Man Gets 20 Years In Prison For Purchasing Manga

[AScannerDarkly]

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).

[Rika-chama]

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.

  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   

[MincyMatsu]

This is seriously far out, i might have to support this case, it's just too much...

[AScannerDarkly]

  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.

[Rika-chama]

  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.

[AScannerDarkly]

  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.

[Squeezit]

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

[AScannerDarkly]

I just think the guy's misfortune is funny as hell

[Lord Il]

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..

Update at Sankaku Complex.

[Jinzaki]

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.

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 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
 

[Squeezit]

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?