A question of Child Pornography and creative freedom.

[Elfgore]

Note: This thread isn't about pictures or videos of child pornography, but about stories written about the subject. Also if this a no-no thread my bad.

So a couple months ago my Dad told me an employee of his for ten years was arrested for viewing and possessing child porn. He was just last week convicted to five years in jail. So when I heard the light sentence for usually a crime that will land you a decade or more I decided I should ask what he did. He looked at pictures and did some photoshopping with some pictures, so the bad stuff you might say. But one piece of evidence really confused me. They used several stories he had written with different scenarios about child porn. This really confused me. He just wrote a story, sure it was about a very disgusting topic, but still. Who was effected by these stories? I voiced this to my Dad and he asked if I thought drawn images of child porn were ok as well. I asked the exact same question. Then for some reason he brought up anime (I had told him a week before I started watching it, so it was fresh in his mind, I guess.) I wasn't to happy to be paired in with a guy who got off to naked children so I decided to drop the conversation before I got angry. But later that night I started thinking about Loli characters in anime and even how a couple of them have nude scenes or underwear shots. Rosario+Vampire, C3, and Bravo Girls all have under aged girls nude or showing their underwear off at some point. Why do they not get in trouble for this? So I decided to pose a question to you guys.

The question I have for you guys is: Do you think that stories or drawn images of child porn should be counted as evidence for convicting a person of having child porn? Should anime that includes nudity and underwear shots of young girls be considered child porn?

 

[xmbts]

Well technically drawings and fictional stories aren't considered CP due to the fact that no actual children are being harmed. However I imagine it can be used as evidence that the person in question has a tendency to act out and may do so on real children, or at the very least find exploitative material.

It's more semantics at this point and you'd be hard pressed to find a load of people who aren't uneasy with the topic even if it is fictional.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I do not think so, no. Not drawn pictures or written fiction. The idea of having child porn illegal is to prevent the rape of young children in order to make that material in the first place. If you draw a picture depicting young children in sexual acts, or write a story about it, while it may not be to most people's tastes, no one is harmed in its creation. So I see no reason for that to be criminal.

 

[Keoul]

The world of fantasy makes what you define as child pornography pretty damn confusing.
Are people angry because they are underage or look underage? In the real world once someone reaches a certain age, regardless of how young they look, they can do whatever they want, sex, porn, you get the idea. But if it's fictional and drawn then how can you decide?

Pieces of fiction like the mmorpg TERA had a few problems a while back because one of their player races the Ellins looked like kids and they had the option of wearing scantily clad armor. Now this is only an assumption but I doubt that race was entirely comprised of kids so lore wise it would have been fine. Now was it right to censor all that stuff? Lore wise they're old enough to dress however they want but visually they just look like kids in lewd clothes.

Personally I don't think fictitious images should count in court as it's not really child porn. No child was harmed and it might not fit our description of what child porn is. I really feel like this idea stems from people just being afraid and applying negative connotations to anything slightly related to child pornography. I mean people have naked pictures of their kids all the time but you don't see them going to prison. Granted that's a fairly large step from purposely drawn art that looks likes kids doing sexual things but the point is if something as blatant as that doesn't count then why does something fictitious?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Where I live, any depictions of children or people who look like children in a sexual or violent context count as child pornography.

I think that, in part, that was just to clarify things and remove grey areas.

On the one hand, though, I can understand the idea that mere depictions don't involve actual harm being done.

OTOH, I can't really see any particular reason for claiming creative freedom should allow that. We aren't losing anything as a society by not allowing cartoons or stories about kids getting raped.

Though, of course, someone has to make the "art vs porn" distinction. Generally it seems to lean towards banning things to be sure.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

Technically, I don't think it's wrong, because virtual children in animation and video games were animated by adults (the drawings, writing and voice acting).
However, it's morally wrong, because you still think of them as children and enjoy seeing them portrayed in such way.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Well technically drawings and fictional stories aren't considered CP due to the fact that no actual children are being harmed. However I imagine it can be used as evidence that the person in question has a tendency to act out and may do so on real children, or at the very least find exploitative material.

It's more semantics at this point and you'd be hard pressed to find a load of people who aren't uneasy with the topic even if it is fictional.

This, basically. I doubt he was actually charged for the stories written; They were probably just presented in court as another shovel to help bury the guy.

As for your question about fictional (Drawn, written etc) not being illegal, you have to look at why actual pictures and videos are illegal. It's not really possession itself that's illegal (Well, it is, but not purely because of possession) - its the fact that the possessor is 'profiting' off of the subjugation and assault of minors, whether he did it himself or not.

I've actually read of a few court cases where this was argued to be bullshit, and since the accused couldn't be proved to have done any harm to children himself, should be let go. The following was the courts response every single time.

 

[evilneko]

A thread like this cannot go without mention of Kodomo no Jikan, so here I am to extoll its virtues, and lament that the law of the land in the US would almost certainly not allow its publication here. Thank god for Jim Sterling Japan, because Kojika is certainly a work of art worthy of publication.

