U.S. Manga Obscenity Conviction Roils Comics World

[Majic Walrus]

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?).

Okay, I concede that manga can be porn.

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.)

It is disgusting and disturbing but mind control is out of the question right.

We're nearly brainwashed every day as it is by marketers and politicians and religions. What you're talking about is direct changing of what someone thinks when we deem it wrong.

Why don't we just put stuff in the water that calms people down and makes them peaceful. (Serenity) Or maybe we could force them to take pills that remove their passions and emotions. (Equilibrium) What about a series of forced medications to make people feel what we want them to feel. (THX 1138 - Full Length)

I don't think it's a good idea and movies agree.

 

[The Lizard]

Why don't we just put stuff in the water that calms people down and makes them peaceful. (Serenity) Or maybe we could force them to take pills that remove their passions and emotions. (Equilibrium) What about a series of forced medications to make people feel what we want them to feel. (THX 1138 - Full Length)

Yeah, I know. Slippery slope.

But just for argument's sake, the mind-altering goals in those fictional examples you gave were vague and nebulous (what constitutes a "peaceful" person, for example?).

However, true pedophilia - the sexual attraction to a child who has not reached sexual maturity and lacks secondary sex characteristics - is an easily defined and identifiable mental aberration. It is an aberration that is actively sought out for eradication and "curing". Plus, the activity itself is illegal and, unlike anti-homosexuality "blue laws", the laws against pedophile behavior will remain since it actually victimizes and damages those involved.

The hypothetical removal of pedo desires would not change a person for the worse if that was the only thing that was modified, right?

 

[Addendum]

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?

I'm more concerned about the molestation of REAL children. And like I've said earlier, he's not a real person, nor is any of the characters in the various hentai animes and manga.

If someone get an erection because they saw a picture of the fictional character Franklin Richards, I don't care. Marvel might care simply because of copyright laws, since it's a character they own.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Yeah, I know. Slippery slope.

But just for argument's sake, the mind-altering goals in those fictional examples you gave were vague and nebulous (what constitutes a "peaceful" person, for example?).

However, true pedophilia - the sexual attraction to a child who has not reached sexual maturity and lacks secondary sex characteristics - is an easily defined and identifiable mental aberration. It is an aberration that is actively sought out for eradication and "curing". Plus, the activity itself is illegal and, unlike anti-homosexuality "blue laws", the laws against pedophile behavior will remain since it actually victimizes and damages those involved.

The hypothetical removal of pedo desires would not change a person for the worse if that was the only thing that was modified, right?

Wrong. It would change them.

Dealing with so called "aberrations" is part of life. If it is possible to "Delete" this mental aberration then it would be possible to delete other mental aberrations. Addictions for instance could be destroyed, memories, even feelings for someone could be changed if we wanted to.

Furthermore I'll remind you all of the Batman is always right principle and tell you guys to read some comic books.

Changing someone who's bad against their will isn't good, it's just bad for goodness sake and that's still bad.

 

[The Lizard]

Wrong. It would change them.

Dealing with so called "aberrations" is part of life. If it is possible to "Delete" this mental aberration then it would be possible to delete other mental aberrations. Addictions for instance could be destroyed, memories, even feelings for someone could be changed if we wanted to.

Furthermore I'll remind you all of the Batman is always right principle and tell you guys to read some comic books.

Well, Batman aside, aren't we actively trying to 'delete' all sorts of metal aberrations like Alzheimer's and schizophrenia already? If there was some chemical or injection that would eliminate all possibility of harmful mental illnesses (like pedophilia), wouldn't everyone in the world benefit from it?

Of course, I'm putting aside the fact that environment can play a role in warping people as well, since many abusive pedophiles were themselves abused as kids. There's really no solution to that but to try and undo the damage.

