![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: In an obscenity first, a US comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality.
I realize I may catch hell for saying this. I’ll say it anyway.
While I don’t think that kiddie porn should have 1st Amendment protection, simulated kiddie porn (i.e. words, drawing and Photoshopped pics) is a different matter, because actual kids are not victimized in their creation. But I’ve also heard all the arguments about zero-tolerance policies, so we’ll take those as read.
Either way, basically what you have here is a guy who owned no “real” kiddie porn at all and has no history of pedophilia, and has been convicted of possessing materials that the State believes would cause him to molest kids sooner or later.
In some circles, that’s called “precrime”.
Which is why comics fans find this story so alarming. If the justification for jailing people for owning lolicon is that it will cause them to go out and commit an illegal act, why not jail Batman fans for assault and vigilantism? You know, just in case?
To be fair, the law that this guy was prosecuted under (the 2003 Protect Act) contains the caveat that the material has to meet the legal definition of obscenity in the community where the trial takes place (southern Iowa, in this case). Still, obscenity laws are usually aimed at the producer, not the consumer. By the same argument, anyone who ever bought a 2 Live Crew album in Broward County, FLA in 1990 would have gone to jail.
“What’re you in for?”
“Robbed a liquor store and burned it down with everyone inside. You?”
“Bought a 2 Live Crew album.”
“Dude, yr cold-blooded.”
Okay, lolicon is a step up from 2 Live Crew (who were eventually vindicated anyway). It’s pretty awful, actually. If you’ve never seen it, don’t. It’s one of those things that burns itself into yr retinas. But so are those YouTube videos of people breaking their arms from skateboarding accidents (something I never, EVER want to see again).
So yes. I’m having trouble processing the idea that you can do time for owning comics on the pretext that prosecuting you will prevent the crime depicted in said comics.
But maybe that's necessary, or at least a trade-off most of us can live with. Maybe we’ll always limit it to obvious beyond-the-pale stuff like kiddie porn. Maybe we won’t. But plenty of people argue – on the weakest of evidence – that simulated sex and violence in TV shows, video games and comics make yr kids more violent and more likely to rape women.
So really, why stop at the obvious?
Just asking.
Who’s next,
This is dF
The 39-year-old office worker was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Handley’s guilty plea makes him the first to be convicted under that law for possessing cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography. He faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.
I realize I may catch hell for saying this. I’ll say it anyway.
While I don’t think that kiddie porn should have 1st Amendment protection, simulated kiddie porn (i.e. words, drawing and Photoshopped pics) is a different matter, because actual kids are not victimized in their creation. But I’ve also heard all the arguments about zero-tolerance policies, so we’ll take those as read.
Either way, basically what you have here is a guy who owned no “real” kiddie porn at all and has no history of pedophilia, and has been convicted of possessing materials that the State believes would cause him to molest kids sooner or later.
In some circles, that’s called “precrime”.
Which is why comics fans find this story so alarming. If the justification for jailing people for owning lolicon is that it will cause them to go out and commit an illegal act, why not jail Batman fans for assault and vigilantism? You know, just in case?
To be fair, the law that this guy was prosecuted under (the 2003 Protect Act) contains the caveat that the material has to meet the legal definition of obscenity in the community where the trial takes place (southern Iowa, in this case). Still, obscenity laws are usually aimed at the producer, not the consumer. By the same argument, anyone who ever bought a 2 Live Crew album in Broward County, FLA in 1990 would have gone to jail.
“What’re you in for?”
“Robbed a liquor store and burned it down with everyone inside. You?”
“Bought a 2 Live Crew album.”
“Dude, yr cold-blooded.”
Okay, lolicon is a step up from 2 Live Crew (who were eventually vindicated anyway). It’s pretty awful, actually. If you’ve never seen it, don’t. It’s one of those things that burns itself into yr retinas. But so are those YouTube videos of people breaking their arms from skateboarding accidents (something I never, EVER want to see again).
So yes. I’m having trouble processing the idea that you can do time for owning comics on the pretext that prosecuting you will prevent the crime depicted in said comics.
But maybe that's necessary, or at least a trade-off most of us can live with. Maybe we’ll always limit it to obvious beyond-the-pale stuff like kiddie porn. Maybe we won’t. But plenty of people argue – on the weakest of evidence – that simulated sex and violence in TV shows, video games and comics make yr kids more violent and more likely to rape women.
So really, why stop at the obvious?
Just asking.
Who’s next,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2009-05-30 03:04 am (UTC)A cartoonist from Sydney was arrested on kiddie porn charges last year for drawing pornographic pictures of the Simpsons having sex, because 'Bart and Lisa are minors'.
Neil Gaiman summed up the whole situation a lot better than I could:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/word-person-included-fictional-or.html
He has another essay somewhere that's relevant, but I can't find it right now.