Well... here we go. Obscenity in Manga trial.

[Nurb]

Here's the thing: THEY ARE FICTIONAL DRAWINGS. We let the KKK and neo nazi's have their rallies, and spew their stupid shit In REALITY, which is fine, we have to deal with the bad as well as the good. Yet punishing someone for DRAWINGS is just fine?

Freedom of expression in any form protects the vile and unpopular. Not the popular.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I can't remember where I read this, but the Manga in question was Yaoi where the characters are distinctly referred to as "over 18" but are drawn in a prepubescant manner...

This raises interesting new questions about this bizarre case.

 

[Handofpwn]

I'm sure that there is a convenient plot device to explain all of that.

 

[Beowulf DW]

It seems to me that the main battle that is raging here is not over past action, but potential action. One side of the argument is that the defendent could potentially become a child molester. The other side of this argument is that the prosecution could potentially lead us down the same well-trodden road taken by the likes of Stalin and Hitler.

 

[The Wooster]

There are two equally bad ideas at work here coming from both sides of the issue. The first is that if you read something with violence, rape, etc. you're more likely to go out and actually do it. If that were the case, given the kind of violent material I read and watch, I'd have a large body count to my name. Sometimes this stuff is the escape valve you need for inappropriate feelings.

What? Why should I rape someone because I've seen a manga with it, how does it increase the probability? The only thing anyone reads is hentai is masturbation, and it should DECREASE my probability of raping, since you've filled your urges.

1/10 for reading comprehension. Try again.

Oh and for everyone who says the comic involved Yaoi and not Loli could you please post a source?

 

[Handofpwn]

I can't remember where I read this, but the Manga in question was Yaoi where the characters are distinctly referred to as "over 18" but are drawn in a prepubescant manner...

This raises interesting new questions about this bizarre case.

... I have a friend or two who would be into this...

 

[geldonyetich]

The other day I was browsing YouTube and I ran across this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8VPp-DPCk8

Reading into this particular video a bit further over the Wikipedia entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodomo_no_jikan], apparently it's not really supposed to be about underage sexuality, it apparently turns into a Soap Opera (as many Japanese Anime are) about the resulting difficulties coming from this girl's crush (with oddly sexual overtones) and the instructor's difficulty in dealing with it because of a sheltered past.

When Seven Seas, the Western distributor, got their hands on it they renamed it "Nymphet." Unsurprisingly, no western Publisher was willing to handle it at that point, even though it apparently isn't intended to extol underage relationships as much as it would seem by first glance so much as to play off the sexual tension that results in the ridiculousness of a situation caused by a minor being so bold.

It's enough to blow the minds of a lot of Westerners to see that this was played over TokyoTV. However, it was delayed a bit because of a recent vice-principle being busted on child porn (which made national news) and then re-released in a slightly more censored form.

Bottom line: Culture shock is tricky business, Japan isn't into kid porn as much as many Westerners think, and our kneejerk reactions about it often work to leverage justification that was never there. Whoever got their hands on this series and renamed it "Nymphet" was clearly mongering to an audience even Japan would be hesitant to. Your average 4Chan kid who brags for "fapping" over this would probably be considered as much a freak there as here, but he can find a niche if you say (incorrectly) that kind of behavior is acceptable in Japan.

An Iowa judge getting upset about a fellow's Yaoi collection enough to send him to 20 years of prison would make more sense if there were demonstrated intent by the defendant to act on the collection. The differentiating factor between possession of cartoon-form pornographic materials relating to the act and the desire to commit the act itself is a tough one to determine without greater investigation. (The dividing line of actual (non-cartoon) form of pornographic materials is not there because real harm was done to minors in its making and possession (or possible purchase/production) of it is forwarding that agenda.) If a brief investigation revealed he was accosting little boys in his neighborhood, there wouldn't be any debate about it, maybe some would even say that 20 years is too short.

 

[LewsTherin]

20....YEARS? A bit much, perhaps, seeing how you don't even get that much for killing/raping/stealing from someone.

CP is indeed disgusting. Someone above mentioned similar circumstances about homosexuality in the past, but pedophaelia is with a minor, under the age of consent. THIS IS STATUTORY RAPE.

/my point

 

[Booze Zombie]

I would argue that no sexual crimes can be committed against a person who never existed, so who is this law protecting? Not that I view loli, I have more... compensatory perversions than that (tentacles chief among them).

Anyway, I think perhaps this fellow is being treated very unfairly for something that isn't a crime in any sane country.

I mean, I present it to you in this manner:
A man is feeling himself to pictures of non-existent characters doing horrible, horrible things to each other.
Who is this hurting? Perhaps the man if anyone finds out, but who else?
I can think of no one else but the man who is hurt by the discovery of this perversion of his.

 

[Arionis]

This whole case just seems like a pile of bull to me, honestly.

To each their own.

No one was actually hurt, so what the heck?