On a separate note, I don't know that I agree that we all just have to "live" with every form of mental deviation just because some of these forms (homosexuality, for example) are harmless and considered a regularly reoccurring part of human identity. As much potential injustice as there is in fictional genetically-engineered worlds seen in movies like Gattaca (which I love, BTW), if there was a simple in-vitro procedure to guarantee that your future child would not be a pedophile or criminally insane, wouldn't you consider it? I know I would have to give it some thought.

 

[StorminNorman]

****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.

This isn't simply an issue of naked children depicted in this pictures - but sexual violence, beastiality and what not. It's different.

I believe it's technically not illegal to portray a nude child in a photo or film as long as there is nothing sexual - I could be wrong.

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.

As I have said previously in this thread, it does - big time. I am split on this issue, big time.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

This isn't simply an issue of naked children depicted in this pictures - but sexual violence, beastiality and what not. It's different.

I believe it's technically not illegal to portray a nude child in a photo or film as long as there is nothing sexual - I could be wrong.

As far as I've read, you're correct.

I know it's not an issue of a drawing of just a naked child, but nonetheless, as another user said- it's not a real child, and unless it's representative of an actual living child (which could be hard to prove in its own right, if that's the case), I don't believe that it should be subject to the same standards as actual child pornography. These are just lines on paper- they're not harming or threatening anyone (again, unless they're representing an actual living child), and if it does cause harm (by seeing it, I would assume), don't look at it.

 

[The Battousai]

Just to be clear, I didn't post the legal info for any reason other than to inform.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Well, Batman aside, aren't we actively trying to 'delete' all sorts of metal aberrations like Alzheimer's and schizophrenia already? If there was some chemical or injection that would eliminate all possibility of harmful mental illnesses (like pedophilia), wouldn't everyone in the world benefit from it?

I don't think that Alzheimer's and schizophrenia are the same kind of mental illness.

Of course, I'm putting aside the fact that environment can play a role in warping people as well, since many abusive pedophiles were themselves abused as kids. There's really no solution to that but to try and undo the damage.

On a separate note, I don't know that I agree that we all just have to "live" with every form of mental deviation just because some of these forms (homosexuality, for example) are harmless and considered a regularly reoccurring part of human identity. As much potential injustice as there is in fictional genetically-engineered worlds seen in movies like Gattaca (which I love, BTW), if there was a simple in-vitro procedure to guarantee that your future child would not be a pedophile or criminally insane, wouldn't you consider it? I know I would have to give it some thought.

That is a good movie.

What if there were a wt to eradicate disease and create a race of perfect people. Oh have you seen the movie WW2? Wait... that was real?

Really though, Eugenics and genetic manipulation aren't the answers. Rehabilitation and care are the answers.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Just to be clear, I didn't post the legal info for any reason other than to inform.

i see.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I recently read Kristen Stewart could quite possibly be appearing nude in an upcoming movie (called Welcome to the Rileys). In it, she apparently plays a sixteen-year old stripper.

Child porn? She's portraying a minor in a sexual manner- just like the manga.

 

[The Lizard]

I recently read Kristen Stewart could quite possibly be appearing nude in an upcoming movie (called Welcome to the Rileys). In it, she apparently plays a sixteen-year old stripper.

Child porn? She's portraying a minor in a sexual manner- just like the manga.

Another example of this is the 1992 film The Lover, where 19 year-old actress Jane March played a 15 year-old girl in several explicit sex scenes that went far beyond stripping. Arguably exploitive, but legal.

Regardless of those movies, the depiction of a 15 or 16 year-old is not the same as the truly sick pre-pubescent small child pedophile garbage seen in certain manga books.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Another example of this is the 1992 film The Lover, where 19 year-old actress Jane March played a 15 year-old girl in several explicit sex scenes that went far beyond stripping. Arguably exploitive, but legal.

Regardless of those movies, the depiction of a 15 or 16 year-old is not the same as the truly sick pre-pubescent small child pedophile garbage seen in certain manga books.

See this is why this law is ********.

It's far too subjective. It doesn't give specifics or even attempt to set limits. It's based only on "gross out" factor. That just isn't realistic for a court of law to determine.