U.S. Manga Obscenity Conviction Roils Comics World

[MessiahDecoy123]

Please. There is a different between drawn teenage sex and drawn CHILD sex. This article clearly referred to the latter.

While drawing child sex is worse than drawing teenage sex it cannot be said that once the former is made illegal then the latter won't also be made illegal. Using laws to legislate ideas is a slippery slope.

The two sorta go hand in hand. Trying to combat the idea of child rape and child sexual abuse helps protect children from being sexually exploiting.

All that being said, my inner-libertarian is cautious to support the actions taken here. This is a case where I face an inner conflict between political ideals and morality.

I sense a double standard. While it is morally reprehensible to murder children, few suggest it should be illegal to draw or even film the depiction of a child being violently murdered.

Why is it ok to draw a child being brutally murdered but not ok to draw a child being sexual? Not that I endorse the latter just asking why the double standard.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't understand why anyone would even argue this. It's disgusting.

Because censorship is a slippery slope.

You start with illustrations of child sex and you end up censoring illustrations of murder or adult sodomy.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

Because censorship is a slippery slope.

You start with illustrations of child sex and you end up censoring illustrations of murder or adult sodomy.

That makes no sense. Just because something can potentially be censored doesn't mean we shouldn't be censoring the **** that should be, uh, censored.

 

[Milu]

Great, now we're gonna have a bunch of ignorant socker moms claiming that all manga/anime is child pornography.
:facepalm

 

[Addendum]

When I read a novel and a character dies, I don't think "holy ****, the author just murdered someone". I certainly don't think the creators behind these mangas are ****ing kids whenever they make a comic that has it taking place.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

I can understand if such a horrible act affects the storyline in some way, but even then, there is no reason whatsoever that something like that should be shown. A reference? Okay. Showing it? Unnecessary and disgusting. There's no reason for it.

 

[Addendum]

There no reason for me to read it either. But I'm not going to prevent another person from reading it if they've decided to.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

That makes no sense. Just because something can potentially be censored doesn't mean we shouldn't be censoring the **** that should be, uh, censored.

What should and shouldn't be censored is a matter of opinion. Some people feel adult sodomy or brutal murder should never be illustrated. Who's to say they are right or wrong?

Photographs typically require an actual child which is the concrete reason it should be illegal. Drawings don't harm anyone. The argument that it encourages abuse of a child can be used toward any illegal activity illustrated by someone. Why is it legal to draw the brutal murder of a child? Doesn't that encourage the brutal murder of a child by sick individuals?

 

[Shemtov]

Ceci n'est pas Child porn:
The manga is not child porn.
It is a drawing of child porn.
In fact it is a printed copy of a drawing of child porn.
See Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art by scott Mccloud.

 

[terry78]

 

[BlackLantern]

check their IDs...

 

[Heretic]

Terry...Im fairly sure those characters are over 18.

Plus, that scene is a part of a much larger story.

Again, for me it comes down to context. If its a 20 page scene of an adult and a child having sex, then THE END, then there is no purpose other than to titillate with the thought of having sex with a child.

Ive never understood the talk of "whos the hottest marvel U character, Mary Jane or Spider-Woman?" or whatever...but when an adult answers that question with "nether, its Franklin Richards" then they have issues...and I would say that they represent a threat to society. Im not one to call out the thought police, but when those thoughts are about endangering a minor then I can redraw the line a bit.

*Note, unless they were joking.

 

[gap5ewl]

edit-didn't read the whole thing nm

 

[terry78]

I know they're over 18. That was just a visual gag.

 

[Addendum]

Terry...Im fairly sure those characters are over 18.

Plus, that scene is a part of a much larger story.

Again, for me it comes down to context. If its a 20 page scene of an adult and a child having sex, then THE END, then there is no purpose other than to titillate with the thought of having sex with a child.

Ive never understood the talk of "whos the hottest marvel U character, Mary Jane or Spider-Woman?" or whatever...but when an adult answers that question with "nether, its Franklin Richards" then they have issues...and I would say that they represent a threat to society. Im not one to call out the thought police, but when those thoughts are about endangering a minor then I can redraw the line a bit.

*Note, unless they were joking.

If someone thinks the fictional character of Franklin Richards is hot, I don't care.

 

[StorminNorman]

This is just me, but I say if something is setting off your morality alarm, you can put your political party on the back-burner for it.

It's nothing about political party and all about political ideology. It's a split between my emotional stance on the issue and logical stance on the issue.

While drawing child sex is worse than drawing teenage sex it cannot be said that once the former is made illegal then the latter won't also be made illegal. Using laws to legislate ideas is a slippery slope.

And slippery slopes is a logical fallacy. This ruling only has to do with children (as in pre-teen). As you said, it's near impossible to differentiate between an 18 year old girl and a 15 year old girl in the world of anime - as such, there would naturally be more leniency there.

I sense a double standard. While it is morally reprehensible to murder children, few suggest it should be illegal to draw or even film the depiction of a child being violently murdered.

Why is it ok to draw a child being brutally murdered but not ok to draw a child being sexual? Not that I endorse the latter just asking why the double standard.

Because this is America, and that's our culture. You can argue with the logic of it all you want, but that doesn't change that fact.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

****ing ******ed. Why didn't they go after the makers of that movie Brooke Shields did full frontal nudity in when she was like, what, twelve? I wanna say the name was Baby something.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i wish we were given some sort of context of what was going on in these books.

 

[Heretic]

If someone thinks the fictional character of Franklin Richards is hot, I don't care.

