Close Topic Options

Do you plead The Fifth?

Because it's called cynicism, my boy...

Readin this, the Comic Book Legal... whatsoever, is right... it's just lines in the paper... Nothing to do with child porn...

I hope the the author of the book isn't a woman, lol.

I'll do the bump, because I do have something more to say on this matter.

So the guy was arrested for having child pornographic comics. What then, if I tell you all the characters depicted in those drawings are 18 and older? What if the original artist tell you that? If that doesn't make any difference, as a prosecutor how would you be so sure if a fictional, make-believe, non-existent character is under the age of 18 if you yourself didn't create it?

That's all. I still think it's a form of mind crime. That guy and many others are being arrested for allegedly committing a crime in their mind. Mind is seriously blown for this one.

Very good points, Pear. It's also worth pointing out that (at the moment) the only place where these ridiculous laws are put into such practice seems to be Sweden. So don't worry about your doujins... unless you live there. Ishihara's already trying to do a number on the industry in Japan, anyway.

Sucks too...because Sweden makes such badass things like this.

There's a big difference between a held personal opinion and a legal stance on possession of pornographic depiction...

My opinion still stands, and it's too bad that my opinion is irrelevant to discussion...But I'm not going to back down from my "No life" opinion either...

Thus, for what I would think about the legal take on this still stands...It doesn't matter if it's not real or not, it's still a depiction...There's a point where it can be obvious to interpretation like a judge where a difference can be discerned, but Perry's argument simplifies it too much...Take this for example then; Let's get two people who are way over the age of 18 but have one of those medical problems where they don't physically age past a certain "age", so they still look like young teenagers, and have them engage in sexual acts...The "truth" is that they're really adults, but they can still be "depicted" as being young teenagers...What solidifies a crime isn't what someone knows but what can be proven...A simple identification is all that's needed to prove or disprove something to be child pornography...So then where does "depiction" come in with this? It's really hard to "prove" age in works of fiction and art, since it can be indeed controlled by word of god, and more so since art styles can be sketchy and not anatomically correct with proper representation...But there is a point where it can be obvious to look at it, see that underage is depicted, and interpret it that way...Draw somebody obviously looking like a child, with no pubic hair and underformed genitalia and try to pass it off as "barely 18", and you won't be f**king kidding anyone...

I get your point, and of course your opinion is relevant to discussion - I just think that when it comes down to it, in practice, it doesn't matter because it's just not real. It doesn't matter what is "depicted," because whatever is illustrated is not real. This is why child pornography is illegal - because they are real photos of real children. The argument against lolis will always and forever have no base, because the subjects (lolis) are not even real, and for that reason, have no effect on this world.

I can easily play Devil's Advocate and flip your example right around on its head to make things a little less straightforward for you. You bring up a good example with the two human beings who have a health defect that causes their physical bodies to age more slowly than their peers, giving them the appearance of someone younger than they are despite legally (according to our calendar, anyway) being a much higher age. It actually reminds me of a friend of my mother's who had the unfortunate luck to be born on February 29th. Not that her body aged any differently, but legally she only aged once every four years. Depressing!

Anyway, moving on to the counter-example. How are you to decide the age of a character someone else creates? You say that the depiction itself should be reason enough to assume the age, and that there's no way someone who appears to be a depiction of a pre-pubescent human could be anything but that. I move to disagree fully with that and have at least two examples on hand, with more available if I actually put effort into thinking. These were just the two that happened to be on the tip of my tongue.

First, you have the Juraians from Tenchi Muyo! and by extension any humanoid non-human race in any Anime series. Sasami Masaki Jurai is over 700 years old. Would someone think that looking at her? Perhaps not. Still, the fact is that in her universe, she's that old. The author wrote them that way, it's his universe, and that's just how it is. This is the easiest most brought-up example to show that author's license is the primary factor in a fictional character's age and not depiction. It's the author's universe. They are how old the author says they are, end of story (no pun intended).

Secondly, a more confusing case--Manabi Straight. I have seen many fan-comic authors try to wrangle with the physical appearance versus age of the main cast with varying degrees of believability. What makes this series awkward is that students from the school the story focuses on all appear to be younger than they are, yet students from neighboring schools appear to be 'normal' age. There is no in-series explanation for this phenomenon nor have I seen any official side material expanding upon the problem. It's simply to be accepted by the viewer as normal.

I don't have the screenshot handy, but I do have this motivator I made based off of it cracking a joke at this very phenomenon. It may not make sense to some people, but age is the author's perogative. How old a third party 'thinks' the character looks is irrelevant.

Uhh...Hey, Nomake? If you read my post a little bit more, you can see I'm playing both sides of the table, and actually agreeing there can be ways someone can get away with this beyond a judge's interpretation of depiction...

I was mostly going after the last two lines of your post. I suppose rather than quoting your whole post, I should have edited the quote to only cover the very end of it, since that was the one part left open that seemed worthy of a response.

