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

[Fanboy]

As much as I find lolicon (or any animated/illustrated CP) exorbitantly repulsive, I do not agree with Canadian law that it should be illegal. Child pornography laws are created to protect children, and illustrated child pornography does not harm children. Charging and/or imprisoning somebody for drawings is just plain wrong, and is only a step down from thoughcrimes.

That being said, if what he had was in fact lolicon and not regular manga (I know I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, so I'm sure a Canadian customs agent might be mistaken as well) my opinion doesn't change the fact that it is illegal, and this guy should have been aware. I hope this sicko is shown leniency, though.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

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

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

If you're saying If you masturbate to media featuring kids, you will ruin the lives of others (and therefore should be contained in jail)., I would have to call bullshit. That is creating a thought crime. Similarly saying All pedophiles should be in jail, is too restrictive since some most diagnosed pedophiles are in enough control of their faculties to safely supervise children. It would be akin to saying All gun enthusiasts[footnote]You can replace gun enthusiasts with veterans diagosed with PTSD if you like, who have a higher rate per capita of spree killings.[/footnote] should be in jail on the grounds that a rare few of them will run amok and go on a spree shooting or annihilate their family (some do, most do not).

If you're saying If you masturbate in front of kids, you need to be kept in jail, I would agree, depending on the circumstances, and whether it was actual child sexual abuse. I would hate for a dad to get locked up because he was working off steam in his own room when little Susie ran in through the (closed but unlocked) door to ask for a drink of water and a bedtime story.

Granted, it has, so far, been difficult for us to logically delineate for legal purposes what media is victimless in its production and should not be a crime to possess, and what media victimizes during production, and thus the possession of which should be prohibited.[footnote]There is some confusion regarding whether media causes victimization after its consumption, though with every new media scare (violent video games being the most recent) we've developed a growing body of data that indicates media access, if anything, reduces victim-based crime. Paraphiles who fuel their fantasies with virtual children are probably less inclined to victimize actual children, either by acting out or by seeking out actual child pornography.[/footnote] It is simple to decide that a child put in front of a camera for the purpose of creating marketable pornographic pictures has been victimized in the creation. But what about pictures of nudist families that accidentally got disseminated? If someone is missusing pictures of a clothed kid or a child in a swimsuit, is the kid being victimized? Is the consumer committing a crime? Sexting is so common, we may have an entire generation of teens on the sexual predator database for having, at least once, sent or received a pic of a peer's naughty bits. Is that all crime? Is it a severe crime?

This is exactly the philosopher's knot that our current body of jurists have the dubious honor of detangling. But in the meantime, hand-drawn or computer-rendered hentai, no matter how perverse or explicit, is pretty clearly on the victimless side of the delineation.

238U

 

[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.

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.

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

Wow, you guys. I didn't think that statement could have been more obviously facetious. He should have been aware of the law and careful not to break it, that's my stance on the issue. The first part was just my two cents on his hobbies and unrelated. :|

 

[infohippie]

Do we really want to defend someone with drawings like that

Freedom of speech is important, but is it really that important? Not all expression is worthy of protection, this is an example of that.

Yes it is. From the people who draw offensive rule 34 images on the various chans, to the asshole's who protest soldiers funerals for no reason, to the guys who made Duke Nukem Forever, to the people who think Hitler had some good ideas. Either it's all ok or none of it is. If you really want free speech then you have to be willing to pay the price of letting people act like complete and utter twats if they so choose. Trust me, it's a very small price to pay. I may not agree with your views but I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your right to be a massive tool.

Absolutely. You don't get to pick and choose what should be okay to express and what shouldn't. The freedom to be a saint is also the freedom to be an asshole. That's the thing about freedoms.

 

[infohippie]

Censorship of something deemed illegal is not related to the censorship of art.

Yes it is, its a form of expression that is deemed illegal. It is, therefore, an issue of freedom of expression.

So how about what I wrote before:

Spoiler: Everything in this is fake, don't throw a shit storm

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)?

Its a form of expression. Why can't I have freedom of expression?