And if Franklin Richards is used in NAMBLA propaganda as a tool to titillate those who would molest, and actually do petition to molest children?

 

[Majic Walrus]

Child pornography is child pornography - drawn or not. And it's sick. There's really no excuse for having material like that in your possession.

I disagree. The crime of child pornography should be designed to protect the children involved, NOT censor material. Child pornography is horrible because it hurts children... This does NOT hurt children in the least so it's not the same.

As much as I agree with everything you said...if the comics in question show random sex acts with children...then there is NO reason to read it other than titillation. I understand that sometimes a brutal story must be told...and Im all for telling it. I think that theres a young actress filming a movie where she is raped and its causing controversy...but as long as it has some sort of artistic merit then Im okay with it. just showing a series of child porn scenes will ONLY appeal to people who want to rape children.

There has to be a way to protect the first amendment AND deal with people who have an interest in that stuff.

And like i said, I donate regularly to the CBLDF. so its not like I take a stand against them lightly

Titillation wasn't illegal the last time I checked and neither were personal demons or personal thoughts. I'd much rather someone continue to want to rape kids than to actually act on it.

The two sorta go hand in hand. Trying to combat the idea of child rape and child sexual abuse helps protect children from being sexually exploiting.

All that being said, my inner-libertarian is cautious to support the actions taken here. This is a case where I face an inner conflict between political ideals and morality.

Dude doesn't your inner-Libertarian scream: "Holy ****! Thoughts aren't illegal so we shouldn't be doing **** to control the minds of people!"

That's what mine says.

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
- - (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
- - (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
- - (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

The article explains the legal definition quite well actually but the legal definition can, and I believe, should be changed.

Just because something is obscene shouldn't make it illegal. I don't own any material like that but I don't care if anyone else wants to own it - remember we even aren't talking about photorealistic images of young teens it's black and white line drawings like all manga.

The Protect Act is a joke - there is no definitive level of abuse to it - it's based on opinion. How a Law can exist when you can never be sure if you are breaking it is insanity. Is Alan Moore's Lost Girls, Neil Gaiman's Sandman: Doll's House now illegal child pornography?

Importantly, there is no victim in the publication of this material.

The next stage is depicting acts of violence to be made illegal - after all killing someone is illegal so shouldn't drawing images of it also be ._.

All of this is 100% correct.

It's not porn.

It doesn't look real.

It's all based on opinion about what is "obscene" or not which as we all know can vary greatly.

If this can be illegal then so can thoughts and you'd better not think about anything wrong or a thoughtbullet will come and make your day double plus ungood.

 

[terry78]

Off topic, but you ever seen that movie My Father, the Hero? Yeah, with Gerald Depardieu and Katherine Heigl playing his daughter. She has a scene where she's walking around in a thong and she's only like 14 years old at the time. No one batted an eye.

 

[DareDemon]

As much as I agree with everything you said...if the comics in question show random sex acts with children...then there is NO reason to read it other than titillation. I understand that sometimes a brutal story must be told...and Im all for telling it. I think that theres a young actress filming a movie where she is raped and its causing controversy...but as long as it has some sort of artistic merit then Im okay with it. just showing a series of child porn scenes will ONLY appeal to people who want to rape children.

There has to be a way to protect the first amendment AND deal with people who have an interest in that stuff.

And like i said, I donate regularly to the CBLDF. so its not like I take a stand against them lightly

Obviously, raping children is a terrible thing. However, being a pedophile is not illegal and never was. And it shouldn't be, as disgusting as it is. ACTING upon a sexual interest in a child, such as having photographs, rape, etc. is what is illegal.

This is just stupid. No real children were harmed, no real children were being photographed, nothing even happened. I don't like manga and I think pedophilia is one of the creepiest things in existence. But this guy shouldn't be in jail.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I hate peedo's, but I wouldn't class this guy as a peedo just for looking at a manga.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Off topic, but you ever seen that movie My Father, the Hero? Yeah, with Gerald Depardieu and Katherine Heigl playing his daughter. She has a scene where she's walking around in a thong and she's only like 14 years old at the time. No one batted an eye.

Yeah. Same with the movie Salo, an Italian film, the topic and plot of the movie is about 4 men in Fascist Italy who kidnap several children boys and girls aged 14-17 to engage in increasingly deviant and perverse sexual activity. The 14-17 year olds are PLAYED by 14-17 year olds. There's no penetration and the sexual activites that are commited are "simulated" but still these are real actors and this movie is a-Okay.

I found it for sale at a local FYE.

I find that because it is done without ANY sexual activity and for an artistic perpose with written consent from the parents it's okay though... I just thought I'd bring it up.

 

[The Lizard]

It's not porn.

It doesn't look real.

In all fairness, pornography did exist before photography was invented. Drawings and paintings that were made for the purpose of personal sexual titillation were still pornography by definition, regardless of how realistic the art may have been.

So manga porn is still porn -- it's just porn that doesn't use real people in its production (except maybe when models are used as source material perhaps?).

I'm honestly torn on this subject. I know for a fact that there's a lot of manga and other drawn porn out there that does indeed focus on sex and rape of pre-adolescent children. This disgusts me, as does the prospect that some artist is getting paid to think this stuff up and draw it.
However, if someone owns this crap, you can't prosecute them for what crimes you think they might do in the future, which is what this is really about.

I just wish there was some kind of chemical that we could put in the water that would alter the brains of pedophiles so there wouldn't be a market for this stuff anymore. (Yes, slippery slope alert, I know.)