And here we are wasting our time on this guy for having some comics from Japan, when there are far more urgent crimes with actual victims out there. Good job America.
I'm sure there are plenty of photos on the net of nude 10 year old boys who consented to it.Demonraiser said:Oh believe me, the characters in the books are "consenting" as you mentioned, and Hentai isn't just animated porn. for many (including me) its a form of entertainment. It can be funny as hell sometimes. His case should have been thrown out for many reasons. One of which is that they seized possessions in his house and prosecuted him without looking into the sub-culture of hentai.fletch_talon said:As a heterosexual male who has the usual reaction to child pornography (its wrong) when I look at porn, including hentai, it does not involve underaged children, just as it doesn't involve porn without a female component. That's because I'm not turned on by children, and I'm not turned on by homosexual sex... actually to be specific, I'm not turned on by male homosexual sex.Piecewise said:And I'm saying that owning lolicon does not correlate with a sexual attraction to actualfletch_talon said:I'm sorry, if I'd had known I was arguing with an idiot I would have stopped ages ago.Piecewise said:So you're saying that we should arrest people for crimes BEFORE they happen? Well I guess we arrest anyone with a copy of "Mein Kampf" before they kill a few million jews or a bible before they trick an entire town into getting circumcised before slaughtering the lot (it's in there)
Yes, despite repeatedly stating that this man is not a criminal and that paedophilia is not a choice, clearly what I meant to say is that this man is a criminal and all paedophiles should be imprisoned.
What I AM saying is that people with sexual attraction to children should be evaluated, monitored and given support both emotionally and psychologically.
Learn to read before you make more ignorant claims about what people are saying.
children. You must prove that it does before psychological evaluation is considered.
Hentai, unless I'm mistaken (and it is possible) is porn in an animated form.
Porn is unless I'm mistaken (and this is considerably less likely) a form of sexual aide/entertainment.
So if we're being told correctly that he had hentai with depictions of children in sexual situations then he effectively owns child pornography, albeit in animated form.
The only evidence you've put forward to say that child porn in hentai is not for paedophiles is that its not about them being children. You claim that its the body shape and innocence. To which I respond, why not depict those things in adults.
To be honest I'd be satisfied regardless of what they look like, provided they act like adult/consenting age people. Its not size and shape that makes child pornography wrong, its the fact that they are too young to give consent to such things. As people have said, there are plenty of anime and manga characters that look younger than they act, so why the need for depictions of children.
Gaijin!!!Rex Dark said:So collecting artwork is illegal now?
Good thing I don't live in the US.
I'd rather move to Japan!
CoverYourHead said:How can you have a crime this damaging without a victim? Sure, it's sick and perverted, but seriously, it's just some drawings. This is stupid. But still, that hentai is messed up.
EDIT: Isn't this like getting arrested for murder after shooting someone in a game?
Yeah this. As long as it's drawn... cos then it's not like it's real children. But still. It's pretty yuck, but he wasn't hurting anyone...Quadtrix said:Not saying I support this stuff, but let people look at whatever the fuck they want, for Christ's sake.
Are we talking children sticks, or 18 year old sticks?Irridium said:Well, that is disgusting.
But their not even pictures of real people. Just drawings.
If I drew a stick figure bent over another stick figure, would that count as pornography and would I have to go to court for it?
1 stick is significantly shorter than the other. But judging age by height isn't accurate at all. Who's to say it isn't a midget? Or just a really short man/woman?Mammon said:Are we talking children sticks, or 18 year old sticks?Irridium said:Well, that is disgusting.
But their not even pictures of real people. Just drawings.
If I drew a stick figure bent over another stick figure, would that count as pornography and would I have to go to court for it?
I sincerely hope you aren't projecting...Krythe said:How much do you wanna bet there's gonna be at least one person who shuffles through their manga collection and/or destroys some of it after reading this thread?
Yeah, this is just a tad harsh. Dosent the "protect act" only protect IRL children? or is there a Manga/Anime/Game division?Treefingers said:Yeah this. As long as it's drawn... cos then it's not like it's real children. But still. It's pretty yuck, but he wasn't hurting anyone...Quadtrix said:Not saying I support this stuff, but let people look at whatever the fuck they want, for Christ's sake.
The guilty plea came from the realization that it was illegal and as the original post said how the jury would react when they saw the things he had. No matter if he knew the law or not he was guilty in possession of it no matter how you look at it, he can't plead not guilty after admitting he had it and enough evidence to make a case to go with it. Is this porn with underage characters or is it simply lolicon? More important, is there any real persons hurt by this at all? It's perverted and kinda sick, but there is no actual evidence that it hurts someone. Who knows what he could have done if he didn't have that kind of reading material though...fix-the-spade said:Welll... oops.
Case details aside, I don't agree with Mr Brownstein here. It's the nature of art is that it depicts things (and elicits an emotional response, which is no doubt why a guilty plea came in), you can apply the ink on paper argument to anything from racist propaganda to a bank statement. It's what those lines signify that matters, which in this case just happens to be Hentai. Surely a little bit of logic would have told the guy he was buying porn depicting under age characters and that that was going to rub quite a lot of people up the wrong way (pardoning the expression).
Six months seems fairly lucky all things considered, although the mind boggles at those titles.
Aside from that, polygraph test? What the hell? Why are they even bothering a system that's worse at spotting lies than flipping a coin? That's just plain bizarre.