Because freedoms end at the point at which they impinge upon another person's freedom - in this case, the freedom to keep breathing. Drawings do not impinge on anybody's freedom, nor do they cause injury to anybody. Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with them, no matter what they depict. And morality is not something that should be legislated, ever. That's a personal choice. The law has absolutely no business getting involved with what turns someone on, provided they are not harming others.

So if the manga contains what I think it does, he should be let go even if he had drawn pictures of underage children in sexual acts because it can be construed as art?

Yes, he should be let go. Not necessarily "because the pictures can be construed as art," but because they're drawings. They're not real. They are imaginary. Nobody is being harmed by this, and the governments of the world ought to keep the hell out of people's turn-ons.

It's way, way more complicated than saying "these are fake children so it is all okay!". We just don't know if there truly is a victim or not. Japanese animated child pornography could be creating a dangerous environment for children. It could be sending out a dangerous rhetoric to its readers and influencing society in a thousand ways.

Or it could be completely harmless and only influences the fantasy world that it is set in.

We just don't know, and we can't take a side until we do.

You've obviously already taken a side, if you're going to refer to it as "Japanese animated child pornography" - that's deliberately emotive phrasing, and not entirely accurate or truthful. It's about as honest as Jack Thompson referring to games as "murder simulators."
I would suggest that the fact Japan has the lowest incidence of child molestation in the developed world, while having the most freely-available lolicon, might imply that lolicon does not "create a dangerous environment for children" as you put it. I would further suggest that if something is to be illegal, the onus is on those making it illegal to prove that it does in fact cause harm.

It's hard to say, the jury isn't out on that one yet. We are discovering more and more evidence that manga or hentai depicting children in indecent ways is an early warning sign to paedophilia.
While this isn't concrete, it is becoming more and more of a trend.

[Citation needed]

I would like to see for myself this evidence you speak of. Without a reference to a reputable study backing up that claim, I do not believe you.

 

[Leg End]

And this is why I can only reside in the US and Japan. Sad, because I have a friend in Canada I need to see. :L

Still, w00t for CBLDF.

 

[VonKludge]

The problems is just with Canadian customs, hell I know a guy who got flagged for ordering a vest that can accommodate IIIA plates (body armor).

Now he has to inform them in advance, and with details, whenever he intends to leave the country.

Hell I had orders taking up to a month to clear!

 

[Cheezeypoofs]

Ugh, watch it be something like Kodomo no Jikan. Taken out of context, that manga can rival lolicon. But hell, for all we know its Dragon Ball and kid-Goku had his clothes destroyed again...

Even if it is full-blown hentai, there should be no problem. This arrest wouldn't have helped any victims, but may in fact affect the artist negatively.

I could go on. You know what? Read this:

http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=672&catid=19&subcatid=127

A cursory glance over this site shows quite a few... misinformations. Shojo-ai isn't porn, it's a type of romance manga that happens to include lesbian couples. It also used manga to describe hentai.

Furthermore, Japan's age of consent is 13. The vast majority of what would be considered child pornography is perfectly legal according to Japanese laws, and might not even be considered lolicon.

 

[Steppin Razor]

Paraphiles who fuel their fantasies with virtual children are probably less inclined to victimize actual children, either by acting out or by seeking out actual child pornography.

The simple fact is that we don't know if that is the case or not. We don't know that somebody who looks at virtual children to get their rocks off is less likely to molest a child at some point, just like we don't know if they are more likely to, either.

Whilst movies and games have mostly been shown to have virtually no impact on increasing violent crime, drawings of minors and the like have not. It's an area that is desperately in need of research so we can get a clear picture and take the appropriate steps, whether that be banning or regulating it if there is a proven link, or decriminalising it if the danger, if any, is shown to be miniscule. I doubt that there will be a link found, but the possibility exists and we just. don't. know. And until we do know, laws like the ones in Canada will continue to be passed.

And this is why I can only reside in the US and Japan. Sad, because I have a friend in Canada I need to see. :L

It's pretty simple really. If you ever visit Canada, make sure you move your lolicon and any related files onto a spare HDD and wipe them from your computer instead of being a dumbass and getting picked up by customs.

