Amercian arrested for Child Porn by Canadian customs who found manga on his computer.

[CrystalShadow]

30 minutes without a reply isn't really anything to get upset about.

On the topic at hand, yeah, it seems dumb to me, but I can't off the top of my head remember what manga looks like. I'd have to see the actual manga to make my mind up.

There really isn't much room for error, and if it looks pornographic, the customs agent can't just say "Well, this looks like child porn, but it's probably just some whacky Japanese comic so you go right ahead!"

OK, yes, under canadian law that's true. (And under Australian. Or British law for that matter.)

But it should be trivial for just about anyone with a functioning set of eyes to tell the difference between a photograph and a drawing.

(And in that regards, bans on CGI depictions make more sense than those on drawings. If Final Fantasy is any indication, while it might not be 100% perfect, it's easy enough to create computer generated images that look convincing enough to be incredibly confusing, and difficult to seperate from the real thing.)

I guess it comes down to a question of indirect harm.

Because drawings are unlikely to be related to child sexual abuse, whereas photographic (or video) productions are in fact direct evidence of child abuse having been involved in creating the work in question.

While it's possible that a drawing was a 'life drawing' - that is, the artist drew something that was actually happening, it isn't very likely.

Therefore, the question that arises with any legal jurisdiction that treats such drawn images as being equivalent to depictions of child sexual abuse, (which it clearly isn't), is the
concern that these type of images might have the effect of 'normalising' the behaviour it suggests, or otherwise causing indirect harm.
Whether that is a valid concern or not is open to debate, but even then, treating it as equivalent to pictures of real children shows a disturbing mentality of a different kind.


As an aside,
If you're wondering why I'm calling it Child sexual abuse, it's because a UK group that deals with tracking these kinds of pictures finds terms such as child pornography, kiddy porn and such unhelpful - Well, in the words of the IWF (UK internet watch foundation - An NGO that keeps track of such content on the internet and helps remove it):

"Please note that 'child pornography', 'child porn' and 'kiddie porn' are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually abused and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images."

 

[Julianking93]

So... it was just manga? Not hentai? Not even loli hentai?
What the fuck's the problem? If no one's hurt, there's no crime.
They just arrested him on blind suspicion or what?
Thank fuck I have my hentai comics stashed in a false bottom of my dresser in the left si... wait, you're reading this? Go away! Nothing to see here >.> <.<

 

[Mr. Gency]

"what is porn"?

A miserable pile of genitals!

OT: What can I say that hasn't already been said.

 

[Atlas13]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

So you're basically admitting that you used a straw man fallacy?

Straw man suggests it was over the top to twist someone's words into something undefendable. I did not change their words at all.

Freedom of expression only holds as long as that freedom does not encroach upon the freedoms of another individual.

In your argument however, you're stating that he said anyone can do anything they want, so long as they claim it is for artistic purposes. He did not say that, he stated:

"It's freedom of expression, i.e. the right of him to own that artwork/the right of whoever drew it to draw it

You know, censorship of "art" and all that"

Nowhere did he state that anyone has the freedom to deny the freedoms of others. So, you did twist his words, creating a straw man fallacy.

The act of owning said "art" is illegal. That illegal act is obviously okay because its for "art".

I suggested another illegal activity for "art".

Under United States law, that form of art is still legal. I am not going to argue that he unintentionally broke Canadian law. I also cannot argue that ignorance is not a defense. What I AM saying, is the art form is not (under US law), and cannot logically be illegal.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

...he breached the country's laws and should probably be punished. You always obey the laws of the country you are in.

That's a very common perspective. We instinctively give the benefit of the doubt to authority.

But it is fallacious to do so, and while it is an instinct, like our instinct to organize into small bands, it is contrary to the advancement of civilization.

Just because there is a law doesn't mean it is right. Indeed we've had lots of stupid laws (and still do), from the Texas law that made sodomy a capital crime to the Jim Crow laws to the laws that restricted access to video games, or rock and roll, or erotica. Assuming laws are right just because they are laws counts as an appeal to tradition, or an appeal to authority. Neither have merit.

Just because there is a law doesn't mean it should be obeyed. Given that the fairness of a law is only challenged in the justice system, after someone disobeys it. Granted, this brings to risk penal consequences, but again, in civilized justice, consequences must be proportional to the degree of offense.

Granted, child pornography that actually exploits real children is a crime with serious conseqences for the victims. But artistic depictions of sex that involve child characters, but not actual children do not cause victimization.[footnote]Which is to say, there is no known causal link, or even correlative link between artistic porn that features fictional kids and actual child sexual abuse, this despite the presence of studies intended to detect such links.[/footnote] And there is no reason that the latter should be omitted from protected speech.

And granted, not all countries have freedom of speech to the degree that the United States does, but most industrialized nations do, and most centers of civilization believe that freedom of expression is generally a good thing, even when it comes to forms that some might consider deviant or perverse.

