20 year imprisonment for owning manga?

[Aplos]

I read last night an article on animenewsnetwork about a man facing 20 years of imprisonment for ordering some mangas from Japan. The reason being that the mangas contain obscene material and my guess is it is probably lolicon.

You can read the article Here

But as Carl Horn says in the article, forget about what the manga might contain and just tell me, does that person deserve to go to prison for owning drawings, not real photos or anything, just drawings, no matter how "immoral" (and morals are highly subjective) it may be? Is it no an infringement on his freedom of speech?

Even if it is the worst case, depicting prepubescent children in sexual acts, can you still count it as child pornography? I mean, no actual children are depicted. So no children were "harmed" in its making. And I assume he doesn't go around displaying its contents so he is not "harming" anyone else. Then shouldn't it be his prerogative to get off on whatever kind of drawings he wants to?!

Are you going to argue that it is indicative of a mentally disturbed person? Fine! As long as he doesn't go around molesting children then that's his own problem and should he wish to seek help he must do so on his own free will. I suffer from depression but no one forced me to take meds for it. As long as I didn't hurt anyone else then it's my own problem. I take the meds of my own free will and not because someone else thinks I should because I am not "normal."

So will the immoral content corrupt people and make them commit immoral and illegal acts? So shouldn't they ban "Jackass" ? I'm sure that even if you put age restrictions and warnings on it you will still get lots of idiots who can "legally" view this show, go out and attempt these stupidities. I hate that show, but if they want to watch it they have every right to, just don't end up hurting me and we're ok. If you want to hurt yourself, go right ahead. Darwin's law has been malfunctioning concerning humanity anyways.

So the point is drawings are drawings and since no one is hurt they have no right to label it as immoral and that the owner must be imprisoned. I don't even think they should be confiscated. I am sure there are many of the darker series/maga that many of us own, depicting scenes that could be considered obscene and immoral but they are part of the plot. Would you want them confiscated? Are you really helping the general public or moving us back to the middle ages?

[RiseonX]

Psh. I can look it up for free online and not get arrested.

[iMystere]

I think it would depend. If they searched the guy's computer and found actual child porn, then he should go to jail. I think it would really just depend on if actuality, he's into it.

[RiseonX]

Put cameras in his room. Invade his privacy and give us another reason to lose faith in the world.
Child Porn.
If he flaps, arrest his a**.

[shureloche3]

I do believe that was one of the laws passed under the Bush administration that made certain forms of drawing illegal.

I hate *****, and I want them off the streets, but this went a bit far IMO. Frankly, if a ***** can get along with drawings instead of people good for them.

That isn't even really the issue. the whole reason for making ***** pictures illegal is that it causes some sort of harm to a person. As much as i love animated cartoons, they are not real people.

[Ihavenoarmz]

I think the most baffling thing in this case, is that if he had gone and banged an pre-teen girl instead of fapping to loli, he'd probably be facing a lesser charge.
Those kind of laws make no ******** sense.
We have another flavor of stupid here (in France): if you commit a sexual offense and it somehow involved a computer, cellphone or a nintendo DS, the law consideres it an aggravating circumstance for "criminal use of a computerized communication device" or whatever they call it.
That means you get more jail time simply for meeting the victim on myspace instead of just going out and raping a person in the street.

All the legislators must be smoking crack.

[Duke Shard]

I see nothing making a claim about *****. If he ordered 'obscene' things where he lives and it is illegal where he lives, then sucks to be him. The article explicitely says

Quote:

CBLDF's United Defense Group team, led by Eric Chase, has successfully petitioned District Judge Gritzner to drop some of Handley's charges and rule parts of a controversial law unconstitutional. Handley was initially charged under the United States Code, which was amended by section 504 of the PROTECT Act to prohibit distribution or possession of "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting," that —


• ‘(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
• ’(B) is obscene; or

• '(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, a**l-genital, or oral-a**l, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

• '(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

Gritzner ruled that the last two clauses were unconstitutional as they restricted protected speech. Handley still faces charges under the obscenity clause, if the court determines that the material meets the Supreme Court's Miller Test. The Miller Test dictates that material is only obscene if a jury determines that it meets all of the following three criteria:


whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

As you can see, there is nothing protecting him for ordering 'obscenities'. I really find the word 'obscene' to be a catch all for 'vague word meaning whatever anyone wants it to mean at that moment'.

[Yoshpet]

As distasteful as that is, how the hell do you imprison someone for purchasing art? I'm sure the big bad government wouldn't mind if it were the most depraved and gory manga ever drawn, but if it's a sexualized youth we need to target the man like he's a known child molester.

How ridiculous.

