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

[anti_strunt]

My three points tied into whether it might be possible to consume child-porn without actually contributing to the abuse of children. If so, would it be morally acceptable?

I'd argue that if you're consuming it you are contributing to the problem. If the desire for it isn't there than it won't exist. At least, that's how I see it.

What if I exclusively consumed child-porn of the black and white variety from the 50:ies? Then I would stand no risk of contributing to the continued molestation of children.

 

[FluffX]

Show me a photo you took of a child being raped, and I'll kick you in the face.

Show me a manga drawing of a child being raped, and I'll comment on your artistic skill.

That's all I have to say.

 

[Spleeni]

Stand back men! I shall solve this problem!

*Solved*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure that most of you guys here disapprove of child pornography(just a guess). It's a horrible, TERRIBLE thing. It makes me cry at night, and I have nightmares about being a child again. After all, children have absolutely no idea what they want until they become eighteen years of age. Then they have a marginal idea of what they want, until they reach twenty one.

...

What if the porn in question was made with the consent of the minors in question? Would that be better? Does it even matter if or if not the porn has the consent of the minor? (The answer to the third one is yes)

 

[Elurindel]

Stand back men! I shall solve this problem!

*Solved*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure that most of you guys here disapprove of child pornography(just a guess). It's a horrible, TERRIBLE thing. It makes me cry at night, and I have nightmares about being a child again. After all, children have absolutely no idea what they want until they become eighteen years of age. Then they have a marginal idea of what they want, until they reach twenty one.

...

What if the porn in question was made with the consent of the minors in question? Would that be better? Does it even matter if or if not the porn has the consent of the minor? (The answer to the third one is yes)

The idea behind the law is that the child in question is not intellectually mature enough to make a decision about their bodies like that.
The difference with the abuse being made in the form of manga is that it probably wasn't the focus of the material, and also that no actual children are harmed in the creation of it.

 

[anti_strunt]

Well, since the law is very clear on what legal porn is, i'd say yes, it certainly is a crime.

No duh.

That wasn't my point. I was arguing the morality behind it. Basically:
Simulated child-porn, no-one is hurt - A-OK. (Or so the argument goes.)
Real child-porn, what if no-one is hurt by my consumtion of it - is it then A-OK?
My three points tied into whether it might be possible to consume child-porn without actually contributing to the abuse of children. If so, would it be morally acceptable?

EDIT: How would this tie into, for instance, going to Rotten.Com to masturbate to pictures of burn victims?

Simulated or otherwise it still is not 'A-OK'. That's what you are missing. Simulated is still as illegal as real, at least in the UK. Therefore, the whole thing is moot. You cannot have legal. A sexual appetite for children is not healthy.

So asking whether or not child porn, irrelevant of the fact that it is impossible to have 'abuse free' child porn, at least in any sane legal system, is completely fricking insane.

I wasn't arguing for child porn; even simulated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Hayami]

Theory aside, I do believe anyone who displays pedophilistic tendencies irregardless of whether the individual acts on them should be forced to undergo some form of mandatory psychiatric therapy. Even if the condition is uncurable and "wired-in" at birth (which I do not necessarily accept), people who have such impulses should still be given every available degree of help in order to control those impulses - because those impulses should never, ever, be acted on.

In case you wonder, yes, I think people who display violent tendencies should also undergo similar treatment.

- Please check b4uact [http://www.b4uact.org/] site (especially the Fact Sheet [http://www.b4uact.org/facts.htm])
- Think about what realistically would happen if your proposal was implemented.

You're talking about forcing people to undergo a psychiatric therapy. Many people would perceive it as violation of their freedom and dignity. Do you really think that such a forced therapy would help them to control their impulses rather than make them bitter or even break them to the point where they lose respect to anyone including themselves, their therapists, the society, and even children?
(Sure it's great if there's an opportunity for a therapy for these who wish it (like suggested on b4uact site.))

On another hand, such a forced therapy for pedophiles who didn't harm anyone (or even loli hentai fans who aren't sexually attracted to real children) would cause them to hide their attraction even more carefully than now (even in online communities). The effect would be twofold. Less chances to talk about their feelings (or showing them indirectly) would increase the risk that they break at some point. However, since they are already hiding their feelings from everyone, it may become more tempting to act on their urges in a way that harms real children. Ask yourself, who is more dangerous:
A) a guy who imports tons of loli manga from Japan, talks about loli fandom to his colleagues at work (or at least to his buddies in the pub), and obviously posts a lot about it in some forums OR
B) a guy who has a passion similar to the guy (A), but is too scared to talk about his feelings, makes sure to be known as someone who likes big boobs, etc.?

The more force you apply to innocent people and the more you drive them into underground, the more you'll fail at defending what you try to defend. Once you realize that pedophilia (as attraction) is unlikely to be "cured" and loli fandom only gains popularity if you try to get rid of it, the "reinforcing" argument falls apart.