A little background, in case you are unfamiliar with what I'm on about: Kojika is the story of troubled young girl (Rin Kokonoe, my avatar) growing up without her parents, raised by an adult cousin who has designs on her [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WifeHusbandry]. The story follows her, her friends, and the adults around her from third grade on up to high school. In the world of Kojika, nobody's perfect (except Colombo maybe Oyajima-sensei), and the adults in Rin's life are just as flawed as she is, and their relationships, at least IMO, are fairly well-written. That's what makes the manga so alternately comedic, disturbing, and heartwarming.

Doesn't sound so bad, does it? Well, the first time we see Rin, she's mostly naked, wearing only panties. Her back's to the "camera" in that scene, and it's played for comedy--her new teacher walked in as the girls were changing clothes in the classroom after gym--but later on we see much more of her (and her friends), and often not for comedy. All this child nudity and semi-nudity, not to mention Rin's premature sexuality and sexual harassment of her teacher--which starts in third grade--puts off most people and is what would get Kojika the axe here in the US. In a hypothetical court case involving Kojika, a judge and jury might leaf through issues of Kojika (or, more likely, single pages pulled out of context and used as evidence by the prosecution) and see this and understandably conclude it's porn. I mean, come on--one of the jokes in the manga cafe scene was a pun on Japanese slang for manga cafe and tight pussy. Robbed of context, it just wouldn't pass the Miller Test [small](drawn/simulated images require a finding of obscenity)[/small].

Spoiler: We interrupt this rant for a comedy break, Kojika-style

...I warned you.

Even in the very end of the manga, when Rin is sixteeen, she's still a minor by US law and the manga could potentially be found obscene and therefore be child porn.

But it's not. Almost all of it serves some purpose to the story, be it developing a character or illustrating some aspect of a relationship or just natural to the setting (hey, she's in a bathhouse, of course she's going to be naked). And the story is worth it. Watching Rin develop from a troubled, sexually precocious child prone to sadistic acts into a fine young woman is a compelling experience. There's a concept in law called "artistic merit." Kojika has it in spades. It's the reason Boogie Nights is not considered a porno. It's got a lot of sex and nudity going on because of its subject matter. So too for The Blue Lagoon, even with its several scenes of child nudity, and Lolita, which needs no introduction. And, as far as I'm concerned, so too for Kojika.

Spoiler

And that's where your dad's employee's images and stories most likely fail. A stand-alone image of a child has a difficult time passing the Miller Test. A one-off about adults fucking children, or children fucking other children, probably (who am I kiddin? definitely) also going to be found to serve only a "prurient interest" and get declared obscene.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Drawing a child in the nude? No just look at classic art throughout all of time and you'll see nude kids in the thousands; people need to stop equating nudity to sex/child porn.

Writing a story about a child being involved in a sexual act? No because you'd have to arrest all those authors who were abused and told their stories in detail.

Drawing a picture of a child involved in sexual acts? That's more of a grey area and becomes even more serious if the child depicted is realistic and perhaps even based off a real child, then you get into a rather difficult area since you could argue that said image is damaging to the child in question.

As for anime/cartoons depicting kids in their underwear I don't see what's wrong with this, many websites show off models in their pyjamas or swimwear which when you think about it is isn't that different to underwear; they cover the same areas of the body etc.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Have children (or anyone else, for that matter) been in any way harmed to create it? If not, then it shouldn't be illegal.

Remember, the vast majority of pedophiles are not child molestors, but people who will have to struggle their whole life with not being able to express their sexual preferences (much like homosexuals in many countries today). Persecuting people just for that is a dick move. I'd rather give them some freedom to express themselves if it doesn't harm anyone.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

My psychology professor's area of expertise was human sexuality and at one point she told us that demographics with easier access to porn also have lower rates of sexual crimes. So one possible way of looking at it is that a person who can get off by fapping to loli is someone who doesn't need to engage in deviant sexual behavior because its not worth the risk. But statistics are what they are and they could always be interpreted differently.

I'm on the side of "if they're not hurting anyone, who gives a shit?" but I also think different cases should be treated differently. A while ago their was New Zealand guy who was a pedophile on probation who was arrested for anime porn. While maybe he was just getting his rocks off, its also not exactly a good sign in terms of his rehabilitation

A thread like this cannot go without mention of Kodomo no Jikan

Gotta love Japan. 'Murica with our Puritan ass holes would immediately hop aboard the "its creepy porn" train when it's basically a modern version of the book Lolita. I personally hate the idea that we should turn away from things that are designed to make us uncomfortable especially when its relevant to real life[footnote]obligatory Spec Ops: The Line[/footnote]

 

[spartan231490]

Well technically drawings and fictional stories aren't considered CP due to the fact that no actual children are being harmed. snip

That depends on what country you're in, many people have been arrested for drawn "child porn" https://www.google.com/search?q=man+arrested+for+drawn+child+porn&rlz=1C1ASRM_enUS545US545&oq=man+arrested+for+drawn+child+porn&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.11866j0&sourceid=chrome&espvd=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

That's why there's a separate charge for endangering a child and for possessing child pornography.