[faulc]

Because obviously having drawings of kids in sexual acts means that you can't control yourself and therefore you cannot be trusted to not do anything worse. /sarcasm

[iMystere]

MyxineDamion

I think the most baffling thing in this case, is that if he had gone and banged an pre-teen girl instead of fapping to loli, he'd probably be facing a lesser charge.
Those kind of laws make no ******** sense.
We have another flavor of stupid here (in France): if you commit a sexual offense and it somehow involved a computer, cellphone or a nintendo DS, the law consideres it an aggravating circumstance for "criminal use of a computerized communication device" or whatever they call it.
That means you get more jail time simply for meeting the victim on myspace instead of just going out and raping a person in the street.

All the legislators must be smoking crack.

>.> That's messed up. I'm losing so much faith in the world.

[Aplos]

Even if there is a law, just confiscate the damn thing! (again i do not approve of it but that's just me) Don't imprison him.. and 20 years?!! WTF!

Here's an example. There are many porn movies with girls just barely over 18, filmed in the US and distributed in the US, legally, but pretending that the girls are high schoolers. Why is that different? Why are they allowed to film and distribute and people owning them because the actors are over 18, and something that didn't even involve any actual people having sex, is illegal. Don't tell me it's because in reality you know they are over 18, well... in reality you know the manga is just a drawing... even less of a harm!

[iMystere]

Aplos

Even if there is a law, just confiscate the damn thing! (again i do not approve of it but that's just me) Don't imprison him.. and 20 years?!! WTF!

Here's an example. There are many porn movies with girls just barely over 18, filmed in the US and distributed in the US, legally, but pretending that the girls are high schoolers. Why is that different? Why are they allowed to film and distribute and people owning them because the actors are over 18, and something that didn't even involve any actual people having sex, is illegal. Don't tell me it's because in reality you know they are over 18, well... in reality you know the manga is just a drawing... even less of a harm!

No, I agree with you. It is pretty silly. Sure, I find it wrong, but unless the person actually likes little girls, who cares?

And by liking little girls, I mean having child porn, or going out and raping little girls. Err, little boys, too, since women can be *****, too.

[faulc]

Aplos

Even if there is a law, just confiscate the damn thing! (again i do not approve of it but that's just me) Don't imprison him.. and 20 years?!! WTF!

Here's an example. There are many porn movies with girls just barely over 18, filmed in the US and distributed in the US, legally, but pretending that the girls are high schoolers. Why is that different? Why are they allowed to film and distribute and people owning them because the actors are over 18, and something that didn't even involve any actual people having sex, is illegal. Don't tell me it's because in reality you know they are over 18, well... in reality you know the manga is just a drawing... even less of a harm!

There are just so many people in this country that believe that people who would like that type of material have no ability to control themselves, and if they look at drawn pictures, then one day they will rape some little kid.

[faulc]

Naadiah

Aplos

Even if there is a law, just confiscate the damn thing! (again i do not approve of it but that's just me) Don't imprison him.. and 20 years?!! WTF!

Here's an example. There are many porn movies with girls just barely over 18, filmed in the US and distributed in the US, legally, but pretending that the girls are high schoolers. Why is that different? Why are they allowed to film and distribute and people owning them because the actors are over 18, and something that didn't even involve any actual people having sex, is illegal. Don't tell me it's because in reality you know they are over 18, well... in reality you know the manga is just a drawing... even less of a harm!

No, I agree with you. It is pretty silly. Sure, I find it wrong, but unless the person actually likes little girls, who cares?

And by liking little girls, I mean having child porn, or going out and raping little girls. Err, little boys, too, since women can be *****, too.

And just because they like them means that they are going to rape them? I doubt you are actually making that connection, but too many people do so I would be happier if you make the distinction.

[iMystere]

faulc

Naadiah

Aplos

Even if there is a law, just confiscate the damn thing! (again i do not approve of it but that's just me) Don't imprison him.. and 20 years?!! WTF!

Here's an example. There are many porn movies with girls just barely over 18, filmed in the US and distributed in the US, legally, but pretending that the girls are high schoolers. Why is that different? Why are they allowed to film and distribute and people owning them because the actors are over 18, and something that didn't even involve any actual people having sex, is illegal. Don't tell me it's because in reality you know they are over 18, well... in reality you know the manga is just a drawing... even less of a harm!

No, I agree with you. It is pretty silly. Sure, I find it wrong, but unless the person actually likes little girls, who cares?

And by liking little girls, I mean having child porn, or going out and raping little girls. Err, little boys, too, since women can be *****, too.

And just because they like them means that they are going to rape them? I doubt you are actually making that connection, but too many people do so I would be happier if you make the distinction.

I'm saying if they can actually prove they like them. Like, you know, having child porn, which can only really be obtained one way. And even if they didn't do the raping, why in the world would you ever want to have pictures of anyone being tortured like that?