 

[ultrachicken]

It's a tough one... On one hand, they are JUST drawings and there is no intent to cause harm to anybody and no body is harmed.

On the other, it has been known to be a starting point for paedophiles. Not hentai, necessarily, but eventually the fake images will no longer satisfy the person's urges and can lead to real paedophilia.

I'm not sure if this source is 100% but this is what I found.

"Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as 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..."
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

Then again this is only american law. I'm not sure if Canadian laws are the same. And it also doesn't state if hand drawn images count.
But I would recommend this guy get counselling.

P.s. please note there is a difference between Hentai and Manga.
If you mean Hentai then it is Anime/Manga styled pornography.
If you mean Manga then it's a merely a means on entertainment and should not be constrewed as pornography in any way.

So disallowing people to have drawn child porn is somehow going to solve the situation? The way I see it, when someone views loli, they're either going to continue to view loli and not harm anyone, or they're going to go out and start harming children at some point. By removing the loli, you remove the demographic of pedophiles who would not harm anyone if they had their porn. How is that helpful?

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

That "who is victimized" defense only works if you can provide conclusive evidence that no one is.

It's way, way more complicated than saying "these are fake children so it is all okay!". We just don't know if there truly is a victim or not. Japanese animated child pornography could be creating a dangerous environment for children. It could be sending out a dangerous rhetoric to its readers and influencing society in a thousand ways.

Or it could be completely harmless and only influences the fantasy world that it is set in.

We just don't know, and we can't take a side until we do.

Actually, we can.

You (both of you) are speaking of the precautionary principle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle] which is used when considering environmental effects of large industry, say, if a company wants to pour manufacturing runoff into a river, it must find some way to adequately demonstrate that the runoff will not have a significant effect on the environment, or is required to filter that runoff until it is adequately harmless.

Applied to social issues, it creates an interesting problem, since there are so many pop-culture elements that would have to be individually tested to see if they affect the community (kind of like getting Microsoft to sign off on your software). And there are so many activist groups that would very much like to use the precautionary principle to further their agendas. There are so many things that one could argue today as potentially dangerous to society because they haven't been completely proven otherwise. Such as:

~ Allowing mainstream pornographic literature into our libraries to be freely accessed by the public.
~ Allowing the publications of kinky or perverse pornographic literature to be sold or distributed in the US.
~ Allowing games that depict violence to be played my minors or those with a history of mental disorders.
~ Allowing comic books that contain depictions violence to be sold to minors.
~ Allowing the consumption (listening) of modern music which might feature backmasked Satanic messages.
~ Allowing the consumption (listening) of modern music that features explicit lyrics and encourages the abuse of women and the murder of police officers.
~ Allowing museum displays of classical nudes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_nudity].
~ Allowing portrayals of historical events (accurate or otherwise) that reflect the people and past administrations of the United States in a poor or questionable light.
~ Allowing public access to questionable literature [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_U.S.].
~ Allowing non-Judeo-Christian religions to be openly practiced in the United States.
~ Allowing Neopagans, atheists and sexual perverts to raise their own children.
~ Allowing homosexuals to work in teaching positions where they have access to our children.
~ Allowing African American communities to integrate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws] with caucasion ones.
~ Allowing Jews to own and control businesses or property in the US (or any other industrialized nation).

Do you see where this is going?

In fact, when it comes to media in the United States, the burden of proof of harm falls on the accuser, not the accused. And this is generally a good thing, as otherwise Elvis Presley would still be banned on the radio, let alone Def Jam [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Def_Leppard].

Neil Gaiman points out that he had to, at one point, take a trip to the US because in his lifetime, The 120 Days of Sodom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_120_Days_of_Sodom] was still banned in the UK (it may still be today) and he had to read it here. Sure, you may find lolicon reprehensible, and equally so anyone who would fancy it. But at one point, Lady Chatterly's Lover was equally reprehensible, and those who read it were persecuted. And before that The Marriage of Figaro.

With enough before thats to get to The Gospel of John the Revelator. And all of the gospels. Heck some are still banned in places for being apocrypha, and are considered more dangerous than kiddie porn.