238U

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

How did they find the stuff on his laptop, that means that the customs guy had to take it, turn it on and hunt through all his files, and he did this just on a whim? I never really fly internationally but doesn't that seem a bit excessive?

Sometimes they will perform this thorough a search in customs. When crossing borders, you should therefore encrypt anything you don't want a total stranger (or a cop) seeing.

238U

 

[bob1052]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

So you're basically admitting that you used a straw man fallacy?

Straw man suggests it was over the top to twist someone's words into something undefendable. I did not change their words at all.

Freedom of expression only holds as long as that freedom does not encroach upon the freedoms of another individual.

In your argument however, you're stating that he said anyone can do anything they want, so long as they claim it is for artistic purposes. He did not say that, he stated:

"It's freedom of expression, i.e. the right of him to own that artwork/the right of whoever drew it to draw it

You know, censorship of "art" and all that"

Nowhere did he state that anyone has the freedom to deny the freedoms of others. So, you did twist his words, creating a straw man fallacy.

The act of owning said "art" is illegal. That illegal act is obviously okay because its for "art".

I suggested another illegal activity for "art".

Under United States law, that form of art is still legal. I am not going to argue that he unintentionally broke Canadian law. I also cannot argue that ignorance is not a defense. What I AM saying, is the art form is not (under US law), and cannot logically be illegal.

He is not being punished under US law.

 

[Atlas13]

Your example is not classed as art because it's done with the intent to physically hurt someone.

Thank you for explaining to me what can be classified as art and what can't. Congratulations on being wrong.

Thank you for you know, proving me wrong with those two sentences, you really embellished on that fine point you have there. Ok, fine, i'll reword it. You couldn't do it because its illegal to walk into an coffee shop and kill everyone, even if it was for "art".

It is illegal to own child porn, even if it is for "art".

I never said it wasn't, funnily enough. I just said your example wasn't art.

Hey, you know you said to that guy that he was horrible at back and fourth arguments, apparently you're not so hot either, considering you're arguing something i'm not. Please, read what people are arguing next time.

I asked why my example isn't art but the guy getting arrested is. You responded.

I never claimed his was art, I just said that your one is so over the top, so wildly illegal and would cause so much harm to people that it couldn't possibly be seen as art. You should have used a better example.

I chose it specifically because it was so over the top.

So you're basically admitting that you used a straw man fallacy?

Straw man suggests it was over the top to twist someone's words into something undefendable. I did not change their words at all.

Freedom of expression only holds as long as that freedom does not encroach upon the freedoms of another individual.

In your argument however, you're stating that he said anyone can do anything they want, so long as they claim it is for artistic purposes. He did not say that, he stated:

"It's freedom of expression, i.e. the right of him to own that artwork/the right of whoever drew it to draw it

You know, censorship of "art" and all that"

Nowhere did he state that anyone has the freedom to deny the freedoms of others. So, you did twist his words, creating a straw man fallacy.

The act of owning said "art" is illegal. That illegal act is obviously okay because its for "art".

I suggested another illegal activity for "art".

Under United States law, that form of art is still legal. I am not going to argue that he unintentionally broke Canadian law. I also cannot argue that ignorance is not a defense. What I AM saying, is the art form is not (under US law), and cannot logically be illegal.

He is not being punished under US law.

I know this, however, I am merely explaining your use of a straw man fallacy.

 

[bob1052]

I know this, however, I am merely explaining your use of a straw man fallacy.

By trying to apply my example to an unrelated justice system?

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

But it is a crime what you believe doesn?t matter he broke Canada?s laws and must be punished.

Again, this relies on the supposition that law automatically defines what is right. Not so. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority]

History has shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws] that this is often not the case. All laws have to be subject to question and scrutiny on demand, and usually when a law is written, its reason for being is included in its codification. Whenever that reason comes into question, so does the continued applicability of the law.

If he caused no harm and intended no malice, this raises the question of the appropriateness of corrections, even if he broke the letter of the law.

End of discussion.

Discussions like this only end one everyone on all other sides are dead.

238U

 

[Atlas13]

I know this, however, I am merely explaining your use of a straw man fallacy.

By trying to apply my example to an unrelated justice system?

By using a logical section of a different justice system. There is no doubt that if someone can get arrested for this, the section needs to be reworked, this is because there is no logical reason for it to be illegal whatsoever.

 

[bob1052]

I know this, however, I am merely explaining your use of a straw man fallacy.

By trying to apply my example to an unrelated justice system?

By using a logical section of a different justice system. There is no doubt that if someone can get arrested for this, the section needs to be reworked, as this is because there is no logical reason for it to be illegal whatsoever.

So now you are comparing the laws regarding drawn CP in the States and Canada which in no way is related to what I posted. Also for the record I never said that him being arrested for drawn CP is the right thing.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey at the moment.