.
Btw., here's an article that shows an interesting correlation ( some content on this site may be not worksafe ! ) :
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2008/12/16/japan-lags-in-loli-ban-unicef-lies-exposed/

.
Research articles on correlation between pornography availability, its legal status and rape / other sex crimes:

PORN UP, RAPE DOWN [http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf] (2006)
by Anthony D'Amato
Leighton Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law

ABSTRACT: The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while
access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan
Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The
reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

.
Pornography, Rape, and the Internet [http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf] (2006)
Todd D. Kendall
Clemson University

Summary:

The arrival of the internet caused a large decline in both the
pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs of accessing pornography.
Using state-level panel data from 1998-2003, I find that the
arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape
incidence. However, growth in internet usage had no apparent
effect on other crimes. Moreover, when I disaggregate the rape
data by offender age, I find that the effect of the internet on rape
is concentrated among those for whom the internet-induced fall
in the non-pecuniary price of pornography was the largest ?
men ages 15-19, who typically live with their parents. These
results, which suggest that pornography and rape are substitutes,
are in contrast with most previous literature. However, earlier
population-level studies do not control adequately for many
omitted variables, including the age distribution of the
population, and most laboratory studies simply do not allow for
potential substitutability between pornography and rape.

.
Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan [http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html] (1999)
Milton Diamond (University of Hawai'i)
Ayako Uchiyama (National Research Institute of Police Science, Tokyo)

From the summary:

(...) It is certainly clear from our data and analysis that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims. (...)

.
I'm not sure how useful is forced therapy applied to real sex offenders, but the effect may differ drastically from forced treatment of people who just have a different sexual attraction or indulge in deviant fantasies. An overall effect of exposal to loli hentai may have a different effect on the real sex offenders group as well. I've seen such "studies" flying around, but they make not more sense than if someone tested violent games' effects exlusively on people charged for violent crimes or effects of alcohol just on alcoholics.

.
P.S.
I like loli anime/manga, including hentai. But while I defend pedophiles (who don't act on their urges), I'm not sexually attracted to (real) children and I would find such a labeling hurtful.

P.P.S.
I wonder if Christopher Handley's case will surpass Monkey Dust [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK_3I0MiAP8] show in absurdity.

 

[dante_136]

The right to draw is somthing no government that claims it's people are free should have any control over, it constitutes a freedom of speech and expression which are backed by the American Constitution and the European Constitution of Human Rights.

Drawings and Manga of this nature are fictional, to say that they could possibly be re-productions based of an image of actual abuse is a slim theory with no legal weight. As for why people own this stuff I agree with ANN member Vashfanatic in that it can serve as a vent, keeping someone with pent up urges from going out and abusing a real child.

 

[NiceGurl_14]

The specifics of the case need to be known. Are we talking about a few risky scenes? Or an entire series filled with 12-year-olds being raped? We can't start effective discussion about this until we know where the battle-lines have drawn.

And why does one guy take the fall for it? Why not the artist? Or the publisher? Or the distributer? Or the censors who let it get by them? If you're able to buy something through ordinary means, you have the right to assume that it's legal.

Agreed. Besides, what about all of the porn that's released with REAL people. It's an industry and under our constitution, we have the right to

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of Religion
3. Freedom of Press
4. The right to the pursuit of happiness

 

[barryween]

so... if i draw a slightly smaller stick figure sucking off a taller stick figure i will get 20 years if i distribute it, and not just me anyone who buys it?

it's a work of fiction, ill admit that if it has only a sexual purpose then he should get a slap on the wrist (its a feking cartoon not real pictures).

Maybe the little stick guy is just a midget...

 

[barryween]

Decoy Doctorpus, My man! I think this scum should be put away (not 20 years but, hey. whatever) Like you said, freedom of [FILL IN THE BLANK] but like you also said, its child porn. Not good. SO... I dont know all the details either but he sounds... kinda... creepy.

 

[barryween]

What is loli?

 

[Etrius_the_seraphim]

this whole thing is effing ridiculous, 1. it is a PICTURE 2. even real rapists get less than 20 years 3. there is a scene in hostel two where a grown man shoots a child in the head, yet eli roth make hundreds of thousands of dollars while this guy with a comic boock gets sent to jail, HOW DOSE THAT MAKE SENSE?????

 

[shadow skill]

What is loli?

You don't want to know.

this whole thing is effing ridiculous, 1. it is a PICTURE 2. even real rapists get less than 20 years 3. there is a scene in hostel two where a grown man shoots a child in the head, yet eli roth make hundreds of thousands of dollars while this guy with a comic boock gets sent to jail, HOW DOSE THAT MAKE SENSE?????

It does not make sense to any sane person.

 

[brtshstel]

So depicting a minor in sexual situations is wrong in manga. That sort of content is nothing new. Anybody ever hear of a book called "Lolita?"

 

[GothmogII]

So depicting a minor in sexual situations is wrong in manga. That sort of content is nothing new. Anybody ever hear of a book called "Lolita?"

Ahh, you mean the critically acclaimed and best selling novel by Vladimir Nabokov, that in addition is also considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century? (And is also apparently one of books you should read before you die.) That Lolita?

Though true, it did get a lot of flak and bannings when it first came out. That doesn't mean they were justified.

 

[barryween]

What is loli?

You don't want to know.

Oh, but I do!