So you are saying if a guy made a robot or bought a blow-up sex doll and drew a picture on it that he thinks it's a girl over 18 and proceed to have sex with it, he could be charged for engaging sex with an actual child if the prosecutor thinks the picture he drew resembles a female who is under the age of 18? That's like saying you committed a crime because I say so. What?

Where do you draw the line? Some people do look way younger than they are and there are medical conditions where sexual genitalia doesn't develop at the normal rate for some. We have no case here.

I'll add my two cents here;

Keep in mind that Iowa is still a very conservative state. This kind of stuff happening is much more likely in Iowa, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, etc. then say, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, etc. where people honestly don't give a shit. (A guy on another forum that likes loli manga living in Nevada I think even said someone reported him for child porn, but when the cops checked, in the end they just apologized for the trouble and left.)

Remember this guy was sentenced in state courts, not federal courts. There's a big difference in laws for anything depending on state, especially sex laws, even if you just drive to a bordering state. Something that could fly in San Fransisco could be seriously illegal in Tampa. Or even bordering states; something that is seriously illegal in Salt Lake City, Utah can be (at least partly) legal in Denver, Colorado. (Case in point; weed.)

And another thing; In Asia, people are generally older than they look. I know a 18-year old girl that doesn't look a day older than 12. Sure, that's an extreme case, but a lot of 30-year old Asian women still look like teenagers. Just something to think about.

This post has been edited by civicfan14 on Nov 5 2011, 11:22 AM

BREAKING NEWS: Sweden finally realizes that cartoons are not people.

Spoiler'd for NSFW news site.

SPOILER

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2012/06/15/sweden-manga-not-child-porn-after-all/

QUOTE

The Swedish Supreme Court has finally worked out that drawings are not people, and in a landmark case has acquitted a man convicted of possessing child pornography after the authorities found suggestive manga-themed imagery on his computer. The case in question, previously covered in some detail, was that of a Swedish manga translator convicted of possessing child pornography after courts decided some of the artwork found on his PC depicted minors (a picture of two girls eating a banana, above, was one of the images authorities alleged constituted child pornography). He disputed the ruling, but two lower courts upheld the guilty verdict, although his fine was lowered. Eventually his case reached Sweden’s Supreme Court, and the judge there finally accepted his arguments that he needed the images as part of his job and that drawings should not be treated as child pornography:     “The criminalization of possession of the drawings would otherwise exceed what is necessary with regard to the purpose which has led to the restriction on freedom of expression and freedom of information.” The Supreme Court insisted the images were pornographic representations of children all the same, but relented by conceding that as imaginary entities they were not in fact the same as real children. However, they did insist one image was “sufficiently realistic” as to constitute child pornography (apparently contradicting the entire basis of their verdict in the process), but decided to acquit him for that one as well anyway. The exonerated man later expressed his relief to the press:     “I’m obviously very relieved, in part because it makes life easier for me personally, but most of all I’m generally relieved for Sweden as a whole.     It would have been very hard for me to relate to Sweden as a country if it turned out to be a place that prohibited certain expressions of the imagination.” Even his lawyer seemed happy with the court’s murky logic:     “It’s heartening that common sense has prevailed. The Supreme Court has an excellent way of cutting through the formalities and coming to the right conclusion. The ruling is very good in its entirety.”

Brilliant, Sweden, you discovered that lolis don't actually exist! How did you get to be so smart?

Brilliant, Sweden, you discovered that lolis don't actually exist! How did you get to be so smart?

It's a great day when people realize they shouldn't be guilty of... Thought crime... and sense offense.... Hey look- that dystopian vision of reality they showed us in bad sci fi movies and books for decades now is finally reality. I wonder if the rest of the world will start using not so common sense too.

It already has.

I believe you misunderstood J's point completely. "Not-so-common sense" is the modern phrase "common sense" but with the reality that most people nowadays do not have it. This especially seems to apply to politicians.

Right? I'm saying that the rest of the world has already started using non-so-common-sense, using a similar story as a reference,

And now you have managed to also misunderstand my explanation of J's point. Let's try this again, shall we?

Common Sense: Should be straightforward to understand this part. That loli manga is not CP and that hand-drawn artwork is not real children falls into this category. This is things that should be obvious, straightforward.

Not-so-common-sense: EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE ABOVE. The only difference is the sarcastic connotation that it isn't as common as it used to be. This does not change the meaning of the phrase whatsoever, it merely recognizes that there is a serious lack of common sense in the general populace and in politics.

The story you linked is about being prosecuted for loli manga. If you had been supporting J's point, you would have linked to a story of other countries upholding the not-so-common-sense belief that hand-drawn artwork is not children.

AHH, I get what he was saying now. Thanks for clarifying, I was thinking he meant "not so common sense" as in the opposite of "common sense", not "common sense that is uncommon in today's world." That's a very smart observation, J. I wish it weren't so, but it does seem that a lot of people have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy in more ways than one in this world...