 

[internetzealot1]

...Canadian customs checks your devices?

 

[OldGus]

If there are no victims for an activity, then it isn't a crime. End of discussion.

But it is a crime what you believe doesn?t matter he broke Canada?s laws and must be punished. End of discussion.

The law is vague, unclear, and from all appearances, completely case by case and dependent on whatever it is they find. Check here. http://cbldf.org/resources/customs/comics-seized-by-canadian-border-officials/
Everything on that list was confiscated by customs and either declared admissable or prohibited. And a lot of it appears random, if going by the titles and what ends up on what lists is any indication. (The confusing part is that a lot of it is clearly porn, and some of it is where different volumes of the same series show up on different lists.) I say discussion not ended until what manga was called child porn is revealed. I could see the case for some , such as Fruits Basket or Love Hina (that both have nothing to do with or feature sex), but not others like Outlaw Star, which does feature sex, but not child nudity anywhere. And that's the razor's edge, not including other examples, some whacked-out and some straight-laced.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

I think this just brings the question of "what is porn"?

I also have to ask: What did he get caught with and how old those the person(s) look in whatever manga he had?

If he got stopped for Ranma 1/2 or High School of the Dead then I call bull, but if he got caught with something that depicts what are clearly under-aged looking characters (aka no reasonable human being could say they look anything close 18 or older) then I have no sympothy for him.

If you visit Ms. Rosy Palmer while watching kids you need to be kept in jail where you wouldn't ruin anyone's lives.

There is a hypothetical 5000 year old witch that looks 13 in a hentai.
Would it count as under-aged porn?

I would count it as under-aged porn. I'm not basing age off what the hentai says the age is but what age the character appears to be. If its porn and the characters 'engaging' don't look anything close to grown then yes, its kiddie porn.

For that to hold true so must the opposite.
Reverse that statement please and see if it's still true remember it's fiction.
Also there is somethign called story a person in fiction can change their appearance at will often. Morph from the x-men now looks like a small girl, now what? You clearly know that Morph is not a small girl.
Oh and If you have a picture of your new baby boy/girl it's child porn now.
Don't go around being perfectly reasonable by holding your children pictures in your wallet or else.
Kiddie porn is considered to be anything slightly nude, you heard me.

No, porn involves sex, not just nudity. there is such a thing as artful nudes and such a thing atomonical drawings.

If Morph transforms into a little kid and bangs someone then its still kiddie porn because it depics what appears to be a child doing the deed. I'm honestly not sure if your trolling me or you honestly don't get it?

and why in the world are you jumping to extremes mentioning baby pics? do you honestly have no idea what the difference between baby photos and porn is?

 

[Chemical Alia]

That's what he gets for reading manga, busted by the Crap Art Police. But if it's illegal, he shouldn't be in possession of it. Only a tasteless creep would read that stuff in the first place, so it's hard to find sympathy for him.

 

[Small Waves]

That's what he gets for reading manga, busted by the Crap Art Police. But if it's illegal, he shouldn't be in possession of it. Only a tasteless creep would read that stuff in the first place, so it's hard to find sympathy for him.

That'll teach him for liking something you don't like?

 

[Atlas13]

I know this, however, I am merely explaining your use of a straw man fallacy.

By trying to apply my example to an unrelated justice system?

By using a logical section of a different justice system. There is no doubt that if someone can get arrested for this, the section needs to be reworked, as this is because there is no logical reason for it to be illegal whatsoever.

So now you are comparing the laws regarding drawn CP in the States and Canada which in no way is related to what I posted. Also for the record I never said that him being arrested for drawn CP is the right thing.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey at the moment.

The point I am trying to convey, is that you are stating that

If I want to walk down to my local coffee shop and shoot everyone because its my artistic expression the government shouldn't censor it (stop me)?

Is a legitimate argument due to the fact that you claim it has artistic merit, as someone can claim their manga has artistic merit. But I am saying that freedom of expression only holds as long as it does not interfere with the freedoms of others. So claiming your argument holds weight is false.

 

[callit4]

That's what he gets for reading manga, busted by the Crap Art Police. But if it's illegal, he shouldn't be in possession of it. Only a tasteless creep would read that stuff in the first place, so it's hard to find sympathy for him.

I find you a tasteless creep for having drunk water in your life therefore I find it hard to find sympathy for you being arrested for it. (an example of how that logic is flawed.) Basing support or deciding if something is just/unjust on an opinion is an abomination. Not trying to be insulting just pointing it out.

 

[Captain_Fantastic]

allthough im not a fan of the "loli variety" of manga i will agree with the no victims thing because being an avid weapons collector (in canada mind you) being sent to jail over what the masses don't like or dissagree with is just stupid in my mind as long as he isn't hurting anybody live and let live