 

[742]

well... as op said, it is a VERY slippery slope... but even more than that

We as americans-nay, as humans-have certain inalienable rights, and among those rights is the right to be free, the right to live, the right to seek happiness, and the right to be a sick fuck.

really though, this is a VERY slippery slope, noone was actually hurt-and you can say "but its not a big leap from looking at it to DOING it" but then, our legal system has a little thing called "innocent until proven guilty" which means even if the guy goes out and rapes a 5 year old right now, we dont treat him like hes guilty until we can prove it. now if hes just looking at pictures of someone ELSE commiting said act, well, shut the fuck up?

edit: or explain to me precisely how looking at pictures of something is to be punished worse than actually doing it?

 

[GothmogII]

It seems to me that the main battle that is raging here is not over past action, but potential action. One side of the argument is that the defendent could potentially become a child molester. The other side of this argument is that the prosecution could potentially lead us down the same well-trodden road taken by the likes of Stalin and Hitler.

Just so, similar to: Every male is a potential rapist. The statement itself isn't inherently false. But is falls into the -exact- same category that, 'Every person is a potential murderer' 'Every person is a potential eater of oranges'.

However, in this case another statement is added i.e. The person likes viewing material containing under-aged children and is therefore more liable to be a child molester. (i.e. commit the act of child molestation.) -However- this in no way makes the person in question a child molester. It isn't even close to say, a murderer sending death threats to their victims. If only because in this instance there -are no- victims.

 

[AuntyEthel]

Yes, I appreciate no actual children were harmed in the creation of a manga and that allowing people to deem a collection of lines and scribbles 'obscene' could destroy art as we know it. On the other hand it's child porn

This is exactly how I've always felt. No matter how much people claim it to be art, or fiction, or 'just a drawing,' I always just say, "Dude, its childporn. No doubt about it."

 

[GothmogII]

Yes, I appreciate no actual children were harmed in the creation of a manga and that allowing people to deem a collection of lines and scribbles 'obscene' could destroy art as we know it. On the other hand it's child porn

This is exactly how I've always felt. No matter how much people claim it to be art, or fiction, or 'just a drawing,' I always just say, "Dude, its childporn. No doubt about it."

Which would be fine and all. You know, if actual children were used in it's creation -_^ I'd even agree if say, the artist had sat outside a playground or something and used it as reference. But no. That doesn't appear to be the case here. (Actually, it's becoming apparent that in the related case they may not have been children at all. But, I've to look that up.)

 

[Nutcase]

It seems to me that the main battle that is raging here is not over past action, but potential action. One side of the argument is that the defendent could potentially become a child molester. The other side of this argument is that the prosecution could potentially lead us down the same well-trodden road taken by the likes of Stalin and Hitler.

In fact the defendant has not yet shown any sign of being a child molester, or even been accused of it, while the law that allows prosecution for this is a *concrete* stomp on human rights in the tradition of said awesome people.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." (emphasis mine)

 

[stubbmann]

Here's my argument against "THAT GUY MIGHT RAPE A CHILD OR BUY REAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!!!1!!!one!"

kids in anime... don't look like real children. They're much more... developed, generally speaking. which is why a lot of anime can get away with english dubs saying the characters are 18 when in the original they were much younger. It depends on the anime/manga, of course. But in a very broad sense you could take any hentai and edit it to say the women are 12 and maybe reduce the boobs a bit and voila! kiddy porn.

And even if the kids are obviously 12 and say so while having sex on top of a table loaded down with copies of their birth certificate, it's a gorram comic book and probably provides essentially a creepy sex spit valve for the brain. Better on the page than in the real world. As for normalizing illegal behavior, half of the comedies hollywood releases revolve around getting stoned, action movies involve plenty of murder and sometimes drug trafficking, a lot of dramas involve rape (including child rape), and you don't see those guys getting any real flack.

 

[Jark212]

Yah this type manga is pritty messed up... But he has every right to read it if he wants, thats the American way. If he gets convicted (sigh) I'm screwed... Wait... What Nation are we talking about???

 

[Blue Sonnet]

I've already debated this quite a bit on ANN (even ended up making friends with the person who was vehemently on the other side of the fence - it pays to be polite) and broadly my views are that drawings are lines on paper, there is nothing there telling him explicitly to copy any acts, and the law is there to protect people and property, none of which were harmed here.

I also pointed out that whilst I own a couple of yaoi titles, that doesn't mean I'm about to go out and pay two men to do the nasty whilst I watch hidden in the wardrobe.
Oceans 11/12/etc. makes robbery look glamorous, but how many people went and copied the film?

Fiction is fiction.
Anyone who would go out and copy something illegal would almost definitely have done it anyway. This is quite similar to the multiple violence in videogames scares, but the person in question is an adult.

Also, 20yrs is probably the absolute maximum allowed by the law, and if he is sentenced (gods help us) the only way he'd get this much is if the judge wanted to make an example.

That would really, really frighten me - to get a higher sentence for owning line drawings of an act than for actually committing it and causing harm to someone.
That's not what the law is for.