OT: My $0.02 is that drawn or CG art and stories should be fair game since they don't involve the exploitation of real children(the whole point of the laws) for two reasons: 1) I believe that you should be allowed to do anything that doesn't harm others or restrict their ability to do said same. 2) Why should we punish these people for finding outlets for their perversions that don't harm others. Seems like that sort of catharsis should be supported.

For what it's worth, the first reason is my primary reason, the second is more just philosophical wonderings.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No it shouldn't be illegal, because no one is being harmed in it's creation. It does bring into question their mental state and the possibility that they might move on to real children, but you can't punish them for a crime they might commit. If we do that we're on the road to Minority Report future.
"You're under arrest for the future possession of child porn."

 

[Kanova]

I think child porn should be considered child porn if there are children, and it is porn.

Child nudity is considered it when there is a child, and they are nude. If it is just drawings, thats all it is.

 

[evilneko]

A thread like this cannot go without mention of Kodomo no Jikan

Gotta love Japan. 'Murica with our Puritan ass holes would immediately hop aboard the "its creepy porn" train when it's basically a modern version of the book Lolita. I personally hate the idea that we should turn away from things that are designed to make us uncomfortable especially when its relevant to real life

While they share some themes I'm not sure I particularly agree with Kojika being a modern Lolita, particularly considering the vast differences between Humbert and Aoki, but then again I never made it all the way through that book. I always ended up having to put it down for lack of time. Maybe with the holidays coming up and my life starting to return to normal I can try again.

 

[Angelous Wang]

In court there is often a section of the prosecutions strategy that they manipulate the jury by "showing" the jury the type of scum bag the defendant is.

So whilst the written child pornography is not illegal and wont get the guy convicted, it can be used by the prosecution to show the jury what type of man they are trying and there by twist their verdict based on that.

It's the same principle as leaking photo's of a congressman going to a strip club, going to strip club isn't legal or even bad. But having it held up for the public to see will often cause the public's view of the man to twist and there by the congressman will loose much support.

 

[briankoontz]

Capitalist expansion requires new markets, and a common way to produce a new market is to destroy a taboo, which can then be followed up by capitalist exploitation. Right now, through Disney, anime, Japanese media, and American media, the taboo of the sexualization of children is routinely challenged, and this is impacting Western societies as well.

What these people want is to turn younger and younger children into adults, so sex at early ages is encouraged, studies are conducted which show that puberty is being reached at record early levels, and psychological innocence in all people is laughed at as naive and pathetic, in the name of cynical realism.

The primary victims in this are the people least able to defend themselves, children.

This is aside from the issue of the topic of child pornography within art. Any content that serves an effective artistic message is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with Lolita, for example. Any content with respect to child pornography that has a motivation and reason to exist other than artistic communication is exploitative of children and damaging to the morality of the exploiters.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I'm of two minds on this subject, though at no point do I believe it should be a punishable thing.

As an artist I can't bring myself to condemn it even if it offends my sensibilities. Art is a medium of exploration and expression and applying arbitrary standards simply because it may offend people can rapidly cripple art as a valued cultural medium and give way to censorship. Where is the line drawn when you start restricting things based off of emotional reactions?

I'm also of the opinion that Law should not be imposed where there are no victims as that can lead to oppressive systems. Victims in the sense that someone is adversely affected by it and could not avoid it. Someone reading a smutty manga and feeling grossed out or triggering a painful memory is not a victim (of the content). In that case the problem is on labelling and categorising the material they read, not the material itself.

We are living in a time where Parents are ashamed to film their own kids in the nip for fear of people thinking they are deviants (I imagine quite a few folks will read this and feel icky or disgusted, which perplexes me). We seem to be letting a tiny fringe element of our culture dictate the lives of everyone else, shaping laws and cultural normalcy. Paranoia should not be an influence on our lives.

EDIT: That said, before someone jumps at me, I'm not venerating these artists and consumers as some sort of cultural heroes. I don't respect them or their work or their tastes. I just can't condemn them either.

 

[Brian Tams]

Child porn is illegal because in its creation, young children are taken advantage of, raped, and saddled with a lifetime of psychological damage. That is why. Since the things that you mentioned don't actually result in the harm of children, I don't understand why they'd be illegal (although, I guess they could be seen as gateways to pedophilia?)

We are living in a time where Parents are ashamed to film their own kids in the nip for fear of people thinking they are deviants (I imagine quite a few folks will read this and feel icky or disgusted, which perplexes me). We seem to be letting a tiny fringe element of our culture dictate the lives of everyone else, shaping laws and cultural normalcy. Paranoia should not be an influence on our lives.

A little off topic, but this actually reminds me of a story about a D2 football coach who was arrested for taking a video of his kids during bath time (which parents tend to do a lot), and was charged with filming child pornography after a technician who was servicing his phone saw the video (this was shortly after the scandal with Jerry Sandusky). Seriously, we need to get a grip as a society instead of turning everything into a bloody witch hunt.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9308806/minnesota-state-mankato-coach-todd-hoffner-career-was-ruined-child-porn-allegation-espn-magazine

Link for anyone who wants to read the story (I feel dirty for linking ESPN >_<).