at my age i wouldnt get in trouble.
however if i still had those pictures at my current age, 22 i'd get in trouble for kiddie porn.
ironic right?