Ultimately, it comes down to control. Yes, it makes sense to forbid media in which those were hurt in its production (really because we're trying to suffocate out further production), but we can't forbid media on the basis that its consumption is dangerous, either to the consumer (there's really no such thing as a brown note), or to society at large, since at that point you start denying people information. You start denying them control of their destinies.

So, no. Senator McCain tried to used the precautionary principle to indefinitely ban outed gays from the US armed forces. He still believes to this day that the lift of DADT cost the US lives. And according to him, there is no degree of proof adequate enough that it is safe or good or right to let gays into our military. The same tactic could be applied anywhere, and hence it is appropriate nowhere.

Sorry about the soapbox.

238U.

 

[Racecarlock]

I have one thing to ask to each and everyone in this thread who think he should be prosecuted because the images he possesed MIGHT lead him to pedophilia (and we have no proof that there are any underage characters or that it's pornographic). How many of you, each and every day, murder people in GTA? How many of you kill terrorists and aliens in COD, Bulletstorm, Halo, and various other shooters? How many people have you thrown off of bridges in Saints Row 2, or used a fatality in mortal kombat? How many of you have yanked government soldiers off of roofs and attached innocent civilians to cars in Just Cause 2? How many innocent people have you blown the brains out of in fallout 3 and Red Dead Redemption? How many people have you absorbed in Prototype or shocked to death in inFamous? Let me ask you this, should you be arrested for simply having the potential to become a murder, the "Potential" being marked down to the violent images in games? Oh, none of you? Yeah, that's what I thought. So why should he go to jail for a bunch of drawn lines, excluding the violation of canadian laws? Hell, there's no proof that they were children or even that the images were pornographic. I'm not advocating pedophilia here, those guys are sick. But jerking off to painted or penciled in lines hurts nobody in real life, just like killing thousands of virtual citizens in sandbox games hurts nobody in real life.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Paraphiles who fuel their fantasies with virtual children are probably less inclined to victimize actual children, either by acting out or by seeking out actual child pornography.

The simple fact is that we don't know if that is the case or not. We don't know that somebody who looks at virtual children to get their rocks off is less likely to molest a child at some point, just like we don't know if they are more likely to, either.

Whilst movies and games have mostly been shown to have virtually no impact on increasing violent crime, drawings of minors and the like have not...

Guess what I just posted. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.297134-Amercian-arrested-for-Child-Porn-by-Canadian-customs-who-found-manga-on-his-computer?page=5#11770497] It applies to this too.

It's pretty simple really. If you ever visit Canada, make sure you move your lolicon and any related files onto a spare HDD and wipe them from your computer instead of being a dumbass and getting picked up by customs.

I wonder if you encrypted it (along with your industrial and state secrets), if they'd try to force you to decrypt it.

There was a case here in America a few years ago where a mother was arrested and charged with posting nude photos of her five year old son on the internet. She claimed she was an artistic photographer and those pictures were used on her art site. The court ruled against her citing that nude images of children are not protected speech.

I'd be interested in knowing more about this case, if you can provide links. In fact, it is fairly common in a variety of cultures within the US (and without) where it is acceptable for parents to have nude photographs of their own children. So, if it is criminal to simply have pictures of child nudes, a lot of parents are committing this crime.

A nationwide crackdown on nude baby pics akin to that of the contemporary sexting crackdown might yield interesting results.

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.

I would note there are a lot of women / girls in hentai who are of ambiguous legality. How do you determine it based on a drawing? Hairless pubes? No chest? Is a busty loli safe? In a court of law, who determines whether or not the depicted character is of age? The artist? The consumer? The judge?

238U.

 

[Steppin Razor]

Furthermore, Japan's age of consent is 13. The vast majority of what would be considered child pornography is perfectly legal according to Japanese laws, and might not even be considered lolicon.

Wrong. Very, very wrong. Japan still requires 18 years of older for pornography purposes, thus making videos and pictures of real males/females illegal if they are minors.

 

[Seanfall]

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

That's the way it is in America I don't know if Canada has that law.